The book, while jumping around a bit, can be divided into 3 or 4 sections, the last really being a summarizing “call to arms” to the Italian people that they need a wise prince to lead them back to the greatness of the Roman Empire.ĭiscounting the rah rah speech at the end, the other 3 sections deal with (1) the kinds of principalities and how they are acquired (2) the proper organization of the military and the best kind of solider to comprise it and (3) the internal make up of a princes court (i.e., associates and subordinates). He wanted to get in good with the de Medici family secure a place at their court. Machiavelli wrote The Prince for Lorenzo de Medici, whose family ruled Florence at the time, as basically a job application. I don’t want to sound like a book report so let me just summarize briefly how the book is laid out. However, until we do, Machiavelli’s words provide much ringing truth and thought food. I wish Machiavelli’s insights were not needed and that we lived in a world where loftier morals could carry the day. I wish we lived in a world in which that was not the case. Not necessarily warm and fuzzy Sesame Street thinking, but there is some serious power to the reasoning.

In the end, Machiavelli argues, fewer lives will be lost and less suffering incurred by the Prince who can govern EFFECTIVELY. Allowing other considerations to affect such judgements will only provide an advantage to third parties who will exploit it. He argues that the Prince’s #1 priority is to safeguard his holdings and maintain stability within his borders. Should such murdered and subjugated populations thank the princes for their unwaivering morality? Machiavelli says HELLS NO. However, Machiavelli, in his famous use of end justifying means, supports the rightness of his position by citing numerous examples of “princes” who, in acting 'all just and proper like” in relation to their neighbors and subjects, led their people right into the waiting arms of bondage and slaughter at the hands of those who were less vituous in their thinking. Holy snickerdoodles that's amoral!! Uh.yes, by definition it is. Rather, Machiavelli was demonstrating, through reasoned analysis based on numerous historical examples, that the most effective way to govern a population is through decision-making based on the current situation without muddying up the waters with considerations of morality. Despite popular perception, Machiavelli, whose name has often been used as a synonym for political ASSHATery, was not arguing that it’s better to be immoral, cruel and evil than to be moral, just and good. That single statement boys and girls is the crux at the heart of the matter resting at the bottom-line of Niccolo Machiavelli’s world-changing classic on the defining use of realpolitik in governance and foreign policy.

The prince by niccolò machiavelli