Macchiavelli Liberty
Machiavelli’s Liberty and Our Modern Conception “…for it is seen from experience that Cities never increased either in dominion or wealth except while they had been free. ... From the onset of this text, Machiavelli insisted that the best way for a state to be governed was by setting up a Republic, as this was the surest way of achieving the ultimate goal of any society – The liberty of the people. This essay will not only discuss the ideology behind Machiavelli’s conception of liberty, comparing it with the modern notions of liberty present in today’s political and social context, but also identify and contrast the various dangers that pose a threat to both these Machiavellian and modern conceptions. In addition, it will examine the methods that are necessary towards maintaining these forms of liberty. Before any discussion on liberty is to ensue, we should first understand why Machiavelli believed a Republican state would lay the foundations for which freedom could be achieved and maintained. ... A Republic, where ‘people were the Prince’, was the best guarantee of maintaining the freedom and security of a state in the long run, thus providing the ideal conditions in which liberty of the people could be accomplished. Machiavelli’s idea of liberty was based on one primary principle: that the people need to have the right to self-government at any cost. Indeed, he maintained that the pursuit of this liberty excused any measures that helped bring it about: “where the entire safety of the country is to be decided, there ought not to exist any consideration of what is just or unjust, nor what is merciful or cruel, nor what is praiseworthy or ignominious; rather, ahead of every other consideration, that proceeding ought to be followed which will save the life of the country and maintain its liberty. ... He believed in what we may call positive liberty; in having a system that advocated a method of participation in a country’s decision making. ... This is a departure from the modern conception of liberty, which is largely defined in today’s democracies as an individual political ‘right’, achieved and protected by a constitution, or a predetermined set of laws. There is no longer a pursuit of liberty but an expectation of it. The American perceptions of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, of the press and of religion (which is now largely taken for granted), are all examples of negative liberty – a system of guarantees for the individual citizen. ... While the former defines liberty to be the right of every citizen to do specific things and be provided with the necessary means for this; the latter, as we are all more familiar with, perceives liberty to be the right of every citizen to have freedom from unwarranted constraint in doing what one wants.