13 Comments
Yuxiang Zhao
10/11/2023 08:20:16 pm
The statement "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both." is extremely accurate when it comes to government and politics. Sadly, humans aren’t perfect and don't tend to work uniformly at all. People are selfish, greedy, and have different opinions on how everything should run, so conflict occurs all the time. Political leaders have to be rough and powerful to unify everyone, being nice and loved will only please a portion of the population you govern, while the other half might revolt or cause trouble for things they don’t disagree on. Throughout history, in all regions of the world, from the Mongol Empire all the way to WWII, people fought for authority, territories, and very much everything. Gaining authority has never needed any being loved for vote nonsense. It is always who’s the most powerful and in control. Government politicians were never fully at peace, not even today. They constantly fight each other, and try to be the most powerful and fearful to gain more control.
Tyler Huynh
10/11/2023 10:26:54 pm
The quote "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both" is greatly accurate. Although one may be loved by many, there will always be a few people who express contempt towards them. In contrast to this, an individual has the capacity to instill fear in as many individuals as they want. Therefore, feared rulers tend to extend their power over a larger percentage of the population than loved rulers. Furthermore, this statement is supported by the rise of empires in the past. For instance, the Mongols, having been ruled by Genghis Khan, a man feared by many, established the largest contiguous empire, showing how fear is good in politics. Through Genghis Khan's reputation, many empires knelt before him without even putting up a fight, allowing for easy expansion of territory. All in all, being feared and having a tough skin is very good in politics.
Omar Meza
10/12/2023 06:35:18 pm
The saying "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both" is incredibly true. There will always be a small number of people who express disdain for someone, despite the fact that they may be adored by most. In contrast to this, a person has the power to frighten as many people as they desire. Consequently, feared monarchs have a tendency to reign over a greater proportion of the populace than liked rulers. The past expansion of empires is further evidence for this claim. For instance, the Mongols, who were governed by the feared Genghis Khan, built the biggest contiguous empire, demonstrating the value of fear in politics.
Emma Xi
10/13/2023 11:56:21 am
The statement "It is better to be feared than loved if one cannot be both" is extremely accurate when it comes to government and politics. When a leader rules with love, there will always be contempt from the citizens no matter how well the leader rules. There will always be at least one person that hates that government, and there's nothing the government can do about it. However, when ruling with fear, everyone is fearful of the government. According to Machiavelli, the original speaker of the quote, obedience due to love and affection is unreliable, while obedience due to fear is not. A kind and generous government can always be taken advantage of, while the a fearful government drives the citizens to obedience. People are inherently disloyal: even some couples who have been married for decades cheat and can be unfaithful to each other. A great historical example that fear is better is the Mongol Empire; the Mongols conquered land with brutal war tactics, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. The Mongols were so feared that cities often surrendered beforehand so that the citizens could be spared. The Mongols also created the largest continuous land empire in history, and they were definitely not loved by those they conquered.
Emma Xi
10/13/2023 11:57:02 am
Second source: 10/13/2023 06:03:01 pm
The statement, "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both," is very accurate when it comes to governance and politics. For example, in communist Russia, Joseph Stalin exterminated people in the Communist party, army, and the general population that he thought opposed his reign. As a result, Stalin was able to create a stable society with people who, out of fear, swore allegiance to him and communism. He was also able to easily modernize Russia by enacting harsh punishments on workers who usually could not meet the strict expectations of production, thus creating fear and dramatically increasing agricultural production via collectivization and manufacturing production, such as steel, coal, and oil. Therefore, political leaders like Stalin were able to bolster economic growth and create political stability in their state, implying that the statement regarding governance and politics is very true.
Yau Wei Ng
10/14/2023 09:51:13 pm
The statement "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot both" is very accurate based on government an politics. For example, back in ancient times, the Mongols showed ruthlessness in their conquest and eventually resulted in the largest contiguous land empire in the world to this day. As a result of the Mongols being feared more than loved, it lead to them being one of the most powerful empires during the 1200s to 1450s controlling many trade routes, influencing an increase of trade due to their immense presence on the Silk Road and the fear of the Mongols enforcing laws upon the Silk Road making it safer. Therefore, it is better to be feared than loved is very accurate based on government and politics.
Yau Wei Ng
10/14/2023 09:52:21 pm
Yau Wei Ng
Kaynell Chewachong
10/15/2023 12:08:14 pm
When it comes to governance and politics, the statement "It is better to be feared than loved if one cannot be loved" is very accurate. While one can be loved by their subjects it can also lead to revolts against those in charge as they feel that their actions are unpunishable as there isn't enough power for the leading figure. However, being feared allows for power to control and create a peaceful society as they have full authority over subjects. The Mongols are an ideal example of this, as they were aggressive in fights against other empires, cementing their authority across most of Asia. Their fierce battles frightened many and people would often surrender at the mere sight of them at their gates. Therefore, Machiavelli's statement that it is better to be feared than loved if one cannot be both is very accurate as they have firm authority over their people.
Shahid Huda
10/17/2023 03:51:04 pm
The quote "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both." can be applied to governance and politics to a high degree. For instance, the Mongols instilled fear in their future targets, they mercilessly slaughtered many more people than was necessary as a result of their knowledge that stories of the event would spread to the next city, thus leading to an early surrender. Additionally, Genghis Khan himself used fear to unite the nomadic tribes of Mongolia into the vast Mongol empire. He used fear instead of love because fear is a more effective motivator. It is much easier to kill people than to construct something meaningful enough to convince an entire city to surrender.
Aaron Joseph
10/17/2023 05:23:53 pm
The saying, "It is better to be feared than to be loved if one cannot be both" is extremely accurate when it comes to government and politics. Within the course of history, there have been a plethora of examples where leaders have demonstrated that maintaining control through fear can be more effective for a government than striving to be loved. A primary example of this would be the Mongols, led by Genghis Khan. He built their massive empire by instilling fear and using brutal force rather than seeking the love of those they conquered. According to sources, the Mongol cavalry, were known to be, "the most skilled and feared in history". This highlights the idea that the fear of their power often held more than the desire for their love. This proves to show that even in governance and politics, to instill is fear is better than to be loved.
Sophia Hernandez
11/5/2023 08:05:54 pm
It is truly better to be feared than loved, if not able to be both in governance and politics. In an ideal world, being loved would be the best way to govern, and in a less but still moderately ideal world where both can be done, being both loved and feared would be a good way to govern as well, however in the world we live in, if one cannot be both, to be feared is better. It is nearly impossible to be loved by all, so a leader who is loved by all is one who focuses too much on trying to please everyone rather than actually implementing plans that are for the best of the population. Although being a feared leader is a harsher circumstance than being loved, it is infinitely more effective towards the future. Fear instills a sense of motivation for people, and while being loved creates admiration, motivation gets actual work done. A good example was Peter the Great, who ruled from 1682 to 1725 over Russia. Peter the great was known for being harsh and instilled much fear in his population. However during this time, he made significant reforms and changed Russia for the better. He remodeled their army, expanded the Russian Orthodox Church, was open and welcoming to foreigners, and also giving more power to the Senate and colleges. The state of Russia became more educated, globally involved, and wealthy. Another good example was the Mongol Empire. The Mongols, and specifically Genghis Khan as a leader, were known for instilling fear in their enemies and those around them and this helped them to create the continuous largest land-based empire the world has ever known. They implemented the aspect of fear in their extremely strong fighting skills, discipline in their populations, intimidation of enemies, and unity. The Mongols united the largest land-based empire through their reign of fear. Although it would be nice in a world where being loved makes things happen, it does not work nearly as well as being feared. As shown by Peter the Great, Mongol rulers (especially Genghis Khan), and many other rulers throughout time, being a feared leader increases a nation's power and facilitates progress. 11/8/2023 09:37:32 am
Being feared when governing in politics is very important since people having fear causes them to obey the higher ups. This is true to a significant extent because causing fear is the number one thing most successful emperors and rulers caused and provoked to everyone, even to other empires when fighting in wars. Another thing is that people having fear is very helpful when controlling different parts of empires because everyone will listen and follow the laws. Leave a Reply. |
RULES1. Respond to the MOST RECENT discussion question or another student's comment within that feed. Archives
November 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed