Niccolò Machiavelli and Anarchism

Does Niccolò Machiavelli offer the perfect argument(s) for anarchism? His whole philosophy is based on the notion that morality and ethics have little places in politics, and they can even be detrimental to someone engaged in politics. Instead, one must utilize deceit and betrayal to be successful in politics, forgetting about morals/ethics.

If morality and ethics have no place in politics, then politics is inherently immoral. If politicians must utilize deceit and betrayal to rule successfully, then politicians are inherently untrustworthy. Therefore, why should anyone subject themselves to a system that will only lie to them, use them, and betray them? Why should they not rule themselves, by which they can utilize morality and ethics?

>inb4 stirner

>Why should anyone subject themselves to a system that will only lie to them, use them, and betray them? Why should they not rule themselves?
Sure, go ahead and do that.

>Sure, go ahead and do that.
I would try, but every anarchist system has been violently destroyed by governments.

Oh dear, that doesn't sound very practical.

Machiavelli is perfectly right, and to answer the user who said "Go ahead and do that", if you want Anarchism to work you must add Estienne de La Boétie's line of thinking, who concludes that you can't escape servitude with revolution or rebellion, but simply by working on yourself and ignoring the tyrant and his subjects. To be brief, you must create an autocratic attitude and engage in micro Anarchism inside the system, since you can't change the system or how the world works. I suggest you both to read "On voluntary servitude" , by the latter.

It would be interesting if you made an essay on this or even a book user.

>If morality and ethics have no place in politics, then politics is inherently immoral

This is wrong though. Machiavelli believed a ruler should act morally and ethically, He just didn't equate that with religious piety as previous thinkers had. He thought the ruler should do whatever it takes to make his country great, even if that meant he would go to Hell.

The end justifies the means, but the end should still be justified.

However, his Discourses on Livy make a good argument for rule by the people, which you could spin for Anarchism.

>every anarchist system has been violently destroyed by governments
This is exactly why anarchism is idiotic tho. How do you not understand this?

>he thought he was making a post in favor of anarchism, but illustrated perfectly why it doesn't work

who would win in a fist fight, makaveli or descartes?

You can try to construct a moral system from an immoral ground, such as the economic one.

YOU ARE CORRECT

Power corrupts and you must be corrupt to wield power over other people.

The ruler who didn't have to be a scumbag to get into power does not exist.

All must commit scum to wield power. Those that do their scum while staying the cleanest win.

END OF FUCKING STORY

>who would win in a fist fight, makaveli or descartes?
Machiavelli would outsmart him through conspiratorial covert actions long before the fight ever began.

That is not what he says at all. There are morals and ethics that are useful in politics, both in the civic body and in the leader of such. However, those public virtues (Virtu) are not the same as the ones that are usually held as virtues in the private citizen's life.

Politicians do not have to use deceit and betrayal to rule successfully; indeed, overuse of such will inevitably lead to their demise, as nobody can trust you. But they also need to know when to be able to betray someone if it's for the good of their polity.

Stop posting on Veeky Forums, get your arm out of your ass, and read the Discourses on Livy before posting anything about Machiavelli again.

>>he thought he was making a post in favor of anarchism, but illustrated perfectly why governments doesn't work
FTFY

Governments don't work because you can't operate properly or successfully them without using Machiavellian techniques.

Well, they 'work' in the sense that only the corrupt can manipulate and operate governments.

Any sad-sack naive fuck who thinks you can be honest and nice and be a ruler will quickly have his little illusions shattered.

Any illusions of government should have been shattered by him.

The American Founding Fathers were a bunch of naive children to think they could make some fantasy land where people with power didn't act like scumbags.

Machiavelli was science. Power requires ruthlessness, deceit and betrayal.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. It's fucking science.

>But they also need to know when to be able to betray someone if it's for the good of their polity.

Betrayal and deceit are sins against God in all religions.

Except politics, which is what Machiavelli pointed out.

To wield power successfully is to sin against God.

>Betrayal and deceit are sins against God in all religions.

The Abrahamic God seems to be perfectly okay with deceit and lying as long as it's used for his purposes. Jacob in particular, lies his ass off over and over, and he sends Moses down to lie to the Pharoh to try to get the Hebrews away more easily.

Hell, if your Christian, you necessarily view that God lied to literally millions of people for millennia until Jesus came along.

not him but I read it years ago and I can't recall him saying anything about ethics, just whined about unreliable mercenaries and other bullshit plus a few kino quotes like "if I cannot be both feared and loved I'd rather be feared"

What quotes in particular are you referring too?

The way I see it is that some things are business and others are personal.

Did Uncle Adolf really need to kill all the jews? He might have had to execute some rabble rousers, but there was no practical need for killing innocent powerless people.

Furthermore, what is it all for? Besides the palace where you receive and impress dignitaries, there is no point spending on luxuries, but many rulers splashed out. This is the personal side. You earn money to spend it. How you spend it can be done ethically without affecting your power much.

I stopped participating in these types of conversations when I realized that "The Prince" was the only work that would be a frame of reference. Discourses, anyone?

I'm . People don't read the Discourses because those aren't edgy and contrarian, even though they reflect more of what he believed. Have you read The Mandrake?

I've read it, though I'm not much for plays really. The religious implications were pretty poignant, particularly for the time it was written, though it see's to circle back to some points in the Prince, that even breaking a sacred thing can be accepted as divine intervention when it's brought about in part of the clergy.

Yeah. He actually has a lot of good points, but all people seem to get is "lol kings can do whatever they want". From what I can tell he actually hated monarchies, or at least the ones around him.

>why should anyone subject themselves to a system that will only lie to them, use them, and betray them?
Because if you don't you're going to get raped and murdered by those who do.

Anarchists are all alone, while those who submit to the collective are many.