New Blog! Loss of Innocence... Huck Finn meets Banksy

Here's your first real blog prompt as it relates to our new unit: "Loss of Innocence" During this unit, we will mainly be looking at the topics of alienation, social defiance, and the transition from childhood to adulthood as we encounter the realities of our world. Sounds heavy, right? But it's not!

Your first task is to check out this page I put together that has pictures, news articles, and videos on the street artist named Banksy: Click this link

After you look at the pictures that I've posted of Banksy's art (feel free to do your own google search on Banksy... his art is amazing!) I'd like you to choose one of the following three questions to write a short blog about (remember to read my previous post on the three key essentials to a good blog post):

Option 1: Do you think it's important for young people to be exposed to the harsh (and even cruel or degrading) aspects of our society, in order for them to have a healthy understanding and appreciation of what they have and an empathy for those who have less than them? OR, do you think parents should have a right and obligation to protect young people from that type of 'social corruption'?? Please make reference to the information you learned about the artist Banksy.

Option 2: Is the rebellion against social norms an important obligation for young people? Do we need to ask questions, break rules, and challenge authority in order to improve society? Or, is it important to respect the norms and rules of a society in order to maintain peace, balance, and security? What benefits come from such behaviour (either rebellion or conformity)? Please refer to Banksy in your response.

Option 3: We watched a short news video on taking the "N" word out of "Huck Finn". Does it make sense to protect our society from depictions of  racism or sexism or discrimination? Or should we let artists like Twain and Banksy challenge societal norms in an effort to get us to question our values and moral compass? Please try to refer to the controversy regarding language in Twain's novel AND the issue of street art and graffiti as it relates to Banksy in your response.

Click here to see original page for this image

             Rivers, similar to men are unpredictable and require a certain amount of patience to control. As a society, we face different challenges everyday based on conflicting worldviews and ideologies. The decisions we make based on these ideologies allow the world to become a more unpredictable and interesting place. Each day, every individual learns from the surprises that they encounter through the entirety of their day. Each day, we are able to collaborate and share new ideas, therefore shaping the leaders of tomorrow. Each day, our leaders should work together to create a better world for tomorrow. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he describes a society that is autocratically ruled, one with limited freedom for free expression or freedom of thought. In most countries today, we take for granted the freedoms we have to think and act as we wish. Aside from a select few, most countries today provide fair and equal treatment to everyone. The governing bodies of most countries today play appositive role in the development of our ever changing world. Although it is possible that Machiavelli had a truthful point of view, his perspective is flawed within the parameters of today’s world. Rivers are also like everyday life. Similar to life, rivers are wild and difficult to control. Today’s leaders need to control the metaphorical river of life and present themselves as true democratic leaders, rather than autocratic monarchy. As a society, it isn’t fair to compare life in the 1500’s to life as we now know it. Technology and ideas have advanced, making room for all humans to grow. We are now heading towards a brighter future. Although Machiavelli did bring up a valid argument within his telling of The Prince, it cannot be considered suitable for this day and age. Similar to technology, literature has too advanced. We no longer have to read other’s ideas in a novel as an indicator of what we are told to believe. We have come so far as a collection of people, no matter what part of the world we come from. As a united whole, we can act together to make anything happen. We no longer rely on blood to make decisions for us, we rely on each other. Autocracy is the past and we must move past it before we can consider ourselves to be “equals”. We have come so far, and we should not let old habits hold us back from the aspirations we have as a unified team.

Bill Gates:A Transformational Leader

Machiavelli Response

As stated by Machiavelli, rivers and men may be controlled, but cannot be trusted.  This is true, in the way that both may acquire great power or force, resulting in the ability to cause catastrophes.  Rivers flow freely, their waters appearing beautiful, but the swift undertow may sweep one's feet out and carry them away.  Men may seem strong and dependable, however from their position of power have the ability to abuse their title and bring people to their knees.  

However, who is to say that this power is always negative? If one lives their life devoid of trust in others, and the great things that may be achieved through their abilities, it may be damaging. While it is true that they can be controlled, they should not always be this way.  The release of control is bravely brought on by trust.  It is not an easy task to trust man, knowing our history in wars, slavery, and the many demons in the past we'd like to forget, however it is an act of courage to do so.  The coward lives in fear, the fear of trust and losing control.

 I believe the statement of Machiavelli's to be much too critical of the human race.  Unlike abiotic flowing rivers, we possess a conscious and morals that drive us through day to day tasks, power and endurance to achieve great things. To keep this under control out of lack of trust is simply ridiculous.  It is all a matter of taking aspects of reality into consideration.  Should we always trust man? No. But one should not always be devoid of trust either.

In today's society, lack of trust is a very common theme in everyday lives.  It may be applied to a sixteen year old girl with her boyfriend, to the president of a country fearing war.  Fear haunts the mind and poisons the heart, leading to many things, including the loss of trust.   Machiavelli's point of control being possible, and trust, not is a relevant point in today's leaders of every level.

In the United States,  currently a controversy has arisen on the grounds of surveillance.  The people do not trust the government to not intrude on their private affairs, and he government wishes to keep an eye on the country in fear of occurrences that are not in their best interests. This lack of trust existing between the government and people is  bringing much uncertainty and anxiety into the matter.

NSA's Eyes
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-nsa-has-too-many-eyes-still-prying/article16396124/

Machiavelli writing prompt

There is an ancient proverb in my country stating that a river can bear a vessel or sink it. The river being the people and the ship being the reign, it is clearly believed by many that a monarch or a political leader should be cautious and considerate when facing the people, for this “river” is able to sink his “ship”. Machiavelli suggested that rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted, thereby implying that a wise leader should make sure that his people are under his control, rather than believe that his people will always support his reign, no matter how much obedience they present for the time being. Sometimes placid and sometimes wild, the nature of mankind is as unpredictable as that of a river, upon which the vessels cannot always sail without billows and storms. From my point of view, I agree with Machiavelli’s idea. In essence, control enables people to seize as much certainty of success as possible in their own grasp, while trust usually means that people willingly rely on others when working towards a certain goal. What Machiavelli stated is that it is better to have as much certainty as possible than to add more uncertainty by allowing more external factors to be involved. It is probably a part of human nature that since we regard ourselves as individuals, we inevitably separate ourselves from the external world and have a desire to dominate our own affairs with as few external factors involved as possible. All our lives we are trying to make sure of everything; most of our actions are ultimately motivated by this attempt: eating so that we know we will not starve; talking so that we have our requests expressed; studying so that we have a clearer idea of our future; working so that we have enough money to afford other needs, etc. No one would prefer to be silent and wait for others to guess his requests, or not to earn his own life but to rely on financial supports from other people. Theoretically, if a ruler has his subjects completely under control, it is mainly him, not the people, who decide whether he can hold his position; if he have absolute faith with his people, however, the situation is reversed. As a ruler, one certainly prefers the former situation to the latter. In Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Coriolanus, the citizens’ attitude towards Caius Martius Coriolanus, a patrician leader, largely accounts for the tragedy of this unfortunate hero. They furiously condemn Martius for leaving the plebeians starved, but when he returns from Corioles with honor, they willingly offer him the position of consul and celebrate him as a hero, until, convinced by the tribunes, they change their minds once again and expatriate him for his arrogance. Their uncertainty, referred to by Martius as “the beast with many heads (IV.1.1-2)”, somehow corroborates the idea that the attitude of the mass towards a leader is unpredictable and untrustworthy.

You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate
As reek o' the rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air, I banish you;
And here remain with your uncertainty!
Let every feeble rumour shake your hearts!
Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes,
Fan you into despair! Have the power still
To banish your defenders; till at length
Your ignorance, which finds not till it feels,
Making not reservation of yourselves,
Still your own foes, deliver you as most
Abated captives to some nation
That won you without blows! Despising,
For you, the city, thus I turn my back:
There is a world elsewhere.

--Coriolanus III.3.117-131

In modern society, many examples still prove, if unfortunately, that many of Machiavelli’s ideas are widely applied, especially in politics. In a recent interview on Sochi Olympics, President Vladimir Putin, when asked about the newly-introduced Russian law on homosexual propaganda, told the reporter of BBC that he is “not prejudiced in any way.” Even though it is widely believed that the law, by leaving space for free interpretations, unreasonably repressed the rights of the homosexual people in Russia, and hate attacks on people with minor sexual orientations in Russia are not effectively controlled, Putin still attempts to verbally demonstrate a certain degree of tolerance of himself. Machiavelli proposed in The Moral of the Prince that a wise political leader should make more efforts to “seem to have” all the admirable virtues than to “have them and exercise them all the time.” Based on his theory, the President of Russia may not have another way to respond but declaring that he is not prejudiced, because his words cannot appear to be against good qualities such as tolerance, no matter what position he and his administration actually hold.

Can Rivers and Men be controlled?

In Machiavelli's The Prince, he states "rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted". I interpret this to mean that men can be controlled, be nice: be polite: don't shout: don't burp ect. But that they cannot be trusted, in either a general sense or meaning they cannot be trusted to stay controlled. I believe that this statement is false, in a general, today’s average Joe descriptive way. I do not believe that men cannot be trusted. 

Although statistics show that men commit more crimes than women, and one may argue that committing a crime is a break in the justice systems trust towards society to do the right thing; I do not necessarily believe that all men especially in the political / leadership field need to be controlled and not trusted. The general idea of a leader especially in democratic terms is to be the voice of the people, a figure head, the 'leader of the pack', as Machiavelli infers throughout his references to lions and foxes. And in being a leader thier needs to be a large amount of trust. I don't think that trust is given, I believe that it must be earned even if its just half halfheartedly. 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men, often fall victim to the forces of power, but this does not deem them incapable of being trust worthy. Thus men, though it may be prior to their corruption, may be trusted, and must be trusted in this current day and age when there is so much power and so much room for error.

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” -http://www.acton.org/research/lord-acton-quote-archive

Blog Rubric + Mr. Hurley's 'teaching blog'

Hi Everyone, here are two things you might find interesting:
1. Click here to see the rubric we will be using for the blog evaluation

2. Click here to read my latest post in my Cohort21 teacher's blog
This Cohort21 is a year-long learning opportunity I've been participating in. This blog post discusses how I plan on approaching assessment and evaluation in the coming months in my class, focusing on improving student learning through choice and improved feedback. Enjoy!

Pink Floyd's "The Wall" provided the inspiration for my most recent blog post

The Prince in Todays View

I think that Machiavelli’s statement about men and rivers is true. In my opinion, he is stating that men can be ruled by others and be controlled but if you give those men too much freedom/independence, the control will be lost along with trust. His position on how a leader should act is far from how the royal family acts today but back then I think it was pretty accurate. A prince shouldn’t care if people call him a miser as long as he acting for the overall good of the people. Everyone does things that they regret but in the long run all of those little mishaps create the big picture of who you are and what you accomplished. Prince Harry has had many things go wrong for him, but do we consider him to be a bad person? No, because the amount of positive impacts he has made greatly outweighs the negatives. Similarly, in “The Prince” Machiavelli states “it’s much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced- just because you want to appear generous.” (Machiavelli 224) He is explaining that you don’t want to be considered a fake by being the nice guy all the time but you should care about the big picture even if there are some negatives.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-rulers-today-follow-niccolo-machiavellis-the-prince-is-it-better-for-a-ruler-to-be-feared-or-loved

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1W-GsYpBCY

Is Machiavelli's the Prince Still True Today?

Your Prompt: Machiavelli said that rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted. Discuss what this statement means and whether or not you think it is true. How Machiavelli’s position on how a leader (or prince) should behave reflected in today’s society (or, how is it NOT reflected in today’s society)? Be specific. This is an informal writing assignment in regard to tone, style, diction, etc. Please try to include a hyperlink AND an image or video. Please include at least one hyperlink and an image or video.


I believe that by saying this, Machiavelli means that leaders could easily control their people, but cannot necessarily trust them or win their trust. It is unwise for a ruler to trust his people completely because he can never be sure if they are genuine. Therefore, it is better for a Prince to use force to control his men, and he should not hesitate to use violence, be seen as a miser, go back on his words or do any other vice to hold on to his power. This also ties in to his belief that, as a ruler, it is better to be feared than to be loved. It is never a good idea to rely solely on the people's love, for human hearts change quickly and most people judge others by their appearance rather than their true character.



In my opinion, what Machiavelli believed in was true in his time, and still has its reasons today. Nowadays, most nations in this world have embraced democracy, and people are no longer mere subjects before their King. However, we can often see that there is not complete trust between the government and their people. The government of the United States of America, who claims itself to be one of the most democratic of all, has a long history of creating distrust in their people. In 1971, while the Vietnam War was still raging, the New York Times released the partial contents of the Pentagon Papers, confirming many Americans' fears and speculations on the government's real intentions and actions in Vietnam, and fueling a wave of anti-government protest across the nation. Likewise, in 2013, Edward Snowden disclosed the National Security Agency's massive international surveillance program, Prism, and planted even more distrust in the hearts of the already wary people around the world. The US government is constantly criticised for its distrust and lies to its people. But according to Machiavelli, the leaders in Washington have good reasons for what they did, because as he had stated, sometimes to control and even protect the people, a Prince has to break his promises and do seemingly wrong deeds. Whichever side of the argument is true, it is clear that there cannot always be trust between the ruler and the people.

 

http://www.pcinpact.com/news/80720-de-nsa-aux-entreprises-americaines-nage-en-eaux-troubles.htm

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ellsberg_time1.jpg




Justification for Prism:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/07/201371704225666982.html

 Machiavelli on Change and Trust

Humans by nature have a want to control their lives and make their own decisions, just like rivers flow uncontrollably in a certain direction. The power of a ruler can no more change the wants and needs of men than make the sky turn green. I think that this statement qualifies as the most relevant in context to the human condition.

To trust someone is to be chained to them, to trust no one is to free. We change our minds every minute of everyday, and with those changes there are consequences. The fact of the matter is that trust can never be carved into stone, nor can love or intelligence. These things are constantly changing because we as human beings are never constant."Rivers and men can be controlled, but not trusted" encompasses some of the most important things we need to know if we have any desire to survive. We need to know how to gain control and manipulate other people and different situations, we need to understand the dangers of having power at the tips of our fingers, and ultimately we need to learn and grasp the concept that you can never trust anyone but yourself. In the end we all look out for number one, that person being yourself, and if you cannot do that or won't, then you will not survive. So, when do the ends justify the means in this case? In my opinion they never do, because if I'm honest with myself, I can think of a handful of people that I would at least want to put ahead of myself in any situation. But there are those who believe that looking out for number one means that they are following the belief of natural selection; if you can't adapt, you won't live. Maybe in that context ends always justify the means.

Generosity is one thing, Machiavelli instructed, that could be overlooked when in the position to rule. But leaders in this day and age, on average, are very accepting and generous people. There is more of an allowance for people to incite change to improve their conditions, and to control who or what governs their country. For example, in Canada we have free health care because our leaders believe in equality for all classes. Whereas in the United States, health care expenses can be the largest debts for families because they believe in working to get what you need.

Response to Machiavelli's The Prince

Machiavelli's The Prince

In Machiavelli’s The Prince, he stated that rivers and men can be controlled but cannot be trusted. I believe that what he means by this is that one can bribe, entice or force someone into doing something, but cannot trust them in real circumstances. I think that in some cases, what Machiavelli states is true. There are situations in various situations where the only way that you can work with someone and have some element of trust is when both parties know that there is something in it for them. However, this is not true in all aspects of life. In some cases, people will not trust those who are constantly using bribery to get others to trust them. Machiavelli’s thoughts on the ideal prince are somewhat reflected in today’s society by people in political power. Machiavelli stated that although some princes may not have all the qualities that he believed were essential, they should appear to have them, lest they lose their power. For modern politicians who are in the face of modern media, appearance is crucial for them to keep their positions of power. There are very few politicians who are truly universally loved. There are countless people who run for Prime Minister or President who try to present themselves as likable, although very few succeed. I believe that politics has changed over the course of five hundred years, and now people are so skeptical of the intentions of said politicians that they try not to love them. I believe that although they are neither feared nor loved, these modern “princes” have created a sense of awe around their character. This correlates to what Machiavelli wrote of five hundred years ago, and it is still present today. 

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/oct/28/new-machiavelli-coalition-david-cameron

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/niccolo-machiavelli-the-prince-quotes-biography.htm

The nature of change

It is exceedingly difficult to read Machiavellian literature and disagree with it.  Although he writes about princes, an obsolete and outdated leadership position, every single measly point that arises in his work is valid and can be applied to the contemporary world. The prince, whom he uses as a figure of leadership in this piece, is nothing more than an interchangeable symbol: it can be attributed to any single person or organisation in a position of authority.  In his quote, “rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted”, he is showing the reader how timeless his ideals really are. By comparing men to rivers, he is contrasting a gargantuan force of nature, a torrent of rushing water that has been present for millennia upon millennia, to a simple, common human being, who will live only a few decades.

Upon looking at said quote, this is what I initially thought. After thorough reflection however, I realised that the meaning of his quote was much deeper, much more profound than that. When he mentions the river, he does not mean the flowing water within it, and when he pontificates about man, he is not referencing a specific person or humanity in general; he is referring to the driving force between the two, something so mysterious and divine that no one can truly understand the workings of it. One can divert or dam a river for power or agriculture, just as one can bribe or deceive another for wealth or power, but no single man, no single species even, can ever dream of understanding the true driving force of either. As stated by the butterfly effect, the flutter by the wing of such a seemingly insignificant insect could possibly lead to the next category 5 hurricane, destroying every individual dam in its path that were so ingeniously constructed to survive them.  A form of this effect can be applied to humans, by having such an insignificant event so far away cause something as devastating as the death of a loved one, or the mental breakdown of another. None of these occurrences can ever be predicted, for that would require an intricate understanding of how ever single atom in the known universe interacts with each other, which would breach the limits of what is physically possible. All in all, Machiavelli postulates that we can control rivers and men, but we cannot trust them, because they are prone to change, and we have no idea how they really work.

 

 

Machiavelli prompt

Machiavelli said that rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted. Discuss what this statement means and whether or not you think it is true. How Machiavelli’s position on how a leader (or prince) should behave reflected in today’s society (or, how is it NOT reflected in today’s society)? Be specific. This is an informal writing assignment in regard to tone, style, diction, etc. Please try to include a hyperlink AND an image or video. Please include at least one hyperlink and an image or video.


First of all, I completely agree with this statement. Using the metaphor of a river, rivers flow. They are a large mass that generally goes in one direction all the time, and they can be controlled, they can be tamed. With the placement of dams we can tell the rivers what to do and where to go, but we cannot trust them. Rivers are dangerous, rivers are stronger than us, rivers show no mercy. When a river decides to flood, it floods; when a river decides to pull you under, you go under. Men are just the same.

From a point of power, men are your river. You control them and you direct them where you want them to go. You give them what you want to give them, and you deter those that ask for more by whatever means you like. Everyone has secrets, and as the figurehead of a community or society everyone wants to expose everything about you. The problem is, the more you know the more power you have, and as a leader you don't want that power to be shared among the masses.

Men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted. When you lend your trust in its entirety to another individual, you are at full mercy of said individual. And people as individuals are greedy, and conceited. A leader, especially a prince, has a lot to lose, number one on the list would be reputation. It is the leader's job to maintain that reputation and the easiest way to do so is to not lend out your trust to the masses. If the objective is to remain in power, in control, then you have to control.

In today's society, politicians practice the very same position Machiavelli had. They lie, they cheat, they steal, and if someone rises against them they get rid of them. It may not be the 'right' thing to do, but it is human nature and it is what is needed to be done to remain in a position of power.

So yes, rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted.



Example of 'getting rid of someone'
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Dr._John_O'Connor

As long you keep them controlled, you're fine

Common Distrust in Controlled Politics

If it is to be believed that rivers and men can be controlled, but not trusted, why should we control them at all? What is the point of controlling someone if not to use them to your advantage? This begs the question, what is a man controlled if not trusted? A politician would be the modern answer. A man, who follows orders, portrays an image of the highest respect, says all the right things and yet, can never be trusted. Machiavelli’s beliefs can be seen everywhere in the glass bowl of today’s hierarchy; all leaders have one thing in common, distrust; from Barrack Obama to Osama Bin Laden or Fidel Castro to George Bush Jr.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/obama-machiavelli.jpg

The past of leaders can influence the actions of the future and reflect the thoughts that are behind those actions. Machiavellihad reason for writing the things he did. The judge saying who’s right or wrong about these philosophies is unknown (and if known probably controlled and not trustworthy) but, I believe that Machiavelli’s ideas are reflected, to an undetermined point, everywhere around us.

rivers, men, fear, love & other dinner table topics

         Machiavelli's message that rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted, is true and applicable throughout life.  It is clear that while you can manipulate a river, a fire, a boy, a man, or any other of mother nature's creations, this does not make them trustworthy.  Personally, I think it is a far easier thing to spend time researching and planning and taking action towards controlling something or someone than it is to trust them.  I think to trust a person without a doubt or any hesitancy or stipulation would be dangerously artistic, much as it would to trust a river.  A river can be beautiful, as can relationships, but that doesn't mean they become a machine.  Anything in nature and alive is subject to faults and trials and failures.  To expect anything else would be unrealistic.  That being said, and still agreeing with Machiavelli on this one, people trust rivers and men every day.  In marriages, on trips and expeditions, even if we are only going in the water for an hour or only telling a man a tiny secret.  We do trust them.  And for that reason, Machiavelli's statement is important.  Men and rivers cannot be trusted, but the beauty about humans and nature and how we tiptoe around or dive into one another is that we do trust eachother.  It may not be unconditional, or constant, or screamed, but trust at all is still trust.  Machievelli did not ask us, "should we trust men and rivers even though we cannot control them?".  He told us that we should not.  And he called attention to the fact that we do.
     As for what Machiavelli had to say on society's leaders, I won't pretend to know enough about politics to say anything intelligent.  However, I am still a participator and observer of our own society, and it doesn't take much to know that Machiavelli's ideal qualities in a leader are present in the leaders in our every day lives.  In our teachers, and parents, and heads of houses, our social hierarchy, our religious ideas.  And this is a very religious question.  Does one pray more often in times of heartbreak or times of greatness?  Is the fear of Hell or the promise of Heaven more of a motivation to be a good person?  Is it fear that has one staying in their social and intellectual and verbal confines, or is it the love they are receiving there?  Fear and respect is present in many relationships, some times more obviously than love and genuine friendship.  But the end of his statement goes....'if one cannot have both'.  I think we, as leaders and followers and humans, should try for both.
     Machiavelli had good and valid points, and we listened to them because he said them in an observant and artistic way.  This is something that most do, and all of us should, strive for.

 

^Man trusting frozen over river.....two comparisons...one photo...one google search...one image which shows it all...

Response to Machiavelli Prompt

Machiavelli's statement "rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted" is comparing men to rivers as they both can be controlled in the sense that a river can be dammed to stop the flow of water or it's banks can be widened or shortened; in a similar way men can be controlled and compelled to do involuntary tasks due to, in a modern sense, peer pressure and blackmail among many other means. In continuation of discussing the second part of Machiavelli's statement that says men cannot be trusted, there again is a comparison between rivers and men, as rivers cannot be trusted due to their rapidly changing currents and sharp hidden rocks. Also, men cannot be trusted since giving in to personal desires is human nature. I partially agree with Machiavelli's statement as I believe both men and rivers can be controlled through certain means and cannot be trusted due to instinct, however, I also disagree with his statement because if we use everything in our power to control rivers and men, how can we know their true potential if they have freedom to choose for themselves? And if we do not trust rivers and men then we truly cannot have faith in anything as trust is a part of life and even though men do give in to their desires at times, it is our trust in them that helps them to make the right choices.                    

Machiavelli's position on how a leader or prince should behave clashes with the views of most modern day leaders and princes of the Commonwealth. Machiavelli believed if a prince or leader wished to keep their position in society they must "learn how to not be good", they must heavily tax the people, they cannot be poor or the people will have no respect for them, and generosity can cause great harm. However, most of the leaders and princes of today display the opposite principles as they try to be favourable, they do not heavily tax, they do not believe that poverty is the cause of disrespectfulness amongst their followers or people (though most of them are extremely wealthy), and rather than believing that it causes great harm, these modern day leaders give generously.             
Quote from Machiavelli's, The Prince:

 

 

 

 

 

Response to Machiavelli's position on leadership

"Rivers and men can be controlled, but cannot be trusted" means that one can manipulate rivers and men to do certain things, but cannot keep dominance over their natural instincts. Machiavelli believed that men could be controlled through the fear of punishment, but no one wants to feel entirely managed by someone else. People prefer to feel in control of their own thoughts, actions, and life. If I was constantly restricted through fear, I would try to escape the control, so consequently the controller could not trust in his power of force. This means that the controller - or Prince, in the text - could never feel comfortable because of the constant fear of loss of power.

Many leaders in the modern world share Machiavelli's view on leadership, and believe that the ends justifies the means. These leaders or entrepreneurs use success as an excuse for unethical and manipulative behavior.     

Steve Jobs, does the end justify the means? 

More Steve Jobs 

Consequentialism  

 Afraid of How Much They Love Me