Posted on 12/15/2008 3:07:28 AM PST by Loud Mime
Some five hundred years ago Niccolo Machiavelli discussed liberalism:
“And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.”
Niccollo Machiavelli, The Prince
ra•pa•cious
1 : excessively grasping or covetous
2 : living on prey
3 : RAVENOUS
from The Prince
CHAPTER XV
CONCERNING THINGS FOR WHICH MEN, AND ESPECIALLY PRINCES, ARE PRAISED OR BLAMED
IT REMAINS now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.
Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly, using a Tuscan term (because an avaricious person in our language is still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly who deprives himself too much of the use of his own); one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.
CHAPTER XVI
CONCERNING LIBERALITY AND MEANNESS
COMMENCING then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being miserly.
Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few.
We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. Pope Julius the Second was assisted in reaching the papacy by a reputation for liberality, yet he did not strive afterwards to keep it up, when he made war on the King of France; and he made many wars without imposing any extraordinary tax on his subjects, for he supplied his additional expenses out of his long thriftiness. The present King of Spain would not have undertaken or conquered in so many enterprises if he had been reputed liberal. A prince, therefore, provided that he has not to rob his subjects, that he can defend himself, that he does not become poor and abject, that he is not forced to become rapacious, ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern.
And if any one should say: Caesar obtained empire by liberality, and many others have reached the highest positions by having been liberal, and by being considered so, I answer: Either you are a prince in fact, or in a way to become one. In the first case this liberality is dangerous, in the second it is very necessary to be considered liberal; and Caesar was one of those who wished to become pre-eminent in Rome; but if he had survived after becoming so, and had not moderated his expenses, he would have destroyed his government. And if any one should reply: Many have been princes, and have done great things with armies, who have been considered very liberal, I reply: Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects' or else that of others. In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality. And to the price who goes forth with his army, supporting it by pillage, sack, and extortion, handling that which belongs to others, this liberality is necessary, otherwise he would not be followed by soldiers. And of that which is neither yours nor your subjects' you can be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you.
And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.
I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly..."
A liberal is one who gives to their friends....usually after taking from others.
Ping
I thought this subject and the auto bailout deal were timely.
Bottom line: Better to be feared than to be loved...
Machiavelli quoting Caligula, who in turn was quoting Hannibal of Carthage.
Liberality and liberalism as the latter term is used today are not the same thing. This quote from Machiavelli does not apply. Liberality = generosity, perhaps the way M. is using it an excessive generosity. But it does not = liberalism.
Please consider the argument that today's liberals want government to be liberated from its limited roots in order to provide services and goods to some. Today, it only does that by taking from others. Machiavelli noted that such a course of action is preferable to giving away one's own properties; I would not term such acts as generosity, as that infers that you are giving away something that is your own. As Bastiat noted, that is legal plunder.
Therefore, to exercise liberality in our government, you must first liberalize the definitions of law, to liberalize the intent of law to empower the powerful to legalize plunder, to facilitate the distribution of that plunder to selected persons. The term liberal applies in all areas.
Thanks for the observations. It’s sad how history repeats itself. Machiavelli was writing about human nature and the economics of politics; he did it in just a few pages. You would think we would learn from it.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Hi, Manc. When I think of you, I think of Machiavelli ;-)
Ping
Sorry. You really don’t get it. You apparently neither understand what Machiavelli is saying in this excerpt nor do you understand the history of the original Liberal movement (background for today’s Libertarians and some conservatives) nor the shift by which “Liberalism” came to be applied to welfare state and libertine sexuality advocates.
The Machiavelli excerpt only applies to what we call liberalism in a minor, tangential way.
“Liberality = generosity, perhaps the way M. is using it an excessive generosity. But it does not = liberalism.”
“Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects’ or else that of others. In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality.”
This seems to fit the Al Gore, B. Obama example of a modern liberal quite well. They very seldom give any of their own money but love spending the tazpayers, especially when it benefits them and their friends. You have heard of Fanny and Freddy, haven’t you?
Indeed. Thx for posting.
if you like Maciavelli....you’ll just love the crap were going to get by Barack Hussein Obama for 4 long years.
Thanks! You learn something new every day on Free Republic!
Actually they are the same thing.
“Liberality” as used in the source means using the financial resources of the state with the intent to be popular and so gain political support, that is, through largesse to become loved (as Shakespeare used the term “loved”); “liberalism” in the USA today means to use the resources of the state in the attempt to buy the approval and support of one half plus one of the voters.
More accurately, both terms refer to rewarding political friends and punishing (by making them pick up the tab) political enemies as well as to attempts to buy off the crowd. Machiavelli was merely pointing out that the frittering away of state resources through “compassion” was counterproductive in the end. Historically in practice “liberalism” now just makes the oppression worse later. The events of the last few decades prove my point.
If “oppression” seems too strong a word for you, contemplate that the Treasury Department has spent over two trillion dollars in the last three months and refuses to account for it. In fact the number could well be larger; the Treasury will not say. This has been done “administratively” and completely arbitrarily. Is there no “oppression” in this? Oh, sure, they promise it is a “good investment” that will return handsomely. So did Madoff.
So how are “liberality” as Machiavelli uses the term and “liberalism” as currently practiced in the USA different in fact?
Can't go wrong with these guys...
I appreciate your observation. So few people get this. And I am speaking principally of those who have even set their eyes upon this tiny tome. Not many have, as I am sure you are aware.
With the one indispensable "resource of the state" being the power to tax, from which all other "resources" flow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.