I'm not sure he belongs on a list of philosophers, but since he's been put here I'll make the best of it.

Probably the political and social theoretician who is most misunderstood by people who have never read his work. I see from some of the other comments left here that this is, unsurprisingly, the case on RIA as well.

Machiavelli understood clearly that without power, nothing can be achieved, either good or ill. He counselled the acquisition and exercise of power in a manner indicating that he understood power in a thoroughly practical way.

He does not, as some attest, counsel tyranny for its own sake. His work has to be read in the context of the time, but having said that, many of his theories are applicable today.

Agree with it or not, "the prince" was highly influential and a fascinating read centuries later. . .

He isn't a philosopher.

Hero of Bush

Essential reading for those who want to get ahead in politics and business, since it's all about manipulating others to your own advantage. Think about it!

I have read a version of the prince in wich the author indirectly translate it from the German and not the original Italian or Latin. He also claims to have deliberately left out certain verses. This was execelent reading but I have not yet read any other of his works. 'The Prince' is the European 'Art of War'. Politcaly he is slightly radicaland moderately hard-line (against extreme hard-line) extreme-right (quasi-fascist): believing in oliarchy, antiutopian (Ch15), mmilitias, opposd to all opponents, elitist (Ch 14+), vigilance, vitalism, antidemocracy, against sozialising pay and nationalizing property (Ch 11+), pro-senate, against gun laws, for low tax + incentives, lassei-faier ecconomics, colinizing, patriotism and buillding a very strong militry. He was pan-Italian wanting to combine all italian speeking nation regardless of their ethnic group or culture. Belives in God, shouting ones friends and treating them (and animals) with respect.

Machiavelli was not insomuch a philosopher as he was a political tactician. Even though he was not a really a philosopher, he did have some great insights have to how a king should maintain his country. Machiavelli separated public and private morality into two different spheres. Biblical morality was fine for family life, but for international politics, moral issues could not tie down what he refers to as "the prince" or the ruler of a principality. Keep in mind that this was the beginning of the Renaissance, he could have been burnt at the stake for writing this stuff, but he wasn't. He got away with this because the Northern Italian city-states where Machiavelli was from were the first ones to get rich from the East-West trade between Europe and the Orient. There was an economic incentive for using whatever means possible in the acquisition of power. He always told his king to be virtuous. An excellent prince should always look after the best interest of his own people. The king should also be a patron of the arts. Whenever he counseled a king to behave in an amoral way, he was doing it in response to aggression by bad people. As much as we don't like it, this is the way the world really is. We submit to the authority of the government and the state does what it needs to do to maintain it's best interests.

To Milliltant