Machiavelli's Essay
Qualities of the Lawyer
Machiavelli's essay, "The qualities of the prince," is mostly put under the category as virtuous; though his points may be harsh they make very good sense. This connects to the question of whether a leader should be armed. Machiavelli says a leader should be armed or else faces the possibility that someone will take over the government. When I hear this statement I think of it to be very true even in modern times, but I don't think Machiavelli is talking about being armed with weapons. I reviewed the essay many times and found no where when Machiavelli says "a leader should be armed with weapons." A good and well respected leader need not be armed with weapons, but with knowledge, particularly in terms of how a lawyer …show more content…
Many great people such as, presidents, judges, kings, queens, lawyers, politicians, anyone who has any power has knowledge. If you have a president who doesn't know what major states to campaign in most likely he won't get enough state votes and will lose the election. Judges who are constantly deciding life or death decisions, if they don't know the meaning of just then he or she won't know how to bring justice and will eventually lose there seat. If you are unarmed then you are in all likelihood to be taken over by some one who is armed.
The question weather a Lawyer should be armed is symbolic. Our lawyer stands for the people, and if he or she were to appear in court not armed with knowledge he or she would give a symbolic message to the world: even if you're not guilty you might not get justice.
Machiavelli plainly says. "Among the other bad effects it causes, being disarmed makes you despised for between an armed man and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever: (para. 2). There is no problem with this statement, it is still relevant in the twentieth century then it was in the sixteenth. In our time the threat of being tried as unjust less likely to happen because more lawyers as well as people are armed with
Machiavelli's essay, "The qualities of the prince," is mostly put under the category as virtuous; though his points may be harsh they make very good sense. This connects to the question of whether a leader should be armed. Machiavelli says a leader should be armed or else faces the possibility that someone will take over the government. When I hear this statement I think of it to be very true even in modern times, but I don't think Machiavelli is talking about being armed with weapons. I reviewed the essay many times and found no where when Machiavelli says "a leader should be armed with weapons." A good and well respected leader need not be armed with weapons, but with knowledge, particularly in terms of how a lawyer …show more content…
Many great people such as, presidents, judges, kings, queens, lawyers, politicians, anyone who has any power has knowledge. If you have a president who doesn't know what major states to campaign in most likely he won't get enough state votes and will lose the election. Judges who are constantly deciding life or death decisions, if they don't know the meaning of just then he or she won't know how to bring justice and will eventually lose there seat. If you are unarmed then you are in all likelihood to be taken over by some one who is armed.
The question weather a Lawyer should be armed is symbolic. Our lawyer stands for the people, and if he or she were to appear in court not armed with knowledge he or she would give a symbolic message to the world: even if you're not guilty you might not get justice.
Machiavelli plainly says. "Among the other bad effects it causes, being disarmed makes you despised for between an armed man and an unarmed man there is no comparison whatsoever: (para. 2). There is no problem with this statement, it is still relevant in the twentieth century then it was in the sixteenth. In our time the threat of being tried as unjust less likely to happen because more lawyers as well as people are armed with