Abstract
This paper provides an analysis of two approaches to the concept of a good or just society in Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes's "The Leviathan. " The paper explains how these authors deal with the good or just society that could be created in avoidance of new anarchy. The paper notes that Machiavelli stressed the performance of the ruler who must lead by example, avoiding different errors, whereas Hobbes stressed the sovereign as a symbolic reminder of the compromise people must make in order to enjoy a stable society that supported their basic aims.

Tags:sovereign, anarchy, civilization, rule

Abstract
The paper discusses Hobbes' ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear and Machiavelli's emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The paper explains how both theorists believed that the natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos. The paper discusses how Hobbes saw political violence as a clear sign of a social order falling back into the natural state of chaos, just as Machiavelli perceived this violence as a sign of a ruler having failed to do what was required to preserve and protect a social order.

Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on the Ruler
The Good Society
Conclusion

From the Paper
"Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) knew turbulent times. Machiavelli experienced the 1498 French invasion of Florence and the flight of the Medici family, and Hobbes's views owed to the very violent English Civil War, his The Leviathan's ideas said to have been achieved by the War's time in the human personality as motivated by fear. This influenced his ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear. Machiavelli shared an emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos."

Tags:political, violence, social, order, chaos, ruler, power, government

Abstract
A look at these philosopher's views on the nature of human relationships, how it is that we join together to form societies, what the best form of human society might be, and the ways in which what is natural in human nature can be overcome by the goodness that lies in collective action ? or exacerbated by the concatenation of so many humans working in concert with each other.

From the Paper
"While both of these philosophers will reject the idealized image of "imagined republics" - both as ideals and as possible realities - Machiavelli proves himself in the end to be more of an heir to their writings than does Hobbes - which is hardly surprising, given that Machiavelli, as a writer of the Italian Renaissance is much more clearly an historical heir to the classical thinkers."

Tags:human, nature, relationship, philosopher, society

Abstract
This paper will examine the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes in application to the question of the use and abuse of power in "Gladiator". It will be seen that Machiavelli and Hobbes would agree that the insane villain, Emperor Commodus, was actually an insightful political leader. While the movie collapses the distinction between the personal and the political - with the whining, incestuous Commodus contrasted unfavourably with the "family values" of Maximus - neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes considered personal morality of any significance in the arena of political life.

Abstract
This paper examines how Robert Dahl has devoted his professional life to the study and analysis on the issues of democracy and how among his countless publications is the book "After the Revolution: Authority in a good Society". It looks at how the central theme of this volume is the discussion about the problems, strengths and weaknesses of democracy and democratic authority. It show how in the same way as philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes and Rousseau did, Dahl explores two basic questions in the world as to: who governs and to what ends do they govern. Also, it analyzes some questions over the limits of power given to people and explains he meaning of justice and sovereignty.

From the Paper
"Further, the Criterion of Economy states that "a process my be less perfect than other alternatives according to the first two criteria but, on balance, more satisfactory simply because it economizes on the amount of time, attention, and energy." Dahl said, that ideal state is never reached in practice; therefore we are satisfied with the most acceptable, closest one to ideal, solution, which is an optimal system for making decisions. Finally, the Principle of Affected Interests states that "everyone who is affected by the decisions of a government should have the right to participate in that government." As was mentioned earlier, Dahl wrote that most associations use some sort of majority rule to make decisions. Hence, the all of the three criteria and the Principle of Equality my be violated for some members of the association. Thus, it needs to be considered how will democracy protects minorities. Dahl suggests three modifications to his fundamental criteria and principles."

Tags:democracy, authority, justice, sovereignty

Abstract
This paper explains that, knowing the cruelties man has inflicted during this century, much of it due to economic reasons, the reader of John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Good Society: A Humane Agenda" wonders whether the concept of a "good society" was a tongue-in-cheek effort to prove to his readers that this "good society" through a higher standard of life is an unattainable goal. The author points out that this book, which demonstrates the demise of Keynesian economics, is more a morality tale than a book on economics. The paper relates that the difficult task Galbreath sets for himself is to differentiate between what is "perfect" and "ideal" and what is achievable, or in his terms---between the "agreeable irrelevant" and the "ultimately possible", which may well contradict each other.

From the Paper
"It is idealistic, of course, for anyone trained in economics to proclaim, as Galbreath does, that a good society must provide an upward chance for all, and a reliable economy to sustain employment. This would obviate the "business cycle" of inflation, stagflation, even minor recession. He is, one might comment, a little simplistic when he states the over-obvious: that a steady flow of demand is a vital factor in keeping business going. Of course, if stores sell products customers want, or manufacturers produce goods that are so reasonable to purchase, then the business cycle is on the upswing. What is missing in this idea of a "steady flow" is that manufacturers, given more and improved technology, can now produce higher quality goods more rapidly with robotics and computers that require little or no human assistance, other than supervision. Thus, economics creates the goods at the expense of employment. It is called "downsizing", a word that brings terror to workers and managers alike."

Tags:cruelties, morality, contradiction, idealistic, welfare

Abstract
The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher's assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.

From the Paper
"Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? "Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. "During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man." (Santoni 143)."

Tags:government, state, politics

Abstract
This paper examines how, in "The Prince", Machiavelli explores how fear affects a leader's ability to stay in power rather than love. The paper discusses how his claim that it is better for a leader to be feared rather than loved isn't entirely true when applied today in American society and how in fact it is essential for a leader to be loved by his/her constituents to continue to hold power.

From the Paper
"Due to America's democratic system of politics it is quite hard to come into and hold onto power if you are feared by the voters. According to Machiavelli, "Among all things a ruler should try to avoid, he must avoid above all being hated and despised" (50). This shows that if a ruler is not to be loved he should at least try to invoke only neutral feelings from his constituents. However Machiavelli's claim that being feared will keep a leader in power doesn't apply to our governing system. A ruler in American politics should aim to be respected rather than feared. If for example Saddam Hussein attempted to run for election in America he would never win, since we as a people would never give a mandate to a person we feared so much."

Tags:democracy, voters

Abstract
This paper explains that Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Nicoli Machiavelli represent a unique position, along with some surprising commonalities, in their commentaries on the abstract word "politics". The author points out that English philosopher Thomas Hobbes was born to an era beset by conflict and turmoil, not only from war with powerful Spanish empire but also the revolutionary theories of Copernicus, Galileo and Descartes; this influenced his belief that, if society is to gain control over this conflict, it must submit to some form of authority. The paper relates that Italian-born philosopher Nicoli Machiavelli, also born into a chaotic and tumultuous world, held a similar philosophy; whereas, seventeenth century John Locke believed in the basic goodness of humans with each person in his uniqueness contributing a vital component to society thus humanity achieves its own natural check-and-balance system.


Table of Contents
Introduction
Natural Man and the Need for Government
The Role of Government
The Structure of Government
Traits of the Ideal Government
The Place of the People

From the Paper
"Perhaps John Locke's ideals of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be thought of as predecessors to a modern-day democracy, whereas Machiavelli's and Hobbes' demands on the people to "lay down...rights" for the "common good" would be considered socialism. However, all three political theories stress self-preservation.
Hobbes conceded that a group of public representatives may be able to prevent accesses from a king. And Machiavelli, in a separate text from "The Prince", spoke of "the evil nature of...tyranny, oligarchy, anarchy." He also pointed out the weaknesses of democracies and principalities. Rather, he says, an affective government will "combine them all," one "keeping watch over the other.""

Tags:liberty, balance, prince, common-good, social-contract