Abstract
This paper examines how Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to political failure and its resulting chaos. It looks as how Machiavelli suggested that the prince was a person who knew he could not have something for nothing, whereas Hobbes was inclined to place the citizen in similar shoes, needing to adjust to a directed social order aware that without small compromises, he would lose the order so needed and wanted to achieve his ambitions. The paper concludes that in the early 21st century, there is much in international political life to remind us of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes' "The Leviathan" in different demonstrations of both leadership and political failure and how war, anarchy, alienation and social chaos do seem the prices of poor leadership approaches and the failure to provide what is needed.

Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on Political Failure
Hobbes on Political Failure
Lessons of being a Bad Leader, or a Bad Subject
Concluding Remarks

From the Paper
"Both Machiavelli and Hobbes had few illusions about human nature and the difficulties of governance. Machiavelli saw political failure as owing directly to the nature of the leader and whether or not he was a prince, in a person astute and evolved enough to wield power, and as Hobbes agreed in places but also expected subjects to understand that beyond a symbolic leader they needed to see their own culpability when political systems fell to pieces, that they were merely parts of the same organic social machine. Political failure meant that one party of another was not complying as necessary to make the machine function and that this should be recognized. In other words, whatever kind of leader or ruler was produced, human unwillingness to put cooperation ahead of competition and greed, or a failure to respect the law towards other anarchy would bring political failure's result in the anarchy of which human beings were also much afraid. "

Tags:leader, subject, war, social, chaos

Abstract
This paper explores and analyzes the concept of political failure in Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes's "The Leviathan."The paper explains that bot theorists were products of turbulence and shared the view of inevitable chaos or other dissolution without particular approaches taken to government, which placed great weight on the ruler. For example, "The Prince" attends a great deal to the proper conduct of a prince as opposed to a tyrant, as the latter will forever fail; for Hobbes, a symbolic sovereign and recognition of most basic, even base, human nature were essential, the individual made aware that compromise allowed the stability in which to pursue self-interested objectives.

From the Paper
"Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to political failure and its resulting chaos. As a young man, Machiavelli experienced the 1498 French invasion of Florence and the flight of the Medici family, and much of his subsequent career transpired as a politician at the Florentine court, then as a diplomatic envoy to other of the Italian states, France and Germany. He knew the business of politics for what it was, and knew ..."

Tags:hobbes, machiavelli, political failure

Abstract
This paper discusses the causes and consequences of political failure for Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. It shows how the causes for each of their political failure were different, as reflected in their views of man and in the actions of men within their respective forms of government. The paper presents both Hobbes' and Machiavelli's views and then compares the results of their political failure.

From the Paper
"Hobbes favors an authoritarian government where the welfare of the people is assured by the paternal care of the Sovereign because it would make no sense that a Sovereign should oppress his people. The consequences of political failure are to plunge men back into the chaos of the state of nature, the "Warre of everyone against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason" (Lev., ch. 14, p. 64). Only when men subjugate themselves and their reason to the Reason of the Sovereign does the Power of the Sovereign ensure "peace and commodious living". It is in this way that "we make the commonwealth ourselves" (Six Lessons, Ep. Ded., p. 184)."

Tags:commonwealth, subjugation, sovereignty

Abstract
This paper analyzes and compares the political theories of Hobbes and Machiavelli, explaining that their views were influenced by the contexts of the times in which they lived. Although the consequences of political failure for Hobbes and Machiavelli meant the destruction of the State, the causes for each were different, as reflected in their views of man and in the actions of men within their respective forms of government.

From the Paper
"Although the consequences of political failure for Hobbes and Machiavelli meant the destruction of the State, the causes for each were different, as reflected in their views of man and in the actions of men within their respective forms of government. The theories of both men were influenced by the contexts of the times in which they lived. Hobbes developed his view of politics from his experiences of the chaos of the civil war in England (1649). Born in the year of the Spanish Armada in 1588, his first twelve years were spent in the last years of the long reign of Queen Elizabeth I. She was an absolute ..."

Tags:government, views, Elizabeth, state

Abstract
The paper had the student analyze the book Hardball by Chris Matthews in comparison to The Prince by Machiavelli. The paper covers the simiiarities, the current state of amerian political culture as reflected by hardball, and an application to a contemporary pop culture issue which in this case was professional sports. Principles are analyzed in terms form and process.

From the Paper
Matthews and Machiavelli: Parallels in Political Perspective Introduction When someone says the word "government", it evokes the image of a monolithic institution that manages the structures of society. In many cases government is seen as neutral entity run by not so neutral people. When someone says the word "politics", a more negative connotation evokes images of behind closed doors planning and plotting, and smoke filled rooms of strategy and deal making. These insights and behaviors were evident in 16th century Italian political culture when Machiavelli made his observations, and are evident today in the American political culture

Tags:hardball, prince, politics

Abstract
The paper explains that Machiavelli and Hobbes have similar views of society and on the function of government; the major difference between the two writers is that Machiavelli describes the leader as using power and fear in a more obvious way, while Hobbes's view is based on a society where control is built into a system, with this motivating people to want to obey the rules of society. The author points out that a similarity is that both writers reject the traditional ideas of religion as a means of maintaining control. The paper relates another similarity between the works, which is that they are both based on looking at the real world, not some ideal world that does not really exist.

From the Paper
"Hobbes also extends this by arguing that differences in religious beliefs are actually a major threat to a stable government. Since religious beliefs cannot be forced on individuals and cannot be made to be the same, Hobbes argues that they can remain in society, but they cannot be the basis of maintaining order. To maintain order and control, Hobbes argues that there must be something that applies to everyone. Since religious or Christian ideas cannot take on this role, Hobbes concludes that government and religion need to be separated."

Tags:power, leader, rules, religion, reality

Abstract
This three-page undergraduate paper discusses Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and The Prince and The Discourses, by Niccolo Machiavelli in terms of the relation of citizens to a sovereign, and the justification of a sovereign for their actions.

Abstract
This paper discusses how Aristotle and Hobbes are two very different philosophers whose ideas of politics are uniquely distinctive from each others'. The paper examines how Hobbes postulates that the conception of a civil state is to preserve peace and defend men from foreign enemies and how, in comparison, Aristotle sees that one of the purposes of a political society is to educate men on how to activate their rationality and exercise their reasoning capability. The paper also looks at whether politics is a necessity or a good and how Aristotle sees it as a good while Hobbes argues that politics is a necessity that is in the design of God and cannot be stopped or rejected.

From the Paper
"The purpose of the existence of man is to activate their rational part of their soul and fully exercise the innate ability to reason. Man in the state of nature is already a political animal with God's gift of prudence. For man shall be a reasonable and political animal whose highest form of a human being is to be a part of a political society, for if separated from law and justice, man is the worst of all animals. In order for man to truly be who he is meant to be, he needs to utilize goods in order to fulfill his role as a human and seek the highest good that is happiness. For that reason goods are what necessarily needed in order for man to activate the rational part of his soul. A political society, therefore, is one of the goods that, and along with others, help man attain the highest good that is happiness. Politics, however, is not "the good," but a good because a good is desirable for the sake of something else. "

Tags:rationality, reason, God

Abstract
The paper relates that Niccolo Machiavelli, the Renaissance Italian diplomat, and Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English political philosopher, approached the analysis of political institutions and history from points of view shaped by very different political and social contexts. In this essay, the political perspectives of both thinkers are analyzed comparatively, as manifested in their respective writings, in order to highlight and examine similarities and differences between the political thought of both men. The focus of this paper is upon how Machiavelli and Hobbes understand the nature of political rule and sovereignty. The thesis is advanced that the primary differences between the two thinkers lie in what each conceive to be the purpose of politics - for Machiavelli the acquisition of power, and for Hobbes the stability of social order - and how this purpose is reflected in ultimate objectives of each thinker in their respective works.

From the Paper
"Niccolo Machiavelli, the Renaissance Italian diplomat, and Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English political philosopher, approached the analysis of political institutions and history from points of view shaped by very different political and social contexts. In this essay, the political perspectives of both thinkers will be analyzed comparatively, as manifested in their respective writings, in order to highlight and examine similarities and differences between the political thought of both men. The focus of this paper will be upon how Machiavelli and Hobbes understand..."

Tags:hobbes, machiavelli, state