Ah, an interesting topic that I can use as a break from an entire day of trudging through the collected works of Nicolo
Machiavelli. *rolls up his sleeves*
Quote by Celessa- Do you feel
that you can work better by yourself, or through teamwork?
- Given a group project, or a presentation to display at school for example - would you prefer to rather work with
others in a group, or all alone here, under your current situation?
I feel that this question
ultimately boils down to a question of how much trust you have in others. For example, I served as the
Secretary-General for the model United Nations conference hosted by my university's International Affairs Society
this year, and though I had plenty of people to delegate responsibility to in the secretariat, the logistical staff, and
the individual committees, in the end all of the work of the conference was shouldered by myself and two of my closest
friends, who served as Director-General and Director for Finances, respectively.
Entire weeks of school were missed by the three of us in finalizing everything for the conference, and the week of the
conference was one long series of all-nighters. In the end, it was a brilliant success, because we had personally
overseen every last detail of the conference; I cannot guarantee that we would have had the same amount of success had
we delegated more responsibility to our staff, as we would have had to have trusted them to be able to take care of
everything with the same degree of precision as we had, and when it comes to running a major conference, there is little
room for error.
However, there are a number of problems with this, as it is clear that the three of us cannot shoulder the burden again
because we were barely able to make up all of the academic work that we set aside in order to undertake such a major
endeavor. Furthermore, if the size of the conference increases, it is clear that we will simply be overwhelmed.
Therefore, at a certain point greater delegation and groupwork will become necessary.
Quote: - Should society be based mostly on collaboration, independence, or
an equal balance of both out there? In realistic terms, why did you choose that decision?
Probably
because I've spent the past eight hours reading through Discourses on the First
Decade of Titus Livius all I can think of as a response to this question are a number of observations made my
Machiavelli in the Discourses.
Freedom, noted Machiavelli, is best preserved in a state established by an individual and maintained by a republic, as
the individuals have the influence by which to establish good laws while the people best know how to preserve their own
freedom.
Republics, however, are by definition slow and inefficient because every decision made must be reviewed and approved by
others, and therefore in terms of emergency, it is necessary for republican government to be replaced temporarily by
principality in order for essential activities to be carried out with the greatest efficiency and effectiveness. It is
for this reason that Machiavelli praised the institution of the dictatorship in the pre-Gracci Roman Republic so highly,
as in general practice, the Senate, respresenting the patricians, and the Tribunes, representing the people, were able
to govern the society and maintain the freedom of the Roman people, but in times of dire emergency, a dictator could be
chosen by the Consuls to order things for the duration of a year.
Arms and authority, when excercised within the prescriptions of the law, are an inherent good, and thus while dictators
acted within their constitutional bounds, the system worked extremely well. It wasn't until the balance between
the patrician and plebian orders was disturbed through measures such as the Agrarian law that the system was able to be
exploited by personalities such as Caesar, who was able to ignore or bend laws as he pleased, ultimately leading to the
end of the Republic and the freedom of the Roman people, at least in the eyes of Machiavelli.
Whether it's because my waking hours have been devoured by Machiavelli or because of my genuine belief, I feel that
Machiavelli is correct; republican forms of government are excellent in preserving the rights and freedom of their
people, but because of the gridlock and inefficiency inherent in the system when emergencies arise, such as threats to
the common defense or to the solvency of the state, less inefficient forms of governance are not only preferable, but
crucial.
Thanks, Celessa, for the interesting diversion! And with that, it seems as if it's time for me to dive back into
Machiavelli, though this time into the Florentine Histories. Wish me luck ;)
