"It is better to be feared than loved"

[nextormento]

300 years of every single analyst saying "yeah, this dude was definitely making fun of totalitarians"

Talk about bias in wikipedia and passages with very few, if any, citations.
The satire interpretation is far from any kind of consensus. In fact, it's incredibly fringe outside of a few scholars from des Lumières. By far, most people assume it's descriptive of how he thought reality functions when completely removed from abstract (otherwise desirable) virtues.

His beloved free Repubblica Fiorentina had just failed. He was experiencing first hand how power changes hands. Whether one thinks the preamble is backhanded or not, it's directed towards -the Magnificent- Lorenzo: he needed Medici's approval. He was being favorable to the Prince.
In fact, he relinquishes debating republics right at the start. The whole thing is about principalities. From his point of view, he was understanding that, sometimes, princes (totalitarians) happen, and simply describes how they can have a stable and prosperous state while not being much of an ass.

That's not to say the book is to be interpreted literally, just like 1984 is not a manual either.
When put side by side with Discorsi, it's clear he doesn't fancy princes at all. As such, many people have taken to interpret it as guidance for how the common folk could overthrown a tyrant. And, yes, some have expressed that it was simply satire. Yet we don't have any declaration of intent beyond the preamble; and there he was intending to gain the Medici's favor. I personally think labeling it as satire (or deceit) is wishful thinking. But I could very well settle for decidedly cynical.

he was not remotely serious about things like "it's better to be feared than loved".

While it's clear that you have no idea about what analysts have to say, this bit makes me wonder if you even have any idea about what the text says.
dico che ciascuno principe debbe desiderare di essere tenuto pietoso e non crudele: non di manco debbe avvertire di non usare male questa pietà.
Nasce da questo una disputa: s’elli è meglio essere amato che temuto, o e converso. Rispondesi che si vorrebbe essere l’uno e l’altro; ma perché elli è difficile accozzarli insieme, è molto più sicuro essere temuto che amato, quando si abbia a mancare dell’uno de’ dua.
Concludo adunque, tornando allo essere temuto et amato, che, amando li uomini a posta loro, e temendo a posta del principe, debbe uno principe savio fondarsi in su quello che è suo, non in su quello che è d’altri: debbe solamente ingegnarsi di fuggire lo odio, come è detto.

There is no "better" anywhere but in the question. The answer is that it's desirable to be both, but safer to be feared. And that, in any case, what the wise prince should do is avoid hatred.

[Damajin]

neither.

True authority is making people do what you want without them ever realizing it, and thinking it was their own idea in the first place.

“The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist.
The next best is a leader who is loved and praised.
Next comes the one who is feared.
The worst one is the leader that is despised."

--Lao Tzu

[unbound]

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." Is one of the most cited quotes from 16th-century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli's (in)famous book The Prince. What do you think about this quote? Is it more important for authority figures and leaders to be feared or loved?

I can definitely agree with Machiavelli. All societies are based on the citizens fear of law and authority, without it we wouldn't see much order in the society.

Interestingly, The Prince is considered to be satire for those that actually get into Machiavelli's works...

[Exception]

Interestingly, The Prince is considered to be satire for those that actually get into Machiavelli's works...

Reading through 1.5 pages of a thread before posting can't be that difficult.

[The Penguin]

Depressing as it is to say, It's better to be feared and here's why.

Sometimes there are people who will do completely wrong things in the world. Terrible things. Case and point, look what happened the last time we had all three branches in one political party's hands. Laws that should of never been passed were, and we saw a tremendous surge in SJW antics, PC culture, and a break down of society.

We are told that as we live in this world, we should be cognizant of how others feel. This is a very sound and benevolent mind-set and if it was followed properly, the world would be a far happier place. But there's a problem with such thinking. You know what the real issue is?

This benevolent tolerance only applies if you are mindlessly obedient to what is accepted.

Where was the concern for Christians feelings, when Athiests put up a derogatory sign at Christmas time in Times Square?
Where was the concern for the Muslims feelings, when they were bombed on Ramadan and then insulted as if they "deserved" it?

If Humans could be trusted to always act in perfect love and trust, absolutely such a utopia could be. But we can't have that at our current evolutionary level, because we still haven't figured out how to prevent one group from trying to police everyone else.

We see it all the time, but in particular of late from the USA's President and his party's desperate effort to cling to power.

The fact that Obama is "not" feared, has led to serious unrest across the world. But if a leader is reviled but feared, he can at least keep the lunatics in line and that will lead to love "if" your a benevolent sort. On the reverse side it leads to revolution if your a liberal (or conservative) Tyrant. That in mind, I rather find Dr. Doom and Latveria's situation to be spot on. Play from a position of strength. Strength always enables change. But it also requires a velvet glove.

It's not always best to rule with an iron fist like Moff Tarkin or brag about having "a Pen and a Phone" like Obama. That's just goading someone to try and stop you, whether it be by screaming "Sic semper tyrannis", or sending in a squad of X-Wings to destroy your technological terror.

This isn't a threat on anyone, it's simply a reminder on what history has taught us about human nature.

[Theodarzna]

neither.

True authority is making people do what you want without them ever realizing it, and thinking it was their own idea in the first place.

Yeah but how difficult is that to achieve?

Fear is cheap and easy.

[Deleted]

Being feared works.

Being loved is how it would ideally work in a perfect world.

Except that it does not. It only helps to unite those that fear you against you while they fake doing what you ask of them. And when when you show any sign of weakness or they believe that they've grown stronger than you, they attack you. This in the end ends up hurting both you, them and the community.

On the other hand, with people loving you, they think twice before acting against you since they don't want to hurt you. There are still a few that do it, but those that support you will now support you against the dissidents.

[nextormento]

Yeah but how difficult is that to achieve?

That's what parents do all the time.

If you don't eat your peas, I won't let you go to school.
And then I wanted to go to school >_<

[THE Bigzoman]

Influence is better than power

[Deleted]

neither.

True authority is making people do what you want without them ever realizing it, and thinking it was their own idea in the first place.

No, that's manipulation honey.

[THE Bigzoman]

Lol at "The Prince is Satire" pointdexter shit going on in a lighthearted thread.

The Prince was a livid portrayal of politics in renissancian Florence. Few actually think otherwise in academia. The majority the don't would say "lol wikipedia" if you said it was a fuck you to the mercis.

[nextormento]

#FUtothemercis2015

[Raeph]

Depends on what your ends are. If you as the leader want to get things done, change society for the better but towards your vision of what is better, then you must be feared. That fear will drive people to remain in your good graces as change requires application of force to overcome resistance.

If all you want is stasis the you want to be loved so that the populace will follow your few edicts for minor changes. Adjustments by governmental force are then unnecessary, which will just build significant cultural resistance to change, because with that application of force large scale societal change will be impossible.

When I say force I mean imposition of regulation, taxation, creation of bureaucracy, deployment of non-military or military police forces.

For myself I would rather be feared; too much work needs done to worry about seeking the love of the populace, even if you stay within a purely centrist ideology for governance. Too much work to be done and too much resistance to be overcome.

[Kaleredar]

People have taken to killing the things they fear, because at some point you stop fearing them.

[xChurch]

The tighter your grip, the more things will slip through your fingers.

[Hooked]

Being feared would require a lot of constant work to keep people in fear.

[Karaoke]

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." Is one of the most cited quotes from 16th-century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli's (in)famous book The Prince. What do you think about this quote? Is it more important for authority figures and leaders to be feared or loved?

I can definitely agree with Machiavelli. All societies are based on the citizens fear of law and authority, without it we wouldn't see much order in the society.

Agreed. It's easier to get people to do what you want based on fear rather than love.

To those that argue otherwise. I can make you fear me in a day. To get you to love me will take much more time and effort. That's why fear wins.

[Malachi256]

The only real answer is both... "the people" are a diverse mix and some will respond better to fear, others to love, and many need both. If you had to choose one... I guess fear is more important for people in leadership - if they don't fear you, you have zero authority/control.

[Netherspark]

Has "ruling through fear"/totalitarianism EVER ended well, for ruler or nation?

If you run a place like this it tends to end in either revolution or collapse.

[Seezer]

If being loved is what gets my pole smoked, I'll go with that.