A not-serious-but-critical review of "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. [You could interpret this fragment in 2 ways, but obviously only one is correct]

When I read "The Prince", I felt like I was reading "FAQ about Princedom". Take note of the length and title of each chapter, and you might agree with me.

Personally speaking, Niccolo Machiavelli is a damn cool name (though "Machiavalentova" would sound cooler), and he makes interesting comments like "It is far safer to be feared than to be loved" and "Fortune is the mistress to half of our actions yet leaves the control of the other half to ourselves", which makes anyone who quotes him feel good. Still, that doesn't immunize his work against critical review.

Since the knowledge of government is a posteriori knowledge, we would expect much of the arguments to be inductive. One example of such argument in his book is:

P: In all the places I have been to and from all the historical documents I have read, inherited Princedoms are more stable than new Princedoms.

C: Therefore all inherited Princedoms are more stable than new Princedoms.

Of course, in his book, this is not so clearly spelled out. He simply states that inherited Princedoms are more stable than new Princedoms, and gives one case of such(although if you look at the example he gave, you can clearly see that it is a hypothesis contrary to fact). That is a weak inductive argument. An example of a strong inductive argument in support of the statement "all inherited Princedoms are more stable than new Princedoms" would be:

P1: Princedom A is inherited, and Princedom A is stable.
P2: Princedom B is inherited, and Princedom B is stable.
-
- (ditto)
-
-
Pn: Princedom n is not inherited, and Princedom n is not stable.
-
-
- (ditto)
-
PN: Princedom N is not inherited, and Princedom N is not stable.

C: Therefore all inherited Princedoms are more stable than new Princedoms.

We can see that making a table of stable/unstable princedoms and comparing their characteristics would make a more convincing argument than just stating a couple of examples, which Machiavelli had done. Nowadays, tables of statistics are necessary for political studies. Just look at all the papers that support the "monadic democracy peace theory". If you put Machiavelli's book next to those papers, "The Prince" would just seem like a collection of opinions. However, note that in his dedication to the Italian Prince, Machiavelli claims that the things he had written in his book are what he has learned and known through a great deal of suffering, danger and hardship. This is supposed to give all the statements in his book the backing of authority on the subject, but this still leaves much of his statements open to doubt.

One example of another type of argument he uses is as such:

If you use mercenaries, there are two possible cases. Case one: the mercenaries are too cowardly and stupid to be of any use in war. Case two: they are so courageous and smart that they would plot against you in war. You do not want either things to happen, therefore you should never use mercenaries.

Clearly a fallacy of false dichotomy.

I apologize in advance to anyone who might be offended by my lack of intellectual humility, but I do wonder how this book became a classic. If this book were so good, why didn't the Italian Prince keep it properly in a secret closet and use it to conquer and control other princedoms, rather than letting it be read by everyone? Kinda interesting, isn't it?

Summary: Quite nice to read, but not very reliable.