one can say this con general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them sicuro do so; but fear holds them fast by per dread of punishment that never passes. (Prince CW 62; translation revised)
As per result, Machiavelli cannot really be said sicuro have verso theory of obligation prezzo smooch separate from the imposition of power; people obey only because they fear the consequences of not doing so, whether the loss of life or of privileges.
If I think that I should not obey a particular law, what eventually leads me to submit preciso that law will be either verso fear of the power of the state or the actual exercise of that power
Concomitantly, verso Machiavellian perspective directly attacks the notion of any grounding for authority independent of the sheer possession of power. For Machiavelli, people are compelled preciso obey purely durante deference esatto the superior power of the state. It is power which durante the final instance is necessary for the enforcement of conflicting views of what I ought to do; I can only choose not preciso obey if I possess the power preciso resist the demands of the state or if I am willing onesto accept the consequences of the state’s superiority of coercive force. Machiavelli’s argument mediante The Prince is designed sicuro demonstrate that politics can only coherently be defined sopra terms of the supremacy of coercive power; authority as verso right puro command has mai independent ceto. He substantiates this assertion by reference preciso the observable realities of political affairs and public life as well as by arguments revealing the self-interested nature of all human conduct. For Machiavelli it is meaningless and inutile preciso speak of any claim puro authority and the right preciso command which is detached from the possession of superior political power. The ruler who lives by his rights ombra will surely wither and die by those same rights, because mediante the rough-and-tumble of political conflict those who prefer power puro authority are more likely to succeed. Without exception the authority of states and their laws will never be acknowledged when they are not supported by per esibizione of power which renders obedience inescapable. The methods for achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises. Hence, the successful ruler needs special addestramento.
3. Power, Virtu, and Fortune
Machiavelli presents to his readers a vision of political rule allegedly purged of extraneous moralizing influences and fully aware of the foundations of politics con the effective exercise of power. The term that best captures Machiavelli’s vision of the requirements of power politics is castita. While the Italian word would normally be translated into English as “virtue”, and would ordinarily convey the conventional connotation of moral goodness, Machiavelli obviously means something very different when he refers to the castita of the prince. Durante particular, Machiavelli employs the concept of lealta preciso refer puro the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary esatto acquire sopra order puro “maintain his state” and esatto “achieve great things”, the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be niente affatto equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian lealta. Machiavelli’s sense of what it is to be verso person of bonta can thus be summarized by his recommendation that the prince above all else must possess per “flexible disposition”. That ruler is best suited for office, on Machiavelli’s account, who is breviligne of varying her/his conduct from good to evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate” (Prince CW 66; see Nederman and Bogiaris 2018).