Replies

This is an interesting article. However, as one who read Discourses on Livy, I do not approve of the mischasting of Machiavelli as supporting tyranny.

I agree with you. Still the subject of this imaginary debate between Machiavelli and Montesquieu is critically important.

Is it possible to establish a stable, long lasting or better yet permanent free and just society? Is it possible through the clever design according to the Montesquieu recipe (splitting power into three or more branches, check and balances etc ...) or are they doomed to the constant flux, imperfection, manipulation and final takeover? Are the republics really superior to the monarchies?

Can/should the religion be separated from the state, can state survive without the religion? How does it matter if the religion is authentic/sincere or if it is true?

Are the great individuals necessary? Can/should they be restrained or eliminated? Is the society based on princes or on contract or on natural family/tribe or on common ideas?

Do you want to write an essay entitled Hamilton and Jefferson in Hell?

These are all interesting questions.

Is it possible to establish a stable, long lasting or better yet permanent free and just society?
Long lasting, yes. Permanent, no.
Eventually, the citizens will forget the ideals of their government, become decadent, and seek the advice of demagoguic aristocrats.

Is it possible through the clever design according to the Montesquieu recipe (splitting power into three or more branches, check and balances etc ...) or are they doomed to the constant flux, imperfection, manipulation and final takeover?
Entropy applies to political systems as well as physics.

Are the republics really superior to the monarchies?
It depends on the type of republic and monarchy. In 1795, I would have chosen Britain over France.

Can/should the religion be separated from the state, can state survive without the religion?
By religion, do you mean a formal faith or something akin to a spiritual philosophy?
I see atheism, secular humanism, and communism as religions. Therefore, I don't see any secular states.

How does it matter if the religion is authentic/sincere or if it is true?
Thank you for reminding me to read Strauss.

Are the great individuals necessary?
yes. However, a system needs to be in place to ensure that they are the protectors from Plato's Republic. I just haven't figured out that system.

Can/should they be restrained or eliminated?
And people think that I am ruthless!
Assuming that human nature is unchangeable (a questionable assumption given genetic engineering), great individuals will need to be restrained by competition, patriotism, and ties to the existing system.

Is the society based on princes or on contract or on natural family/tribe or on common ideas?
Perhaps it evolves over time and we merely rationalize its existence.