Staredit Network

According to Niccolò Machiavelli in his book [I]The Prince he states that it is more favorable for a ruler to be loved than feared, but that in the best interest of the ruler and the country that being feared is better. What do you think?

Here are some quotes from Machiavelli for you:

"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."

"[A ruler] should do what is right if he can; but he must be prepared to do wrong if necessary"

"[A ruler] must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves."

Well, if a tyrant is feared and makes unjust laws, wouldn't resistence be the next course of action? That would be detrimental to the nation, and perhaps a more loved ruler will supersede him.

BTW, our school wrestling motto is, "It's is better to be feared than loved."

It actually depends on what kind of contry you are in. Well, how the people in the country are.

Overall I think being loved is better because you know you are doing the good thing being feared might not be such a good idea.

The problem is if you are a good leader, being loved comes automatically, no matter how fearsome you are.

Of course, if you are a terrible leader and hide it through lies so it looks like you are a good leader, people will both love and hate you for the wrong reasons on both sides (*cough* Bush *cough*).

So.... my conclusion would be, being feared means you will automatically be hated because there is no way for people to like you if they fear you. So if you're fearful and do good deeds, your ..uh..fearfulness will be gone and people would love you for your good deeds.

But the downside to being loved is that people grow to attached to you.. and they think that they are able to get away with a lot. They start to think of you as their friend and it is hard to hand down a punishment to a friend.. im not saying its better to be feared, but my point is its a hard choice.

THere is a time to be feared...and there are times to me loved. It is good to be feared if you want to have an autorative figure. It is better to be loved...if you are the clingy type. But if you are too lovey...then people will begin to think you are soft and will try to over run you. If you are feared...then people might betray you because they hate you...although it may instill fear in them so they wont be able to betray you.

History has shown for thousands of years that governments with a feared ruler are much more stable and powerful, with a much more working population, than a government with a loved leader. It's a sad but true fact.

Would I rather live in a government with a leader that oppresses and kills us? No! But it is still more powerful.

P.S.: We skimmed over some of Machiavelli's statements in my history class, cool that you mentioned him.

i would rather be feared, because then the people who know who the heck is boss, and if not, call in the army to kick all of their revolting asses back to middle earth

<Skips all posts
Feared, everyone in my schools ph34r5 me, so no one messes with me. If I was loved, then I'd be kidnapped and held for ransom.

"THere is a time to be feared...and there are times to me loved. It is good to be feared if you want to have an autorative figure. It is better to be loved...if you are the clingy type. But if you are too lovey...then people will begin to think you are soft and will try to over run you. If you are feared...then people might betray you because they hate you...although it may instill fear in them so they wont be able to betray you."

Too true.

" revolting asses back to middle earth"
What if your 'army' revolts?

I'm sure you can read through at least one page of 3 line responses
It seems that most people would rather BE feared, but have a leader that they LOVED. Thus is human nature.