Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Rousseau

Introduction to Political Theory Exam #1
The general will or the prince? When considering which state would be the most ideal to live in, one might find deciding between the aforementioned concepts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Niccolo Machiavelli, respectively, to be an utterly difficult task. I find that a society in which Rousseau’s general will operates in its best capacity is far superior to that with an ideal prince as its leader.
To begin, the general will must be defined in order for the advantages of a society using the concept of the general will to be evident. The general will happens when an entire body has alienated themselves and put the will of the body above their own private interests. In other words, an individual does what is best for the body, because as part of the body, if any portion of the body were to suffer in some way, regardless of whether or not the individual contributed to the problem, the individual will still suffer, because he is a part of the body. By the same logic, if the general will is operating in its best capacity, and the body experienced something positive that the individual did not contribute to, the individual would still benefit, because he is a part of the body. The prince, on the other hand, is one person, focused on his own agenda. …show more content…
The will of the people does not matter. Machiavelli’s prince is unbelievably self-preserving. For example, the prince must be absolutely engulfed by war at all times, and if he is not, he must be paranoid that he soon will be. A believer in the prince would argue that this focus on war is beneficial to the citizens of this society. This would be true if the self-preservation extended beyond himself and to his subjects. Nothing matters to the prince so long as he is still the prince when the dust settles. If we were to continue on the subject of war in the society with Rousseau’s general will, we will discover that the alienated body would be “soldiers by duty, none by profession.” Who needs to hire soldiers when you have a state whose members are inherently passionate about the state they belong to? With that being said, the society with the ideal prince as its leader would require significantly more oppressive measures. This is because Machiavelli explains that it is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both feared and loved. Of course, Machiavelli also explains that the prince must not be cruel, only in situations where it is absolutely necessary. I would argue that “absolutely necessary” is far too subjective. One must feel significantly uncomfortable with a leader who seeks fear from his subjects; a leader who, at any point in time, could lash out at his subjects for no reason whatsoever. The general will, not so shockingly, prevents this sort of terror from happening. The body will always have the best interest of the body in mind. Obviously the state that requires more oppressive measures in keeping the state together would offer less civic freedoms for its subjects. In order for the prince to preserve his state, civil freedoms can be taken as easily as their given, because the only thing that matters is himself. It would be easy to argue that an alienated body gives up all civil freedoms once they are alienated, however, it is the exact opposite. Rousseau perfectly encapsulates how the general will offers civil