12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...

Your world. . .I pounce on it.

He watches over all.

I am humbled and speechless.

[Giggles_Manically]

So since we seem to be talking about this stuff anyway.

I just read the Prince by Machiavelli and have to wonder:



How many of you agree with the principal- "Its better to be feared then loved, if you can not be both"

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
How many of you agree with the principal- "Its better to be feared then loved, if you can not be both"

It's safer. But it's too simplistic. There are many more emotions that we have to take into account and exploit. Greed, idealism, apathy, banal entertainement...etc.

Fear is always, imo, a necessary aspect of any regime. But to be solely feared? Meh. Like I said in another thread, carrot and stick is a formula that I think can probably withstand the test of time and space and be applied universally (with different scales and shades).  Reward and punish. If all you have is fear, you make your enemies cornered and desperate. Then they become dangerous. Some very resolute enemies refuse to compromise and those you should frigthen, but the others can be coopted and manipulated. No regime survives on fear alone, it's a myth.

That said, basing loyalty on love is as fickle. It's going to apply to an extremily limited number of individuals and anyone who thinks they can make everyone love them is naive.  It might work for a select few who do love you, but for most others, elites and masses alike, that love would be useless with empty bellies and ambitious opportunists.  

Personally, I find Augustus' statement of "bread and circus" to be sound and one of the few statements I can take as an absolute universal. He had legions, but not only that. He had money. 

A similar quote that I like is from Mu'awiyah I:
"I do not use my sword when my whip suffices. I do not use my whip when my money suffices. I do not use money when my tongue suffices".
Persuade, coopt, coerce and kill, according to the need and the individual / group in question.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 03:40 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Yeah I argued it against it quite a bit even though Machiavelli says that if you are a good leader people will come to love you for it later.



On the whole I think that he was being a bit simple in the Prince in many cases.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
On the whole I think that he was being a bit simple in the Prince in many cases.

I don't think that was the purpose of the book. Granted, it's still debated what his intentions were.
But on the whole, I think it was designed to be a simple description of what a principality is, which certainly has its own merits. Some things he said, I find, to be very true and pertinente, like the dangers of relying on mercenaries , swift violence being better than protracted...etc.

I do not think in the Prince that he says you should base your regime solely on fear. But that it's generally safer to make people fear you rather than love you. Because love is dependent on their own volatile emotions that can change with external pressure / incentives anytime, whereas fear is based on your own capacity. In essence, you are in control of what makes them fear you. Not so much what makes them love you (but you can argue that with mass media and propaganda on such a large scale, that changed to some extent).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 03:48 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I think the message that is in the prince is that's it's better to be a ruthless leader who people will fear enough not to disobey then someone they will "love" ( since love is really a fleeting emotion, just ask Napoleon who was betrayed by virtually everyone who had once been his friend save for a few exceptional individuals like d'Avout )

[Giggles_Manically]

The one part that we talked about was a line where he said:

men are quicker to forgive the death of their fathers, then the loss of their inheritance.



He claims that people will not tolerate the loss of their property, but can tolerate the leader killing people if he can give a good reason for it.



I dont know really it seems that he was mostly claiming that people can accept the leader killing people, but a person cant tolerate their property being taken.

[Costin_Razvan]

I dont know really it seems that he was mostly claiming that people can accept the leader killing people, but a person cant tolerate their property being taken.

This is actually a subject I think is true, maybe not to you are I but to others I believe.



I remember reading a book ( Romanian one sadly ) about the life of a farmer in Transylvania that was just as ruthless and selfish then most politicians. His goal was to gain land from a very wealthy farmer by conceiving a child with his daughter whom he regarded as ugly.



He did so, and the girl was beaten to almost death by her father for it. He eventually married her and she died along with his child, but he gained his land even though he also lost his mother to it in the process.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

The one part that we talked about was a line where he said:
men are quicker to forgive the death of their fathers, then the loss of their inheritance.

He claims that people will not tolerate the loss of their property, but can tolerate the leader killing people if he can give a good reason for it.

I dont know really it seems that he was mostly claiming that people can accept the leader killing people, but a person cant tolerate their property being taken.

And that is something I can agree with.

We have seen time and time again nobles and individuals being coopted by regimes, despite the regime killing their relatives, as long as their property was kept intact. 

Greed and possessivness are stronger emotions than love. Something that people don't like to admit. 

You are more likely to defend your property than you are to defend someone you care about, if you have a family to take care of and feed.  

I have a personal example really, I know many old aristocratic Syrian families (my family once being one of them) who still b*tch and moan about the confiscation of "their" lands that they couldn't manage properly, but don't talk that much about the massacre that happened at Hama, because they feared instability then and sided with the regime. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 04:05 .

[Giggles_Manically]

I do think that Machiavelli was warning people that they can go to far and no matter how feared or loved you are, hatred over rides all of that.



My prof even brought up something from V for Vendetta:

People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.



Which is something that Machiavelli argues against.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
My prof even brought up something from V for Vendetta:
People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people.
 

Sounds nice, doesn't make sense.
It's a mutual relationship where both should be mutually accountable to each other. A government that thinks it can do whatever it wants is as dangerous as a people who think they can do whatever they want. In fact, I think the latter is more terrifying.

People have this weird conception of the innate "goodness" of humans, while we have seen time and time again how savage they can be on their own without governments even inciting them to. You'd think those humanist "enlightenment" ideas would have been dead by now considering all that happened right after. Rule of Law necessitates a degree of fear. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 04:18 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Cant keep optimists down.



Just like all the people who think that because Bhelen does bad things he must be a bad leader.

[Axekix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I do think that Machiavelli was warning people that they can go to far and no matter how feared or loved you are, hatred over rides all of that.

Cairo riots, anyone?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Empty bellies. They will be disappointed soon.

[Costin_Razvan]

As my Egyptian friend said about the Revolution that just happened.

"Those people have just dug themselves a hole so deep they can't even see it yet."

So yeah, they forced the "Tyrant" out of power, but they are idiots if they think it will improve their lives.( oh and they do ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 février 2011 - 04:37 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

As my Egyptian friend said about the Revolution that just happened.

"Those people have just dug themselves a hole so deep they can't even see it yet."

It's people like this who will take control eventually



Like all revolutions end up producing.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 04:38 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I wouldn't say all. Most certainly most revolutions that began failed even in their success, but there are a few cases where this is not so.

The Third Servile War was such a case as it did lead to the Romans treating slaves better, even though hundreds of thousands died for it. Caesar's revolution also utlimetly improved things.

The Polish and Romanian Revolution ( not talking of the 1989 ones ) also eventually resurrected the two nations that had ceased to exist.

Cuban Revolution was likewise a sucess in my eyes, at least from a Cuban point of view.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 février 2011 - 04:45 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I wouldn't say all. Most certainly most revolutions that began failed even in their success, but there are a few cases where this is not so.

The Third Servile War was such a case as it did lead to the Romans treating slaves better, even though hundreds of thousands died for it. Caesar's revolution also utlimetly improved things.

The Polish and Romanian Revolution ( not talking of the 1989 ones ) also eventually resurrected the two nations that had ceased to exist.

They had actual leadership with some sort of a plan though. This is just a popular uprising, with the political parties trying to catch up and get as much of the cake as possible. I am not sure they know what they want, except for "democratic elections", the usual rethoric. What the people are screaming for though is jobs. 

The Iranian Revolution worked (as in removed the govenrment and replaced it) because it actually had some leadership.

We'll see what happens, but the regime did not collapse. Mubarak is not the regime. The regime simply adapted. The Tunisian one was smarter it quickly threw away the problem.

Gaddafi ironically proved to be the smartest, he joined the protesters and had all the blame on one of his minsiters.  

[Joy Divison]

The Prince may seem an overly simplified treatise but keep in mind Machiavelli wrote this long before politics as we know it exists. Sure, European monarchs (and at that time Popes) played the game, but Machiavelli was writing at a time when his Humanist contemporaries argued for a very different type of civic virtue/responsibility and a Catholic virtue was all but assumed into princes. He was thus something of a Revolutionary in this respect and I trust he knew this as he deigned not to publish his work while he was still alive.



I do think the whole it is better to be feared than loved is an oversimplification. Sure, he did say that, but Machiavelli meant politics were quite complex and a prince had to be prepared to enact unpopular or unsavory policies to be an effective ruler.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
 Yes, sometimes one individual holding a large amount of power is necessary to move things forward, but that person should try to establish institutions and rules to make sure what he built survives him / her.

A long term thinker. In any system, that's important.

One problem of a meritocracy in a fragile system is that it would split the country into several factions, each claiming to support the person who has the most merit.  And we have to take into account elites that every system in one way or the other ends up creating that would focus on things other than merit (their own interests).

Yes, any system has it's flaws, and there are always those who will seek to exploit whatever loopholes or weaknesses they can. As you suggested before, setting up institutions to stymie such attempts at least is something.

But that's the beauty of humanity. You'll never reach perfection and you'll always have flaws. So having some form of flexibility to change and adapt would be a good thing, without too much dogma being put into the system (unless used as a tool for public consumption). But eh, I see humanity advancing through strife, competition and creative destruction. Systems that cannot adapt (either via flexibility, or a good old war or someone to force reforms a la Augustus, Abd Al Malik and Bhelen) must end and be replaced by something new and the cycle of empires should continue (until we find aliens and the cycle becomes on a larger scale). And life goes on.

Agreed. Competition makes us stronger. It pushes invention and innovation. Meeting an alien speicies would depend on the nature of the threat, but would generally benefit us as a whole, one way or another.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's people like this who will take control eventually



Like all revolutions end up producing.

That was actually a major premise of orwell's 1984, that revolutions really don't change the innate, universal pyramid of power in society, and revolutions just as often bring in a regime more tyrranical and brutal regimes, that often make things worse. Pol Pot in Cambodia, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Ayatollah's in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and so on. Like the old adage: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Joy Divison]

Robespierre and Lenin weren't exactly moderates either...

[KnightofPhoenix]

There is a really good French saying that goes: "Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose" / the more it changes, the more it stays the same. This is coming from a people that went from an Absolutist monarchy, to a revolutionary Republic, to an Empire, back to a monarchy, to an attempted constitutional monarchy, to another revolutionary republic to be replaced shortly after by the second empire. In ~60 years only.

This is the premise of Alexis De Tocqueville's argument, that Revolutions, specifically the French one, tend to be part of a moving trend, more so than a break with the past as they like to fashion themselves.

Change, at least successful change, is most of the time gradual, which revolutionary radicals fail to realize, hence why they end up being disasters. A revolution (if accompanied by leadership managing and directing the whole thing) can be used as the foundation for gradual change. But abrupt change on a large scale is almost always a disaster.

One of my favorite revolutions is the Abbasid Revolution, despite my Umayyad sympathies. It was so perfectly planned and calculated for decades, perfectly executed, and Abu Ja'afar al-Mansur brilliantly managed to end the revolution and bring about the State, by eliminating the dangerous revolutionaries (by pitting them against each other, one of whom was his uncle, and killing the survivor) who helped him get to power. He was smart and far sighted enough to preempt and initiate the Revolution's "Thermidor" before disaster struck.

Revolutions that are led by someone like al-Mansur, pragmatic realists, are the kind I could support. The ones led by radicals or by pure popular rage, not so much.


Besides, Abu Ja'afar was the one who dubbed his Umayyad rival, Abd al-Rahman Al Dakhil, as Saqr Quraish (Falcon of Quraish) as a show of respect and admiration. He was badass for it

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 février 2011 - 03:36 .

[Morwen Eledhwen]

Sorry to interrupt the learned discussion for a bit of trivia. . .

But, a quick question for those who have read TST: When he was in the Deep Roads, did Loghain encounter any Broodmothers? I don't need details --as I've said before, I'm keeping myself from reading TST because the POV of my current fic is entirely my Warden's, and she doesn't know any of the details of Loghain's past so I don't want to accidentally color her thoughts or observations with meta-knowledge. I just need to know if, should Loghain encounter the corpse of a Broodmother in the Dead Trenches, would he know what he was looking at, or would he require an explanation?

Thanks for your help in advance.

[Costin_Razvan]

This is coming from a people that went from an Absolutist monarchy, to a revolutionary Republic, to an Empire, back to a monarchy, to an attempted constitutional monarchy, to another revolutionary republic to be replaced shortly after by the second empire. In ~60 years only.

Republic failed because of inept leaders but quite a few reforms they did make survived into the first french Empire. The volatile political climate following Napoleon's fall can be attributed to many factors, biggest of which was foreign placement of the Bourbons back on the throne.

If Napoleon had won his war against Russia and then actually built up his fleet to invade England ( ignoring Spain. Wellington winning at Waterloo was one thing, Wellington winning in Spain against Napoleon himself at the head of his fully strength Grand Amree, now that's not likely ) what do you suspect would have happened to the 1st French Empire?

Would it have fallen during Napoleon's life. Unlikely, the man was practically worshiped in his country, he had an iron grip on the military and press.

Would the French Empire had fallen after his death? One needs to look at this at an internal level ( which I count as only in France itself ) and then at an external one ( where I count the Confederation of the Rhine, Spain, Kingdom of Italy, etc. ).

On the external I somehow doubt it would have survived without a leader at least half as capable as Napoleon himself ( and Napoleon III most certainly wasn't such a person, though one will never know about Napoleon I's sons ). On an internal level....not bloody likely in my opinion that it would have fallen.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 février 2011 - 05:55 .