Machiavelli as a proto libertarian

[JoeA]

From the Discourses of the First Decade of Titus Livius, Machiavelli states:

‘But since the restoration of a State to new political
life presupposes a good man, and to become prince of a city by
violence presupposes a bad man, it can, consequently, very seldom
happen that, although the end be good, a good man will be found
ready to become a prince by evil ways, or that a bad man having
become a prince will be disposed to act virtuously, or think of turning
to good account his ill-acquired authority.’

My interpretation of this passage casts Machiavelli as a proto libertarian.

We are faced with a dilemma; it takes wicked or otherwise reprehensible means to obtain power for the purpose, at least ostensibly, of doing good once such power is obtained, how likely is this? Or, that the means necessary to obtain power are such that a good man would ever employ them and thus never obtain power to do good. Hence, are political leaders ever acting in the 'public interest''? To what extent does this same problem persist today?

In a dictatorship, or other form of authoritarian form of government, it takes a sociopath, if not a psychopath, to seek power. Needless to say, such a personality once in power is not predisposed to do good. The authoritarian system of government also precludes the good person from seeking or obtaining power. However, in a less authoritarian form of government, e.g., a democracy or a republic, the level of rapacious action necessary to gain power is mitigated. What passes for reprehensible behavior in a dictatorship (murder, genocide, repression) is mitigated in a democracy or republic to garden variety bribery, corruption, and double dealing, all of which are less pernicious and inimical to the cause of civil order although this is somewhat of a Hobbesian choice. I quote Lord Acton "Great men are always bad men."

Therefore, implicit in Machiavelli's dilemma is the best reason for limited government. If governmental power can only be obtained with rapacious means to some degree or another with results inimical to civil order, then in a rational society, with any degree of rectitude of judgment, the power of the government would be limited as far as possible thereby mitigating the pernicious tendencies of government power. I believe that this dianoetic conclusion follows apodictically. Again, I quote Lord Acton "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

I believe that Machiavelli, being a man of Middle Ages, or at least a man with one foot in the Middle Ages could not come to this conclusion though it was implicit in his own dilemma. We had to wait for Locke and Burke to point out that the expansion of society and the state are not the same. Society expands to escape the pressure of the state. This is the argument for a liberal (not as in the modern use of the word liberal) civil order.

You see, Machiavelli was a proto libertarian.

However, after all this, we are right back to the Machiavellian dilemma for it appears impossible to maintain a limited government, even one that is initially founded as such and so constituted for the same reasons that Machiavelli adduced, the nature of the people who seek power in the first place.

Please feel free to expatiate on these idea, does Machiavelli give us the best argument for limited government and is limited government even possible?


Thanks for reading and best regards,

Joe

[Paul Anthony]

It is generally believed by modern Libertarians that the founders of this nation understood this dilemma, proposing a limited government as the solution. They (perhaps naively) imagined a government managed by citizen-statesmen who would seek power with good intentions and who would hold that power for a limited time.

But it was never as imagined.

The problem has not been good versus evil, but good versus good - "good" being defined differently by different good people. Since the time of Jefferson and Hamilton, the differences in opinion of what constitutes good governance has driven political discourse much as it does today. Good men do bad things, as defined by other good men who hold to a different philosophy. The Statist and the Libertarian each define the actions of the other as bad while believing in the goodness of his own view.

While Machiavelli's perception was unrivaled, his philosophy was anything but Libertarian. Always the consummate politician, he wrote in the hope of winning favor with the ruling family and was inclined to flatter to accomplish his goal, whether or not he believed his audience to be good or bad. Remember the quote for which he is best known: "The end justifies the means".

[mtbturtle]

split Ron Paul comments - viewtopic.php?f=53&t=20839

[JoeA]

Thank you for splitting the string. I thought that the discussion about Ron Paul was interesting in its own right, but off topic.

Paul,

Machiavelli was the first truly modern political or social scientist that emerges from the medieval period with his combined use of empiricism and rationalism with the resulting secularization of political life and thought. However, let us be careful not to cast Machiavelli as amoral. Clearly, his recognition of a ‘bad man’ and ‘evil ways’ for what they were demonstrated his ability to make a distinction from a man who is not ‘bad’ and from ways that are ‘not evil.’ He adduces the ‘bad man’ and the ‘evil ways’ in the manner of scientist undertaking the study of his subject.

In The Prince, Machiavelli was addressing the question of how society is governed and how the participants do behave and therefore how a ruler must act if he wishes to survive. He was not addressing what society should or ought to be and was not advocating for a particular policy, he was merely documenting the practice of the time as he found it.

Although the quote “The end justifies the means” does accurately describe the method Machiavelli’s describes in The Prince, the quote is not accurately attributable to Machiavelli. In the original text of The Prince, Machiavelli wrote “Si guarda al fine” ” which more accurately translates to “One must consider the end result.” This is not the same as saying that the ends justify the means. With this formulation, it could be said that the ends may not always justify the means, how ironic.

Surely the problem of good and evil is fundamental to the human condition. I apologize in advance for being so presumptuous, but I believe that we can conclude that there is and has been evil in the world that cannot be characterized as a matter of good versus good. We must not shrink from calling out evil when it is made so obviously manifest. Surely, we can label genocide, mass murder and mass forced starvation for the evils that they obviously are and not as a different version or a different opinion of what is good.

Libertarian principles have not, to my knowledge, led to genocide, mass murder and mass forced starvation. However, it is demonstrably true that statist policies have led to exactly these evils. We must be careful not to tread too far down the road of moral relativism in thinking that ethical and moral choices are a bifurcation of goodness. We run the risk of conflating the good with the bad under the label of one ‘good’ versus another ‘good’. This will only cloud our vision and obfuscate our analysis. I think we can agree on this much at least but I believe that your point is that it gets a bit more difficult to discern good from evil as we granulate the analysis. Can we make a distinction between good and bad as we move away from the obvious evils writ large? Do we have the tools of analysis that allow us to differentiate good from bad at a more granulated level when the difference are not always so obvious, or must we settle for merely saying that “The problem has not been good versus evil, but good versus good - "good" being defined differently by different good people.”? That is, one man’s good is another man’s evil? This is an unsatisfactory as a final conclusion.

I do believe that there is a tool of analysis that can aid us in distinguishing a good from an evil at a more granulated and nuanced level; at a place where the differences are not so obvious that reasonable people can agree upon them. This tool of analysis is based on the historical method and concept of an organic self-organizing society, spontaneous order if you will. In formulating this tool I borrow heavily from F.A. Hayek who eloquently elucidates these principles in Law, Legislation and Liberty.

The key is to understand that tradition, properly understood, informs us as to the rules of order and conduct that work best. Each generation transmits to the succeeding generation information about the rules of order and conduct that work best for the advancement of human civilization (good) and the actions that do not work well or are inimical to the advancement, moral and material, of human civilization (bad). I will leave any disquisition pertaining to the ugly for the discussion forum pertaining to art.

The notion that business is conducted on a good faith basis is built into the framework of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Why is this? It is because it has been found that business proceeds more smoothly and efficiently when it is conducted in good faith. The smooth and efficient conduct of business leads to increased material wealth, a good, ceteris paribus.

We learn this from tradition, by tradition I do not mean mindless habit. The meaning of tradition in this context is the process by which rules of conduct and order are tested, sorted out, and transmitted. The ones that are found to be good, those advances the human condition are maintained and the ones that are found to be bad, inimical to the advancement of the human condition, are discarded over time. Other ‘goods’ that have been found through this historical process are, the rule of law, respect for private property, sanctity of contracts (keeping a promise) to name but a few. These are preserved are carried on from generation to generation. The burden of proof is on those would overthrow these rules, not those who would conserve them. To name a few of the ‘bads’ that have been found, tested and discarded as rules of conduct and order include such concepts as might makes right, the ends justify the means, arbitrary law, personal rule. Where these persist, we can objectively observe a suboptimal social order, e.g., North Korea.

My conclusion is that we can distinguish between good and evil and thus advance the human condition, or degrade the human condition based on our choices. Machiavelli starts us on this path.

Best regards,

Joe

[Paul Anthony]

Libertarian principles have not, to my knowledge, led to genocide, mass murder and mass forced starvation. However, it is demonstrably true that statist policies have led to exactly these evils. We must be careful not to tread too far down the road of moral relativism in thinking that ethical and moral choices are a bifurcation of goodness. We run the risk of conflating the good with the bad under the label of one ‘good’ versus another ‘good’. This will only cloud our vision and obfuscate our analysis. I think we can agree on this much at least but I believe that your point is that it gets a bit more difficult to discern good from evil as we granulate the analysis. Can we make a distinction between good and bad as we move away from the obvious evils writ large? Do we have the tools of analysis that allow us to differentiate good from bad at a more granulated level when the difference are not always so obvious, or must we settle for merely saying that “The problem has not been good versus evil, but good versus good - "good" being defined differently by different good people.”? That is, one man’s good is another man’s evil? This is an unsatisfactory as a final conclusion.

You'll get no argument here. For the record, I am not a relativist. I think I know the difference between good policy and bad, but I have learned to tread lightly on this forum - surrounded as I am by statists. :)

To be fair, though, I have never met a man whose philosophy differs from mine that did not believe his position was good. In other words, many people accomplish "bad" things with "good" intentions. Who was it who said "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" ?

You suggest we utilize traditions as a guide. I would say, use history. And history is not on the side of the Statist.

But, to your original position, I do not see Machiavelli as a Libertarian. He did not seem as concerned with the liberty or freedom of the common man as much as he concerned himself with the acquisition and maintenance of power by the few.

[JoeA]

Paul,

My apologies, it was not my intention to imply that you were a relativist or a statist. I myself am neither.

Speaking of the "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" Have you ever read The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek? I think that you might enjoy it.

As to Machiavelli, I am just seeking the friends of liberty wherever they may be found and this has led to me to certain degree of syncretism. My original post, though not completely rhetorical, was intended to be provocative. If I cannot rehabilitate Machiavelli as a Libertarian, perhaps I can rescue him from the rapacious grasp of the statists. Why should the statists have exclusivity to Machiavelli? Please recall, this was a man who was tortured by the new regime when the Republic of Venice fell in 1512. Machiavelli thus knew full well the caprice of the state and its pernicious implications.

Yes, I advocate the use of the historical process. Tradition is the transmission of the lessons of history to succeeding generations. I hope that you right, and the history is on the side of liberty. This remains to be seen.

Best regards,

Joe

[Paul Anthony]

Sorry to come down so hard on poor Machiavelli. I actually admire the man, and have read The Prince numerous times. A lesser work was The Art of War (so much a lesser work that most people don't know Machiavelli wrote a book with that title. I had some difficulty finding an English translation) It is quite boring for the most part, but in it he makes a very compelling argument for the use of local militia as opposed to the exportation of a standing professional army when fighting foreign wars.

He was a brilliant strategist, but also the consummate politician. He was the sort of person with whom I would love to have a long conversation. But I'd count the silverware before he left. ;)

[JoeA]

Paul,

Let me leave this issue by stating that even in Machiavelli, we can find a compelling argument for limited government.

Best regards,

Joe