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
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
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

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
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
This paper explains that Thomas Hobbes, who believed that man was cruel and evil by nature, espoused the idea that only the firm grip of an absolute authority would be successful in governing a society of men; countering this extreme view, John Locke put forth the idea that man was rational and peace-seeking by nature and that any useful system of government must be chosen by men and must serve the best interests of the polity. The author points out that, despite these difference, both philosophers argued their cases within the same terms of debate; both (1) spoke of social contracts and of the nature of man, (2) were concerned with defining the type of government that would be best suited to govern societies, as well as the reasons why man should submit to any form of government at all and (3) were concerned with the ultimate objective of avoiding conflict and violence and thereby assisting their fellow men in the task of peaceful coexistence. The paper summarizes that Hobbes had a dimmer view of mankind than Locke because, in the Hobbesian world, every man is preoccupied with the task of survival and will do anything to meet his goal of self-preservation; whereas, Locke expounds on mankind's virtues and on his innate sense of morality.

From the Paper
"Locke argued a final, crucial point in direct dispute against Hobbes: that man has the natural right to quit government. Locke envisioned Hobbes' ideal of government-by-force as a counterproductive hunting match: "Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases..." Man has thus, in constructing and submitting to an absolute authority, theoretically turned over every one of his natural rights. Where Hobbes wrote that man had a right to quit government only when it was matter of laying down one's life for no just cause, Locke leaves this self-eject option much broader. He even goes so far as to say that when a government begins to fail its people, and undermine its primary intent, the citizens subject to it have not only a right but an obligation to revolt against its power."

Tags:power, contract, morality, similarities, authority

Abstract
This paper examines the political theories of Machiavelli, Clausewitz, and Sun Tzu with respect to leadership, finding that all three of these philsophers believed that sound leadership requires knoweldge and flexilbity. The paper discusses how Sun Tzu said that knowing one's enemy was the key to victory, Clausewitz saw it in flexibility in the face of the chaos of war and Machiavelli in the ability to ciscern the faithful from the flatterer.

From the Paper
"Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Clausewitz are different in some ways. Sun Tzu is the earliest strategic thinker to come down to us. Machiavelli wrote during the Italian Renaissance. Clausewitz is considered to be the father of modern military thinking. For all of their differences, their assessments of leadership have much in common. Perhaps most critically, they insist that leadership must be knowing and flexible. Sun Tzu makes knowledge critical to his advice: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." By contrast, Sun Tzu emphasized the importance and value of deceiving one's enemies:..."

Tags:machiavelli, clausewitz, suntzu