In The Prince, Machiavelli gives advice on the best way(s) for how rulers are to approach governing new cities with citizens who formerly lived freely under the law. In a way, citizens weren’t really restricted by laws because they helped create, implement and maintain their laws; they were autonomous. So, a ruler, maybe a prince, was to be the one who established any true “laws”. Because they were autonomous, I believe their “laws” should be called “agreements” or “[shared] norms” instead. Although Machiavelli gives three options for princes to take when governing a formerly autonomous, he strongly advises the first option for a prince to despoil the preexisting laws. He heavily supported the first option using this logic: if a prince takes reign over a free city without destroying it, then the prince will be destroyed by it because people can rebel against his rule in the name of liberty and tradition. I agree to the extent that citizens would only desire to return to their old way of law and rebel if the ruler does something undesirable/unfair and lacks authority anyway. Therefore, I believe the best option for a prince to take is option 2: “go and live there in person”. I understand this advice to be equivalent to, “If you can’t beat them, then join them.”
Machiavelli’s reference to Moses as a “prince by merit” challenged my thinking. I always thought that Moses was chosen by God because God had divine favor on him, not because of anything special that Moses had done or possessed. When I think of merit, I think of hard work and dedication put into something (that would eventually produce an outcome). So, would it really be appropriate to say that Moses was a “prince by merit” and not fortune? In technical terms, Moses was not a prince by fortune either. I think of “fortune” having a more secular connotation, in which the universe, not God, can reward one with “good fortune”. Perhaps, it would be more probable to make good “fortune” synonymous with “blessings (in Biblical terms).
I agree with your point that the best method to gain power over a city is to live there, understand the established rules and then figure out ways to improve them. Despoilling a city can quickly lead to rebellion and being overthrown which is the opposite of what a new prince would want. Learning the community and values of the inhabitors prior to overtaking would make the transition much smoother and possibly less violent.
I really like your take on the idea of “if you can’t beat them, join them”. I felt as if that was a really sound way to describe your second logical option. And off of that logic, I couldn’t agree more. I would like to believe that if I was a citizen of a city and someone just decided to take reign over the city, I would likely revolt; however, when someone joins you and becomes a part of your community, it certainly makes them more amiable and likable on their way to power.
I like your discussion of the reference Machiavelli made to Moses. It’s true that when we think of important figures in the Bible, we imagine them being chosen by God which doesn’t seem to speak to merit or earning something. I think another way we could think of Moses as a “prince by merit” is that perhaps he was chosen because he possessed the qualities of hard work and dedication to successfully lead.
I like you how paraphrased Machiavelli’s points into “if you can’t beat them, join them” because it fully encompasses his, in my opinion, better argument/idea in how to rule. In order to fully command a once free people, you must destroy them, which is not ethical nor ideal.
I liked your inclusion of how ” ‘laws’ should be called ‘agreements’ or ‘[shared] norms’ instead’ of laws. It was interesting in itself to read about an autonomous society operates and how they react to leadership. I also appreciated your religious insights on the comparison to Moses.