**********************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
Moderator: Paul John Barnette Jr.
Activation Date: March 8, 1997
Current Date:  August 21, 1997
Current Membership: 100
**********************************

I found Mr. Williams' comments very appropriate and to the point. 
I also appreciate the comments of Alder/Weisman, and would like to 
make a few of my own comments on their postings.  Alder/Weisman, I 
believe, have made the claim that:  the end of the state is justice 
through the securing of rights; that the desire for power is 
inherently wrong; that ethics is an important issue, and one that 
Machiavelli deals with inadequately; and that the social contract is 
one of the obvious errors of modernity.  These are the claims about 
which I would like to raise some concerns.  

Aristotle may have believed that the purpose of the state is justice,
through the securing of natural rights.  Machiavelli, I believe, is 
saying something different: that the purpose of state is peace-a 
civil society.  Machiavelli doesn't seem to believe in natural rights 
at all, and in fact would side with Thrasymachus of he Republic in 
saying, "justice is the advantage of the stronger."  As Mr. Williams 
put it, in the history of politics, the granting of rights to others 
was done always in self-interest, and in the name of political 
expediency, not justice based on natural rights.  The Bill of Rights 
was ratified, not declared, thus making it a contractual document, an 
agreement between people to grant certain rights, not a declaration 
that those rights are natural.  Truly, the declaration of natural 
rights has not brought out justice, but has many times been a 
substitute for public consent and democratic process.  (ex. The 
declaration of right to privacy in Roe v. Wade)    

In this political theory, based on the self interest of the sovereign,
justice is only an issue in terms of peace.  Peace allows men to 
pursue happiness, or the best life, without having to fight one 
another constantly.  Justice is the obedience to laws agreed upon by 
the people.  As Hobbes puts it, "justice is nothing but the 
performance of a covenant."  But does Machiavelli's Prince have an 
ethical issue to deal with?  No, not besides the issue of political 
expediency.  The only duty of the Prince is to maintain power, 
thereby maintaining peace in his kingdom.  This is what Machiavelli 
means when he says that the only art of the prince is war.  He must 
punish lawbreakers and provide for national defense, in order to hold 
power.  The subjects obey laws, in fear of the sovereign's power, and 
order exists.  But what about tyrants?  Are there no rules at all for 
the sovereign?  Yes, there are, because the sovereign must please is 
people to some degree, in order to maintain the peace, or his own 
power.  Mr. Williams pointed out two examples that illustrated this 
point very well:  the French revolution, and the granting of suffrage 
to disenfranchised Americans.  In both cases, the government granted 
the people's wishes not based on natural ethics, but on political 
expediency.  If the wishes of the vast majority of people had been to 
have the right to self respect or anything else, the government would 
have considered it in terms of the effect in would have on their 
power, not in term of right and wrong.

I hope this post is not too long or boring, but I had hoped to
establish that while Machiavelli may be speaking from a classical 
viewpoint, he is introducing many new ideas, and, in the political 
realm, throwing old many old ones, such as natural rights and natural 
obligation of the sovereign to any good or just action.

Jeremy John  

*********************************************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
pbarnett@geocities.com
The Western Canon WWW Site
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6681/index.html
*********************************************************