His underlying point seems to be that virtue in office is often just a sham; true virtue is not seen and has no ulterior motive, whereas visible virtue is often exhibited only so that the prince may be loved and maintain a virtuous reputation even though might not actually be in reality. For example, the ostentatiously generous prince, in order to keep his “generosity” up, will have to burden the people with “exorbitant taxes and squeeze money out of them in every way he can” once he has used up his own revenue. This will in turn make him hated, so that his generosity will have backfired. Machiavelli believes that it is better to be thought a “miser,” for his parsimony will enable him to live on his income, not raise taxes, and defend against enemies. Machiavelli’s rule of “don’t be generous” does not make any sense. Machiavelli believes that by not taxing the people, the prince will keep the people happy and will in return not hate him. This is where Machiavelli’s argument is invalid, if you are not spending any money, then as a prince you are not doing your job. A prince is a politician, a leader. A political leader, can be anyone who has taken up the responsibility of governing a tribe, city, state, region or even an entire nation. Therefore, a prince is supposed to better the people by protecting them, advancing education, building to make the country, on which you’re the leader, to make it easier, more modern, and helpful for the people. All of these things require money, require raising taxes on good reasons. The people will not be happy if no improvements in what they truly find important are not solved and that will bring hatred. No country of the people ever gets to the point where no money has to be spent because everything is all well in the world. Since we are talking about being a good leader. A good leader makes sure
His underlying point seems to be that virtue in office is often just a sham; true virtue is not seen and has no ulterior motive, whereas visible virtue is often exhibited only so that the prince may be loved and maintain a virtuous reputation even though might not actually be in reality. For example, the ostentatiously generous prince, in order to keep his “generosity” up, will have to burden the people with “exorbitant taxes and squeeze money out of them in every way he can” once he has used up his own revenue. This will in turn make him hated, so that his generosity will have backfired. Machiavelli believes that it is better to be thought a “miser,” for his parsimony will enable him to live on his income, not raise taxes, and defend against enemies. Machiavelli’s rule of “don’t be generous” does not make any sense. Machiavelli believes that by not taxing the people, the prince will keep the people happy and will in return not hate him. This is where Machiavelli’s argument is invalid, if you are not spending any money, then as a prince you are not doing your job. A prince is a politician, a leader. A political leader, can be anyone who has taken up the responsibility of governing a tribe, city, state, region or even an entire nation. Therefore, a prince is supposed to better the people by protecting them, advancing education, building to make the country, on which you’re the leader, to make it easier, more modern, and helpful for the people. All of these things require money, require raising taxes on good reasons. The people will not be happy if no improvements in what they truly find important are not solved and that will bring hatred. No country of the people ever gets to the point where no money has to be spent because everything is all well in the world. Since we are talking about being a good leader. A good leader makes sure