In our modern times, there is no way a political leader could write a book about how to rule the

common man without an uproar from the people. The truth about politics and leadership are in most

cases, too much for the everyday person to understand. The average person who would read the prince

would probably hope that Machiavelli’s view on politics is not common and outdated. Sadly this piece of

work sets the stage for the many different governing bodies throughout time including our own. The

most shocking part of the book is that it is entirely true. The average reader will be appalled by its

message but never the less; the message is a complete work of non-fiction. There is one fundumental

flaw in the Prince however. It is completely devoid of God and morality. The lack of conscience in the

book “the Prince” is a testament to Machiavelli’s shortsightedness

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469. Though Machiavelli was born from a poor

family he held a number of legal positions in the Florentine civil service. He wrote The Prince in 1513,

and dedicated it to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. It is one of the most controversial political works of all

time. The book shows no sign of conscience or Christian morals. It seems that the book has no guide to

morality whatsoever. The prince suggests that to acquire political power, a politician must be willing to

be completely unethical. It is a story on how to maintain political power at all costs. Machiavelli argued

that morality only limits political practice and would be taken for weakness in the political scheme.

Many people at the time thought that the book must have been written by the devil. By all accounts the

book may have indeed been created by such means.

Machiavelli states the ruling body or in his case a prince should be the only voice determining

every aspect of the state. The state is one of the greatest achievements of men and every action must

be in the state’s best interest. It seems as though the best interest of the state was to gain and maintain,

and its political power A prince must not think about what he does as good or bad, instead must act in

a manner the is completely free of goodness and only think about the state. It does not matter how the

state stays strong and maintains power as long as these goals are achieved. Machiavelli portrays a

leader who is cold and calculating without a heart or a soul. This may be the truth of world leaders today

but it is still unacceptable. Humankind expects more from those who lead us. The Prince is a statement

of how to maintain power but for what ends. Why does the prince deserve to maintain power? Is his

moral compass so high that he should be put in charge of thousands of lives, or is he just a power

monger who is never satisfied? The right to lead is indeed a heavy burden with tough decision that an

average man would not have the strength to make. Someone has to make these tough decisions;

however the people don’t want a trickster and a snake to be the one making them.

To the casual reader Machiavelli's views will seem abrasive. The message in the Prince revolves

around the idea that one must do anything to keep the influence and power that he has attained. This is

evidenced when Machiavelli states

“Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of

what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation:

because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to

ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to

maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according

to necessity.” In this statement we effectively hear Machiavelli saying that a ruler