As I was doing some research, I came across this famous passage. I don’t have<\/p>\n
the time now to discuss "The Prince" in any detail with you (a future essay?)<\/p>\n
but I’ll leave with this passage. <\/p>\n
It is both true and untrue… but that is the way of such things.<\/p>\n
\n‘"Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be<\/p>\n
Loved than Feared<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n
Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than<\/p>\n
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be<\/p>\n
both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much<\/p>\n
safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed<\/p>\n
with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are<\/p>\n
ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed<\/p>\n
they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and<\/p>\n
children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it<\/p>\n
approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on<\/p>\n
their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because<\/p>\n
friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by nobility or greatness of<\/p>\n
mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need<\/p>\n
cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is<\/p>\n
beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of<\/p>\n
obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity<\/p>\n
for their advantage; but fear preserved you by a dread of punishment which<\/p>\n
never fails. <\/i><\/p>\n
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he<\/p>\n
does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being<\/p>\n
feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains<\/p>\n
from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women." –<\/p>\n