It is Better to Rule through Fear than through Love

Thanks for the quick acceptance Con.I will begin by providing reasons why rulers who are feared maintain their state well, and will then move onto the drawbacks of rulers who are loving, or are loved. Advantages of Fear OnlyA)"Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fear 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."The above is a quote from the great Niccolo Machiavelli, the founder of political science. I may use his quotes often, because I want to give credit for my statements where they're due, and my following argument is derived from that quote.The simple truth is, when one rules with fear, one is in far more control. If you set the rules and never make exceptions in regards to the following of those rules, you have control over your subjects more completely because they will do their best to avoid breaking one of your rules, in order to avoid falling into punishment. If one rules with love, he can't do these things. If one rules with love, he must rely on his subjects to conduct themselves in an orderly way that is beneficial to the overall well-being of the state. It should be apparent to all that binding men to a set of rules that hold punishments if not followed will bring more compliance than simple affection. Why?Because there some (perhaps many) people who are more concerned with themselves than with others, and so the fact their leader loves them may not hold back a selfish person from acting in their own interests, and against the interests of the state. However, even a self-centered person will be more likely to heed the fear that comes from consistent and fair rules, because punishment will affect the self-centered person, something they especially wouldn't want, self-absorbed as they are.B)This section is a necessary disclaimer. I will be showing readers that a leader can be feared and not hated. Even though most people who are feared are also hated, it is still possible to avoid this. What a leader needs to do is properly apply fear. He needs to make laws that can be clearly seen by all to be in the interests of the common good, and not in the interests of the leader only. The rules need to be fair, and the punishments must also be fair. The implementation and adherence to these rules must be without exception, and if there is exception, the core reason for the exception should not be seen in any other cases in which the rule was followed. This is extremely important to note, because if your subjects know how to not fall under your punishments, they will not feel they are being unfairly mistreated. If you are an inconsistent, selfish, and cruel leader, of course you will be hated. Follow the above suggestions however, and you will avoid hate from a significant/troublesome number of your subjects.C)This section will provide more ways in which a ruler who makes his subjects fearful of him and his laws can avoid having his subjects hating him. Obviously in the previous section I outlined the general ways to avoid creating subjects who hate you, but what about the people you have to punish? Remember, in order to affectively apply fear, one must consistently adhere to their rules, in order to look strong and determined (a weak ruler is hardly scary). So what about the people who fall under the ruler's consistent punishment?You've probably seen it happen before. Your teacher has been pretty clear, you can't talk in class while he/she's talking. Yet your friend insists on doing so. So when your teacher kicks your friend out of his/her classroom for breaking that rule, your friend won't stop complaining about that teacher. It irritates you because you know your friend should've just shut up. But your friend's ego has been injured, and that logic goes unconsidered by him, and now all he does is hate on that teacher. The teacher has created someone who hates him/her.The same can go for any ruler. If they have to punish someone in order to keep order, the punished party may hate the leader for their grievances, even though they did fairly incur them upon theirselves. So how does a ruler avoid the backlash from this natural occurrence? Machiavelli holds the answer:"And let it be here noted that men are to be either kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals."Basically Machiavelli is saying if you're going to do something hate-worthy, don't leave the guy who would hate you in any position to do anything about it (killing him/banishment/life-long imprisonment/politically discredit them). This way you avoid letting your haters build up as you perform the necessary tasks to maintain your aura of fear and your state's welfare. Disadvantages of Love OnlyA)I'd like to talk briefly about some of my teachers in order to make clear what exactly ruling with love only entails. First, Mr. Petzko. This guy is easily the most popular teacher at my school, but he never punishes anybody. People like me, who totally respect him for being such a bro, keep relatively quiet when he talks. Other people in my class however, simply aren't considerate enough to care, and so they completely disrespect him, talking all over him when he tries to talk. Petzko is the perfect example of a ruler who rules completely with love and without fear. His classrooms are rowdy and cheating is rampant. Next, Mr. DeMeester. He's pretty cool, partially because of his subject (Biology), and partially because of the other usual qualities that give people a favorable opinion of another person. The big difference between him and Petzko however, is the fear. Nobody talks when DeMeester talks, that is a fact. That's because DeMeester will throw you out immediately, or worse, stare right at you and talk menacingly (this dude is massively built I should mention). I am not claiming DeMeester is a teacher with only fear to keep us in line, but we can see here what happens when the fear is present (DeMeester), and when it's not (Petzko). What I'd like to accomplish with the section is have voters note that a ruler who rules only through love, is not like DeMeester. His state is not efficient. So as you consider all of my arguments that you have read and will continue to read, realize that most of the ruler figures in your life who you like, you probably also have some fear of. Few rulers are like Petzko, and those that are don't run a very tight ship. This is especially important to consider for my arguments for fear, section C). The teacher you imagined may have ruled through fear and love, but what kept the classroom in line was the consistency in punishment (which comes directly with fear), not love. B)Frankly, if you rule only through love, you cannot punish people. You can't use 'tough love', because tough love is employed so the people you care for have FEAR of doing whatever it was you were punishing them for. And if you can't punish people, if you can't make examples of dissidents, your state will fall apart quickly, just like Petzko's classroom. It has gotten worse as the year has gone on, as the students in it grew bolder and bolder in regards to talking while Petzko is. Even though that's not an example I can source, you may have had a similar teacher in your life, and even if you haven't, you should be able to see the logic in that statement. Essentially, all love=all chaos. If you can't make people afraid of you by drawing a line somewhere, chaos will run rampant, and the well-being of your people will suffer greatly. RecapAs long as fear is applied whilst avoiding hate in the manners I have prescribed, your people will remain under your control and orderly, thus keeping the general well being of your state at good levels. If one were to rule with only love, no lines could be drawn, inconsiderate people wouldn't show you the respect your love should beget, and things would fall apart quickly.Thanks for reading.