Friendly Debate: The Machiavelli Question

[Wyldercat]

Is it better to be loved or feared as a leader?
What do ye all think? Please be respectful!

[Hakumi]

Ooo...this is interesting.

To put it simply, there needs to be some sort of balance in my opinion of course. If you're feared then you could chase away some good allies or even have a difficult time making 'friends' or building some form of relationship with your fellow followers. If they let their emotions ( main one being fear ) get the best of them, they might turn to someone else and they might consider you as unfair and such. There would be traitors, mistrust, etc.

Then on the other note, if you were loved then, even though it might be good, but some people will start to make assumptions, not seeing that you can tough and you will have an enemy always hidden or even lurking somewhere.

While it is a good thing to be feared, you shouldn't let your followers fear you. Enemies should fear you, to show that you mean business. And while it's best to be loved, it's sometimes good to show some tough love or know when to not let your emotions get the better of you, clouding your judgment.
So again, some sort of balance, if this isn't too confusing...

[ArcticGalaxy]

I'm actually with Hakumi on this one. There does have to be balance. Leaders need to be loved by their people for there to be agreements and such. But they also need to be feared so the people know where their places are, and see said leader as an authority.

[WhiteLightHeart]

Balance is key.. But if there has to be an imbalance, it's better to err on the side of being loved.
I generally tend to think that mankind cannot truly lead or control itself in any perfect way as we are, as there will always be injustices. Man dominates man to his own injury, so to speak, and even the most loved leaders will be forced someday to make decisions that cause them to lose rapport with some of those they'd worked so hard to gain respect from. It's one of the harder pitfalls of being a leader.

Contrastingly, feared leaders may be able to create the biggest shadow and farthest-ranging dominions, however, since fear, adrenaline, and need for self-preservation spreads more readily in subordinate minds than feelings of love created by dopamine and being comforted. Physically speaking, you're more like to get action from a fight-or-flight response than you are to sit down with each one of your subordinates and make them feel special and know that they're loved (in the grand scheme, this is not possible).
So, that said, the great leaders of the world that we remember today have often been the most terribly feared. This isn't to say being feared is easy or that being a loved leader is the absolute best choice. Loved leaders are seen as weak and must gain their respect (and keep it!), while feared leaders will be more likely to have uprising leading to violent ends to their regimes, often with no hope of recovery.

So, I guess the picture I'm painting is one of these:
The loved leader whose power grows slowly, and may be mistaken for being weak more than often, stepped on, and must gain their respect on the basis of powerful interpersonal skills that must be continually honed. If successful, this one may be remembered vaguely in sentimentality. This works at the smaller scale. It is less sympathized with in the larger scale (again, I believe it is because mankind was never meant to rule itself in the first place).
OR
The feared leader whose power is not to be questioned, but will likely be met with force in response, and likely little forgiveness once caught at a disadvantage against rebellion. This one will certainly be remembered for their terror--but they will be remembered. This tactic is used again and again throughout history. It works, but works with dystopian, imbalanced results.

I'd rather err on the side of being loved, even if it means that you will be perceived as weak and face challenges of being misunderstood and occasionally even being stepped on. The strong continue to thrive, and often, the loved leader will grow to develop a rapport of respect with their subordinates that prevents most problems from beginning in the first place, as their subordinates also feel loved and appreciated for what they do.

(But this is just in the big scheme. It's too intricate to discuss in full here. ^^")

[Jango_Fett]

People who love you will fight for you.
People who fear you won't question or rebel against you.

It's great to be loved, but for me, personally, in my current status as a human being.
'Tis better to be feared.

[Wyldercat]

I agree with WarKat.

If balance is not possible, I would go with fear.
No matter how well loved a leader is, there will always be one party disagreein' with them, and whom may attempt t' overthrow 'em. If a leader is feared, the disagreein' party will feel inferior and most likely not attempt an uprisin'.

Also, a feared leader does not necessarily mean an evil or oppressive one. There is such thing as respectful fear. Fer instance, one of my favorite teachers is widely thought to be terrifyin' throughout the school. Many kids dislike her, but not one dare act up in her classroom.

If that makes sense.

[Aclediptus]

Hmm, to what I read so far about Niccolo Machiavelli's work on politics (Mainly 'Il Principe') Is if one were to be a leader, one must find a way to stabilise power and build a political structure that endures. How one would maintain power in their position is not limited to morals, meaning that one must be able and willing to behave immorally for the sake of their power.
So it seems that Machiavelli would say that politics is instrumental, disregarding human morals and their individual lives. It does have its benefits, of course, that is if the political system was a machine and humans were its components. Ho boy, this is going to go deeper into living systems, which is also another interesting topic to talk about.

But, what I can summarise, the 'Machivellian' is basically that jerk who exterminates a nobleman's whole family and smiles at his people since said leader is still holding his position. (I'm bad with metaphors, so I won't bother making one) And because of so, all that I would mention will be in a political view, of which is mechanical.

For the question of being a loved or a feared leader, in a political view I would choose to be a feared leader.

As according to Machiavelli's 'Il Principe' A loved leader would be one who would focus more on one's reputation, which means one would probably have the benefits of being charismatic, corrupting the minds of people for the sake of one's power. But a power like this would be easily overthrown if one does not pay attention towards potential obstacles against power sustainability and do not respond with immediate action, whether it is considered immoral or not.

With the same mindset of the previous, a feared leader would focus more on the manipulation of power, and does not hesitate of one's action, even if it alters the thoughts of their subjects, one would have a lot more control over one's rule, any form of retaliation would be easy to supress but a feared leader may be viewed as an untrustworthy or oppressive character. The opposition against a feared leader could be greater compared to that of a balanced one, inevitably, you'll have to either be assassinated or stand down from your position, for what is a leader without its subjects? You can't just kill off anybody who oppose you.

Just to add, for I see that the Machiavelli point of view is mainly what I would call 'mechanic', I would like to explain why it is so, and to further explain about complex systems:
The view of the world as a living entity cannot be implemented with the rationalised thinking of the human political system, in which is mechanical. Thus, morals, emotions, and individuality is irrelevant. Automatically, the best option is to be governed by a feared leader that follows a hierarchically designed body. Humans be humans, eh? Always with the rationalising.
In truth, we can't have the grand scheme of mechanising everything to work as effectively as possible, since the world is a living entity of dynamic interactions between organisms, that means building a hierarchy based on separating and identifying each component is unnecessary and impractical, because unlike instruments, an organism has overlapping and interrelating functions.

Gee, this has been fun to think about, this also helps with thinking out what sort of political system a dystopian world would use and formulating your own political systems. I'm not used to writing, most of what I have explained might be completely irrelevant to the original topic since I just type whatever comes to my mind. Tell me if I'm wrong with anything.

All the previous posts are also great, balance is definitely a necessity. WhiteLight definitely thought it out quite well, I'd like to mention that the first paragraph is indeed similar to what I have mentioned about the views of the world as a machine or as a living entity. And the views of fear as being a negative is also something to note, since it would mean to take matters non-ethically.

[D-ead7Dog]

I agree with just about all that was written above. I use to think being feared as a leader made me strong and wise. It didn't take me until just a few years ago that being loved as a leader is just as strong.

Yes, it is true that they may even rebel against you. But sometimes even being a nice [whatever you want to call loved] leader can sometimes have someone rebel against you either way.  There will always be someone [regardless if you are loved or feared] who will rebel. The real question is if you will make the right choices or not weather you are loved or feared.