The Prince

Rebuttal 1): Con's Section 'Introduction' A) Con talks about the drawbacks of ruling entirely with fear, and then ruling entirely with love. He concludes that while neither are ideal, love produces a closer semblance to organization. I would argue against that idea, with this: Love produces mercy, and mercy taken too far allows for a complete loss of organization and control, whereas having people fearful of the punishments you've set, allows for clear boundaries to be seen, and this preserves organization. I'd like to give credit for my argument back to Niccolo Machiavelli, so I'm going to type out a quote of his that I believe exemplifies this idea that all love and mercy makes for poor organization. "Because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only." --Niccolo Machiavelli The punishments utilized by a ruler, which instill fear in the subjects, set clear boundaries and messages as to how things are going to work. As long as the punishments are not unreasonable, and consistent, the people will not hate him for providing structure. B) Con also states toward the end of his argument that ruling with fear will make you many enemies, and out of these many enemies, you are likely to be overthrown. There is a solution to this as well. Firstly I return to my idea that a leader whose punishments and rules are reasonable and consistent, cannot be hated, even if his people fear his punishments. So if anyone were to break one of these laws, and receive the punishment that is usually applied, those around the punished person cannot say the leader is wrong in enforcing his set laws, which are reasonable. So assuming those around the punished person can see no reason to hate the leader, what of the punished person himself? The solution to this is held in this quote from Machiavelli: "Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared." --Niccolo Machiavelli Con uses a workplace example, and such an example can be used here. If you're the boss, and there's been incompetency on a level that's going to require some form of major punishment, then to avoid creating enemies that can cause you problems, fire the incompetent person. If all the incompetent person's co-workers know you weren't unreasonable, and that you would do it to anyone else, they will not fault you. Rebuttal 2): Con's Section 'Fear as a Controlling Agent' A) In this section one of Con's big points is that fear does not inspire confidence in people to talk to their leader. He claims they may be too afraid to bring forth problems that have arisen, and says this can lead to an ineffective leadership. I believe that if this situation occurs, the leader has not been smart in his application of fear. One of Machiavelli's reasons for saying fear is the better method, is because your people are bound by the fear of punishment. As long as a Prince sets consistent laws and punishments, his subjects can know what they should and should not fear from their Prince. A smart Prince would make it clear through his actions that bringing forward a problem is not grounds for punishment. If he were to do this, then his subjects would know that what they should truly fear is allowing the problem to become enlarged to the point where nothing can be done about it, and then having their ruler learn of this problem, and their failure to report it. If the leader gives them cause to only fear that, he need not fear unreported problems. B) Another reason Con gives for love being the better ruling style, is through the example of Bob's kids sneaking food into their rooms, even though it was against the rules he set. According to Con, they did this because they hated him. I will repeat what Machiavelli says, that you must avoid being hated by your people. I've already devoted many of my allotted characters to explain how a leader can be feared and not hated, so I will keep it brief and just say this: Rules will be respected as long as the person setting them is not hated. C) Next Con brings up that people who are loved see their subjects doing extra work to meet their approval. I'd like to start my rebuttal with what is currently my favorite quote from Machiavelli: "I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted." --Niccolo Machiavelli While love makes people want to do more for the person they love, and makes them loyal to that person, that can change. As an effective leader, one may have to do something that causes you to lose the love of some or all of your subjects, and then their loyalty is gone. Fear can be the constant, that which is under the control of the ruler. Rebuttal 3): Con's Section 'People won't overthrow you' Con brings up the point that a leader can not remain all powerful forever using fear alone to keep his position. I will not dispute this, I think his points here are correct. The question of the debate is whether or not it is better for a ruler to rule with fear or love, and both is not an option. I would say that even though Con's statements about the what will happen to the ruler who uses fear after he eventually loses power are true, I would submit that if a leader were to have ruled with love only, his state would've fallen apart soon before somebody overthrows him or he gets too old to rule effectively. (refer to Rebuttal 1A's Machiavelli quote for why)