“The chief foundations on which all states rest, whether
they are new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms. And since there
cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good
arms there are bound to be good laws, I shall set aside the topic of laws and
talk about arms.” (The Prince pg. 34)
Well, Machiavelli certainly knew how to make something sound
good on first glance. There are many good examples where this works. Take our
own Armed Forces, for example. Even though our law isn’t perfect, it is still
very good and we also have “good arms”. But it didn’t always start that way.
When our country made a stand for itself, compared to England our “arms” were
not the best, yet we were able to break apart and create our own government. This
overrides Machiavelli’s statement that “there cannot be good laws where there
are not good arms.”
Along with that, having “good arms” most definitely does not
mean “there are bound to be good laws.” If we take a glance down history, we
can see many wars that have occurred or that have almost occurred where there
was “good arms” galore on both side. Yet, we would say that the laws of Russia
were not “good” during the Cold War, the laws of the Middle East are not “good”
and the laws of North Korea are not “good”. There are also plenty of areas with
good “arms” which we would consider having bad laws. But then you have to think about what “good
law” is. We have been talking about perspective and law is one of those topics
that could be very different to the eye of the beholder, so to speak. People
whom we think have bad laws could very likely believe that we are the ones with
bad laws, and that could spur a whole other discussion….
So does having a strong military presence with good weaponry
always means there are good laws present ? I would have to say no because of
examples of the past and examples that are fairly current. I will say though, Machiavelli was right when he later talked
about how having a good military can help in position. It definitely helps, and
I by no means want to put down military because I believe the United States
Armed Forces do an incredible job and give up so much for our country. I am a proud supporter of our troops and men
like my brother-in-law that serve the United States and create an environment
where “good law” can take place.
I agree with you. Good arms and a strong disciplinary wing do not necessarily make good laws. It makes good laws possible by reducing chaos, but it doesn't guarantee the quality of those laws. Unfortunately, many people who develop "good arms" become too excited to use them. I think that it is one reason why the United States continues to thrive compared to other countries with a heavy focus on the military. In many other places like pre-revolution Egypt, Pakistan, and Myanmar, there is a celebrification of military leadership, thus giving them undue influence and control over a "civilian" government.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to commend Harrison on his use of "celebrification". Nice.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this quote made me consider what could be meant by the word "good". When we think of good law, we think of it as right, true, valid, moral, etc. So what about good arms? I think Machiavelli is probably talking about strength and power (virtu?), but if we apply the same description of law, then he is describing arms as a moral entity, which I would say is equally as important. I know a lot of military men and women and they're not all perfect. But I think our "arms" are based off of a virtuous foundation, which attributes to the United State's success.
I would say, that Machiavelli is very correct here. You say that because the US did not have a powerful army during the Revolutionary War refutes his statement. But what Machiavelli is saying is that for a city-state, or a growing civilization, it is necessary that they have the means to protect themselves, establish their independence and identity and provide a safe place for democracy of "good laws" to reign. The US had exactly that in the late 1700s. If not, they would not have won the Revolutionary War. Machiavelli was spot on. Those countries and civilizations that have met their downfall, meet their downfall because, in the end, they can't defend themselves. I am not saying that this is the whole story. I do believe that God helped the US win the Revolutionary War; I also believe that He has let a civilization be destroyed because their moral standards have fallen so low. But, from a very practical point of view, winning a war and not winning a war can make the difference. That is why good arms are so important. Without safety and protection, you couldn't hope for anything else, much less democracy and "good laws."
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you here, there is no guaranteed connection between having good laws and good arms. It would be great if the countries with good arms always had good laws, because then there would probably be less violence and conflict in our world. But unfortunately, it is all too easy for laws countries and groups to get a hold of good weapons and much harder for them to develop the good laws that should come first.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this post. The way you talked about how laws can be interpreted differently depending on the person was excellent. I also agree and think that there is definitely no connection between having good arms and having good laws. Recently on the news, there has been talk about theoretical plans for a potential attack from China. That discussion has sparked debates about having an arms race. Two very different countries with very different laws that would both have "good arms". Thank you for posting this. I enjoyed reading it.
ReplyDelete