Armchair Pundit, Read the fucking "Prince"

The BBQ Pit
21

Erek, it looks then like you’ve choosen a political view that is neither Dem or Rep, namely liberatarian socialist. That doesn’t mean the two big political parties in the US are the moral equivilent of street gangs.

Fact is, most folks are not libertarians or socialists, or the difficult hybrid and that’s why in a democracy like ours your personal views are so unfound in elected officials, particularly ones with a larger and therefore more representative constituencies, like a Senator from a state as big as New York.

You seem to find that the idea of the Ds and Rs taking consumer data to determine threads repulsive. They also slavishly look to opinion polls. This is not a bad thing as you suggest, it means they are trying to find out what their constituents like. And they will use any data to that they can to appeal to the voters.

Your suggestion that all that electeds to to “pander” to their constituents is bullshit and rhetoric seems to miss the point that in a democracy the majority of the voters can get what they want if they organize. The opposite of pandering is ignoring what people want.

So I’m not suggesting that you feel guilt, just get off of your so superior little horse and realize, like a good little existentialist socialist libertarian (or vice versa) that you’ve made a choice, and it’s nothing more than a pose, as much a cartoon figure as a Dana Carvey Church Lady in Birkenstocks. New Yawk wouldn’t be New Yawk without Village posers, but don’t go around thinking that you are better than other people or making the world better, you’re just recycling twice as much consumer garbage as others.

22

Bob Loblaw

Yeah, village poser because I actually have an opinion that doesn’t fit with the status quo. Someday you might wake up and realize that people with opinions that don’t fit exactly in one of the two easy detached from reality camps that most people blindly adhere to, they might not be doing it JUST to be adversarial to the powers that be. They, might for instance actually believe that the system is ludicrous. The people support the democrats and republicans because the school system that teaches them, tells them they should. People are told they have to care, so they pretend to care, pick whatever team feels the most like them, and then that’s the end of it.

People like you scoff all the time at alternative viewpoints, but the truth is that alternative fuel will get us out of Iraq, it’ll get us off the teat of Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil. We are destroying this country because it’s not living up to the ideals of freedom it’s supposed to, and I am sick and fucking tired of pantywaist suburban assholes like yourself who blindly adhere to one of the teams because they believe that they are the only teams.

You know what seperates me from your “village poser” archetype, that you’d love to so conveniently put me into. I know how to get through the corporate roleplaying game, I know how to hire the accountant that will get me all the tax breaks. I know that I can run a business for a few years without paying taxes as long as I make sure that I don’t make a profit. That means buying luxuries like a “company car”. It means that I can expense my gasoline purchases. It means I can get out of supporting the government as much as possible. I can get a bus that runs on waste grease from restaurants. I know where to run off to if I ever become flat broke and homeless, and how to live like a gypsy. I live among the kind of people who believe in sharing their resources. My bullshit poser lifestyle doesn’t REQUIRE a government to tell me what to do, and if the government will stay out of my fucking way, that’s how I like it.

If this government were not assaulting people I know for victimless crimes, I simply WOULDN’T be angry about it. If this country truly were free, I’d be happy. I don’t hate the government because it’s a government as much as it might please you to think I do. I hate teh government because it’s useless and thuggish. It’s a protection racket, and you are trying to pretend it’s not. I don’t NEED someone to come tell me not to do drugs. I have no problem paying municipal taxes, and I wouldn’t mind if interstates were toll roads if it meant severely reducing the size of the federal government.

What do you think is going to happen when the government goes bankrupt? When Alan Greenspan is gone, and the debt is greater than it’s ever been. What do you think is going to happen then? Do you REALLY think this is gonna last much longer without some drastic changes?

The Republicans are split, the Democrats are weak, no one is thinking about the poor. You know what one of the factors that contributed to Rome’s demise according to Gibbons? It was when the rich and the poor grew so far apart that they stopped working together. How many people you know have faith that if you stay with a company a long time they will reward you in retirement? No one I know my age believes that, not a single person. Most people my age don’t give a fuck if we allow gay marriage. Most people my age are opposed to the drug war. most people my age grew up using computers and use them to organize. The previous generation’s level of organization was nothing compared to a 14 year old girl with Friendster and a cell phone.

I am self-employed in Media/Technology. I also throw events. I can write off of taxes everything except my clothes, and you are telling me that MY system is flawed? Within my circle of friends, I could send a call out telling people that I’m going to another city/country and get a phone number or two of people who live there, all around the world. You need to get your head of your ass and realize that my way is the future, the two parties have lost the younger generation, thos of us that are actually paying attention well enough to run anything see a world much bigger than the small minded nationalism that drives the Democrat and Republican machine. Just because politicians have found a way to put a few degrees of seperation between them and the actual bloodshed doesn’t make them any less thugs.

kaylasdad
In “The Prince”, Machiavelli tells us that we cannot occupy an area if the populace does not wish it, he recommends winning over the people if one wishes to rule. Something we are roundly failing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Erek

23

What’s the right age to have my son start reading my copy of A Child’s Machivelli: A Primer on Power? :smiley:

24

I don’t scoff at alternative viewpoints, I steal from them. And as far as things I can do? Well, I’ve my own copy of “Steal This Book” and a zillion other how to manuals long before the internet.

How long can we keep on going this way? Maybe ten more years max, I’m more inclined to think about five. How much longer could we have gone on if Al Gore had taken the oath in Jan 2001? Indefinitely. Things were different then. But a certain fuck by the name of Ralph Nader wanted things to get a whole lot worse so they could presage a large change, the kind you are talking about. Well, that kind of change is coming, but it will be China and India that take the place of America because Bush and his buddies squandered the 90s and all the goodwill of our country worldwide.Do I blame Nader for enabling this? Absolutely. He chanted and worshipped the Leninist mantra like the immature dictatorial brat that he is (and Lenin was). In a democracy everyone has to deal with everyone else, and that means different opinions and that someone who wants to bring about a lot of change, like me, is going to be in the minority most of the time, because change isn’t the norm of any culture in history. Sure we change more than any culture has, but the range of change is very narrow. The world isn’t a fair place, and the American constitution is unfairly stacked against more than two parties. But that doesn’t mean that refusing to choose isn’t a choice, it is, and it’s the worst choice. Do I care or want those people to feel guilty? No, I want them to take responsibility for their lives like good little existentialists, which at least would give them the courage of their own fist in the air convictions.

As far as Gibbon goes, he was just wrong, the Roman empire lasted until 1454, it just moved the capital to Constantinople a few full centuries before Rome fell, and it went on another 1000 years afterwards. They moved because all the wealth was moving through the Dardanelles and it was much easier to defend. And so they did, the rich that is.

I do agree with Gibbon that one of the main reasons Rome as a city and western empire fell was because of wealth disparity, but frankly the wealthy in the Eastern Empire didn’t care to defend the West any more, there was no point to them in doing so.

Oh, Erek, you totally nailed me on that business man writing off the car thing. I did exactly that on a really cool Honda Accord. But in all fairness, you live in the Village, don’t you? And if you were a Friend, you’d be Chandler Bing? N’cest pas? (Hey, congrats on Monica, the other two are just way too ditzy.)

25

That part I understood. I was actually asking what The Prince had to do with your post #19, not the OP.

26

kaylasdad99 Absolutely nothing.
It’s gone tangental.

Bob Loblaw No, I wouldn’t be Chandler Bing at all, he works for some random corporation, I’m self-employed. I do a lot of work in the activist community, mostly on local issues like opening up “public” parks to the “public”. I live in Bed-Stuy.

I know what stereotype you’re trying to apply to me, but it isn’t accurate, I hate that stereotype as well. I find that radicals are all passion little organization most of the time. I am very big on organization. I work within the system, a good friend of mine is a major democratic party man, and is working on Freddy Ferrer’s campaign in the Bronx. I’m willing to work with both parties, but unwilling to be of them. I truly believe that party affiliation is a mental handicap. I made up the term “Libertarian-Socialist” on the spot in order to accurately describe what I believe, but as always giving it a label is a mistake, because then the pigeonholing begins.

I believe in building cooperative structures, and I work with a lot of people who do that, and I have a national network. If you want to look up two movements, Rainbow and Burning Man, these provide a nexus for all the communal living type folk around the country and the world. It’s pretty amazing to see a city crop up in the forest or the desert for a week or a month, and see all that sharing of wealth. My home is furnished by furniture that a friend of mine brought to the house in lieu of rent while he stays here. I know there is a a lot of resources available that I can live off of, the dregs of wealth. That’s simply practical. If I were to put my quality of life on a scale I’d say I live as though I make at least $ 50k per year, though I make much much less than that. New York is going into a green revolution movement right now, a lot of people are on that tip, and we’re going to be seeing a lot more of it in the coming times. I’m going to be buying myself two wind generators this year. They produce 300w at 28mph.

I am glad you see a need for big change, I do too, and I feel it’s probably better that we had Bush in there to wake us up than it would have been if we didn’t, and that in and of itself is a benefit, but at what a cost. America is in one of the best positions in the world, we are so resource rich that we shouldn’t need to be invading other countries in a grab for resources. It’s all well and good to think we are spreading democracy, but the truth is we are not, it’s insane to think that our 300 year old culture is going to change a 2000 year old culture by force. I feel like we already won the culture war. MTV and McDonald’s are much more effective weapons than tanks.

What I see is misused logistical capacity as being the problem. We are focusing on the wrong things, and putting our power to the wrong problems. Drugs aren’t nearly the problem that the drug war budget would make it seem. I live across the street from the projects, and I’m just as scared of the cops as I am of getting mugged, which in all honesty isn’t that much. I find the suburbs to be a far more frightening place because that’s where gung ho cops have harassed me the most. I have friends who go into the ghetto and give people “Know Your Rights” literature, they tell me you’d be amazed at how many people don’t know them.

I am tired to put it succinctly, I am tired of having an adversarial relationship with the powers that be. I’m not against people making money or getting rich. I am not against having police or fire protection, I am not against speed limits. What I am tired of is a government that puts ME in opposition when I am not hurting anyone. I am tired of knowing that the black people across the street from me in the projects are more likely to get fucked with by cops. I am simply tired of all that. I think that I can do a better job of running my life than a bureaucrat, and I think that’s true for most people. I don’t think it MATTERS whether or not two men marry each other, it’s simply not important.

What is important are whether or not levies break. What is important is whether or not poor people get pushed out of their houses because of eminent domain. Why do we keep making it easier for the rich? They already have an advantage, they’re rich. Why are we handicapping the poor? That’s like me playing Chess with Bobby Fisher with a handicap.

Erek

27

Oh, and I’m happy that China and India are coming up. I think there will be a nice balance of power in the near future.

Erek

28

Well, just to try to keep the tangent anchored to the OP, do you see The Prince as having any applicability to your day-to-day life, vis-a-vis your participation in the government of the country, and, more locally, your state, county, and city? If so, how would that applicability be manifested? If not, why not?

29

Or experience the works of General Tso.

30

Machiavelli tells us some other things as well:

"Before all else, be armed. "

"Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared. "

"…is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force. "

“…injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.”

"We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. "

"You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man. "

"there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm (indifferent, uninterested) defenders in those who may do well under the new. "

"Politics have no relation to morals. "

31

It’s like health insurance. If you’ve got it, you get a discount, if you don’t, you pay several times what the rich insured pay. Thus, the poor subsidize the rich. Yeah, I get it. Do I like what the Dems in Washington do? No, if I were elected Senator from California, I’d make my liberal Senator Barbara Boxer look like a right winger and never get anything passed and not get reelected. Fact is, Boxer votes moderately compared to me on issues, but her personal opinions are really far to my left.

32

Mswas:

Have you ummm, actually read “The Prince?” Are you sure you’re not thinking of “Le Petite Prince” by Exupery? Machiavelli, of course, was a total failure as a politician, driven from office and unable to ingratiate himself back into power despite some prodigious ass-kicking. He espoused glory and success over morality, suggested a charismatic leader can make his own rules (Hitler, Mussolini, and even Saddam understood his principles.)

Personally, I prefer not to take my advice from Sadistic, sixteenth century, failied suck-ups and total pricks, but your mileage may vary.

On the other side of the coin, we have a fortune cookie who’s basic principle is to do the unexpected and hit 'em where they’re week (Rocky Balboa, hell Mike Tyson knows this.) Really, I remember being quite enamored with both these works at about the age of sixteen.

Your delivery reminds me of the scene in Good-Will Hunting, where the precocious pony-tailed twat, self-enamored with his sense of superiority pontificates obnoxiously.

And your massive contibution is that our actions will piss people off and some will become terrorists? Brilliant fucking thesis. I heard it before, it’e even true to a degree, but it ain’t the be all, end all of the issue and you don’t need dead motivational writers to make it.

In fact, what distinguishes both these authors is their success-and-might-makes-right theory of leadership which, in fact is WHAT GOT US INTO THIS FUCKING MESS ANYWAY!

asshole.

Your sophomoric snobbery deserves a good ass-whipping, alas, I’m no Good Will Hunting, though I do need to go see about a girl.

33

Mswas:

Have you ummm, actually read “The Prince?” Are you sure you’re not thinking of “Le Petite Prince” by Exupery? Machiavelli, of course, was a total failure as a politician, driven from office and unable to ingratiate himself back into power despite some prodigious ass-licking. He espoused glory and success over morality, suggested a charismatic leader can make his own rules (Hitler, Mussolini, and even Saddam understood his principles.)

Personally, I prefer not to take my advice from Sadistic, sixteenth century, failied suck-ups and total pricks, but your mileage may vary.

On the other side of the coin, we have a fortune cookie who’s basic principle is to do the unexpected and hit 'em where they’re week (Rocky Balboa, hell Mike Tyson knows this.) Really, I remember being quite enamored with both these works at about the age of sixteen.

Your delivery reminds me of the scene in Good-Will Hunting, where the precocious pony-tailed twat, self-enamored with his sense of superiority pontificates obnoxiously.

And your massive contibution is that our actions will piss people off and some will become terrorists? Brilliant fucking thesis. I heard it before, it’e even true to a degree, but it ain’t the be all, end all of the issue and you don’t need dead motivational writers to make it.

In fact, what distinguishes both these authors is their success-and-might-makes-right theory of leadership which, in fact is WHAT GOT US INTO THIS FUCKING MESS ANYWAY!

asshole.

Your sophomoric snobbery deserves a good ass-whipping, alas, I’m no Good Will Hunting, though I do need to go see about a girl.

34

I know you probably threw that out as a joke, but that book appears to bear almost no resemblance to the original. One of the quotes cited on the Amazon page is: “Only give stuff away when someone is watching.” A better simplification of what Machiavelli said would be: “If you’re going to give something away, do it at a politically opportune time and make sure you get proper credit for it.” The difference is that the first makes it sound entirely self-serving, whereas the real intent was to get proper credit for taking an action. You’re not putting on a show of being generous, you’re making sure people see and acknowledge your generosity so that the gesture is not simply personal but serves your political purpose too. Machiavelli also encouraged the Prince to not just show generosity, but to actually be generous. Basically, the book seems to take the worst and most shallow possible interpretation of Machiavelli’s words.

Scylla: I’m not sure you’ve actually read Machiavelli. He was, indeed, a failure as a statesman. That doesn’t mean he didn’t learn from his mistakes. The government he served fell and the Medici family came back into power. They considered him a possible enemy since he served the previous government. He was implicated in a conspiracy against the Medicis in a fairly blatant and ultimately successful attempt to keep him out of favor with the new rulers. The Prince was written over about 15 years at the end of his career. It represents the best of his insights into politics up to that time in his life. His political theories were revolutionary for the time and were very influential in the politics of the Renaissance. He wasn’t concerned with the higher moral issues that we value in politics today, he was almost entirely concerned with pragmatics.

Many of his views are portrayed in oversimplified and distorted ways today. While he couldn’t be considered a Nice Guy™, his views weren’t as nasty as all that. Basically, he advocated what works:
Win the people over, because they are the foundation for your power.

If you must fight, utterly destroy your enemies so that you only have to fight them once instead of having permanent strife or the fear of secret attack at a later date.

Try to be as fair as possible in your rule so that no one has cause to complain.

Use violence as a last resort, but always be ready and able to use force if necessary

Set such an example that virtuous men aspire to be like you and those who are not so good feel ashamed to be compared to you.

He had a pretty dim view of human behavior and morality in groups. In that, he shares a lot with our modern viewpoint. He considered the public to be short-sighted, resistant to change even if there was benefit in it, and quick to forget the good a ruler did while remembering the bad. It was because of views like these that he said to parcel out good works over a period of time, and to settle for being feared if you can’t be loved by the people. You might do better to read and interpret what he said rather than relying on a view of Machiavelli as a “sadistic, sixteenth century, failed suck-up and total prick” that seems to have been formed mostly by quotations from The Prince taken out of context. Read what he wrote, take a look at the history of the time and his personal circumstances, and you’ll have a better understanding of why he said the things he did. You may even see that he was a much better man than you thought.

35

Scylla In your valiant attempt to portray the fuckwit from Goodwill Hunting I applaud you.

However, my simple point was this. If you are going to fight, go to win, and don’t ignore the simplest aspects of statecraft.

Ultimately I think we are fucked because of democracy. It’s the thing messing us up the most. The average voter has no clue, and the politicians are pandering to the clueless populace. We’re on a boat where everyone is paddling in a different direction.

They keep telling us “It’s a new kind of war”, and it most certainly is. We have to be more sensitive to the populace of the country we are occupying than ever, because it’s not the government we have to worry about pissing off it’s individual people. You scoff at the notion, and I’d like to say that it comforts me that you’re not in power, but you are, that’s what’s scary. People who are willfully ignorant to very simple political principles are running our country.

Sleel put your ignorance of the subject into very good perspective, so I’ll be Ben Affleck to his Matt Damon on this one.

Erek

36

During the interregnum that the Medicis were out of power in Florence itself, Machiavelli was quite skilled and extraordinarily successful in the face of enormous Medici power as an advisor and essentially running Florence’s foreign policy. He certainly was not a “total” failure by that measure. Ultimately, the Medici’s regained power and Machiavelli was tortured and disgraced and exiled. The Prince was his attempt to get a job from the Medici’s directly by essentially advising them to do the sorts of things they already knew how to do.

In The Prince, and lesser known, but more important Discourses, Machiavelli invented the modern nation state. He was the most important political thinker since Aristotle.

37

Congratulations, guys. You’ve managed to name-drop Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Thucydides and Gibbon. This is officially the most pretentious discussion I’ve ever witnessed, and I’m in academia.

Excuse me while I vomit.

38

Matt Damon never had no ponytail, and Minnie Driver ain’t a he.

39

I’m pretty sure that I dropped Aristotle name too. And probably more. Anyway, what’s your field, because I love making women in academia nasueous?

40

Just for clarification: it wasn’t Matt Damon with the ponytail. It was the blonde guy who was trying to put Affleck’s character down when Affleck was hitting on Minnie Driver. The one Damon says to later, “You like apples? I got her number! Howdya like them apples?!”