The Battle of Royal Figures against Social Contract

In this esssay, I will explain Machiavelli’s Prince and Rousseau’s Social Contract. What are they talking about their books, What are the aim of their books,How is a state for them, I will introduce it with my commands and with references, at the end of the essay. Firstly, I researched the period of their times to understand what is the aim, exactly and I got some information about it. Let’s start with Machiavelli’s period; Machiavelli's book was written by Lorenzo de Medici, who was a member of the Medici family who ruled Florence at the time but Lorenzo wasn't interested, it wasn't. When the Prince of Machiavelli wrote, the cities of Italy were in Turmoil. The weakness of the administration, the social still, the moral regression, the proposition of the sensitive patriots were reached. The church's relations with the state and the individual could not be denied. Machiavelli, above all, directed the goal of realizing the Italian unity. He believed that this goal could be achieved by strengthening and stabilizing existing city-states. His main desire was to stabilize the city of Florence, where he became a citizen. For this reason, he defended the absolute monarchy and wrote to guide the leaders of the Prince. In the book, the prince, that is, managers, are in the form of expressions.

Niccolo Machiavelli spoke about how power should come to power, how power should be used after its arrival, and how it should be called on all Italians. Especially, the Medici family, by demonstrating the goal of Italian unity. The author also provided information on how a prince should behave and what features should be found. In Machiavelli's work, for the first time in the history of political writing, the expression of problems such as how the power was captured and protected without moral or religious concern made the study striking. The author has a different policy approach than the traditional one. In this context, he has developed a new ethical-policy relationship. The theory he developed is based on the principle that the prince can go beyond morality and do everything in its power to preserve power. In this sense, it forms the basis of modern political philosophy. This book, written in 1813, has been the answer to many questions in political terms even today. The book deeply influenced a large number of statesmen and influenced fascinating statesmen such as Napoleon and Mussolini. For this reason, it has been the bedside books of famous rulers and philosophers for years.

Period of Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du Contrat was published in Paris in 1762 with his social title work. In this work, the author followed the call of the French revolutionaries and asked for a republic with the right to a general election. He supported the rights of citizens to equality, liberty, and brotherhood. The work is one of the classical works of political theory and political philosophy. In the book written in four books, the political First Book provides a suitable ground for the establishment of a legitimate political order; With the Second Book, the origin and functions of the dominant structure in such an order; The Third Book of means the functions of the secondary government, which takes all its power and power from the dominant structure; The Fourth Book Kitap addresses various issues related to the functions of civil religion and a righteous society, in particular by suggesting the example of the Roman state. It is also worth noting that the sub-title of the book is the Rights of K. Niccolò di Bernado dei Machiavelli, the founder of history and political science, was also a statesman, military strategist, poet and playwright. The ideas of the author, who had fought for the ideal of unity of Italy throughout his life, were seen as an expression of a totally negative and unprincipled political ambition, as was the case in his political writing. In this work, for the first time in the history of political writing, he examined a problem such as the taking and protection of power as an end in himself without considering religious or moral concerns. Due to the fact that the work was written during the turmoil in Florence, Machiavelli thinks that a determined ruler with absolute power can overcome all the problems. The views expressed in the prince are usually about how a sovereign can keep its sovereignty standing and how the sovereign can be further strengthened. In this work, Machiavelli tried to classify the prince, the power, by gathering under the narrow molds and collecting under a large number of topics.

Rousseau's fundamental interests, which dominate almost all of the book, exhibit a normative character, and the issues in which this normative approach can be seen most clearly apparent in the axis of the nature and basis of legitimacy norm and justice men and right. In this sense, the study of the political structures that should exist against the existing political structures can be seen as the main purpose of the book.

Rousseau begins by determining that this important work, which is called Social Contract, requires us to come together in a society and that we are not self-sufficient as individuals. But when we come together in society, we naturally do not want to be subjugated at the cost of maintaining our lives. Freedom in this sense is an essential human need, the most important indicator of humanity. Thus, according to Rousseau, living in a pure life without freedom does not necessarily represent human life. In this context, Rousseau calls people to come together on the basis of freedom, to create the sovereignty structure in order to bring together all the people, that is, the authority structure, which binds people to some extent, to adopt the law with their own desires.

In these examples, we see the difference in the first one that the guy concern about administration of state and statesmen and the other one is concern about freedom,individuals rights and human rights,etc… If I examine the content in headlines, Machiavelli's priority begins to focus on the types of the principality. He refers to the principle of the principality that he has divided into two, which is obtained through succession and is a new one. We see the difficulties, deficiencies, and mistakes of the two principality types in terms of preserving power. There are also recommendations on how to overcome the challenges faced by these principals and how they can be sustained. While explaining these, the author gives examples of European political systems, especially in his own country. In later chapters, Machiavelli focuses on how the principalities were captured and their varieties. In general, he explains how he can be captured by force of arms, skill or skill, luck, and chivalry, and what kind of governance these princes have after the capture. This is one of the main points that Machiavelli distinguishes between politics and ethics. On the other hand, he categorizes the princesses of private individuals such as clergymen and expresses how to become a prince. To be the prince and other titles will be carried out at the same time. We can see that the differences between the religious person, the rank of a religious soldier, and the principle of the ordinary person are different. The author gives information about the prince's duties and responsibilities. The prince must be compassionate, able to understand the other, to be honest, and trustworthy. But the power of the Prince must allow very little to be truly merciful. According to the author, the prince must exhibit a measured generosity and to avoid excessive stinginess. As for the other qualities to be found in the play: All princes must want to be notoriously merciless but to avoid the abuse of compassion. The prince has to adjust the balance between being a feared and a loved one.

The people should fear the present but they should also feed her love not to hate. Machiavelli, who uses the example of a lion and fox as the prince's features, emphasizes that the prince must be a cunning fox to realize the traps and a lion-like warrior to fight his enemies. The prince, who must be a public figure and a people's man, should be able to do all kinds of unethical acts when necessary for the survival of the state. For the sake of the state, sometimes it may be inevitable to deceive the citizen. The prince has to be very sensitive about his alleged pause. In some cases, the return of the prince's promise may be in question. This situation promises to give up the promise of his promise to give up the end of this situation. The author mentions that the prince must avoid humiliation and hatred. Machiavelli emphasizes that the prince does not have to comply with religious ethics in order to realize his political goals. The author accepted the religious institution in terms of the social benefit he would provide and believed that religion would make it easier to provide dominance over people and that it was a force that kept people together. In the Prince, where morality is redefined politically, it is emphasized that the importance of good or bad is not important. In the last chapters of the book, the author explains with examples how the princes of Italy lost states and calls on Italy to free the barbarians.

In the first part of the book, Machiavelli comes from an aristocratic family and divides them into two groups; Thus, they are compared with each other by specifying the wrong and missing of these two flanks. Here, the inheritance of the principals seized by the inheritance of power in terms of protection of the newly seized states may face fewer difficulties. On the other hand, he stated that the difficulties faced by the mixed principals who had seized power in power would be conducive to prolonging the period of their power. He says that this feature will not exist in the principalities seized by succession. The Machiavelli also advises the princes on how to overcome the difficulties encountered after the capture of these principles and what should be done to ensure their long-lasting power. He tries to concretize this by giving examples of how he should be by explaining the political systems of other European countries, especially his own country.

In Chapter 1 the subject of the book is discussed. Expresses the social order and what is a natural right based on reconciliation. Section 2, explains the definition of natural desire and compromise by sampling. If there is protection in the middle of similar interest and the union is provided, this is a consensus. If they all get back together, that's natural, der Rousseau. ‘When making the definitions, it makes sense to place them on a reasonable floor and begin to deteriorate. No,because everyone is born equal and free, they can only release their freedom for the sake of benefit.’’

Yes, Rousseau proves this with a just example. But freedom should not be traded, there is nothing to be overlooked. This should not be for economic reasons. Naturally, if slaves exist, it is because of the nature of slavery. ‘’His first slaves created brute force, and the slavery of slavery continued with cowardice. ‘’ In short, Aristotle takes my sermon, but as a reason. Were people hungry and wild, even if the heart was not covered by evil, would it try to tame people, to put a commodity on it? Here we see the liberal side of Rousseau. To get rid of slavery; Is it necessary to change people with slaves or not?

As we back to Social Contract, ”He cannot always be strong enough to remain sovereign unless he turns his most powerful power into law and head-to-head. ”As we are talking about law, it is like demonstrating democracy from Roman Law to us, but when it comes to head-bending, it is like totalitarianism. Thus, people do not engage in covert activities. they are also found to benefit society. It is also easier to control and dominate, as they do not engage in covert activities. ‘’Since no man has a natural authority over another man, and brute force does not constitute a law, there will be contracts between people as the basis of legal competence. ‘’ the equality of the abstract becomes concrete and there is indeed equality. In other words, it cannot crush people because it is strong. Because there is a contract in the middle. He also mentions in the future, pieces of information on the structure of the state. In this section, he discusses and discusses the actions of enslaving a community and managing society. Of course, because of the contract, he says that the majority of votes (democratic) and governing the community are or good. ‘‘Of course, first of all, the reason is to be a force in the face of the obstacles of what the social contract and so to be together.

In the matter of freedom; We give our rights to govern with the contract, the management is the strongest with the rights we have given - legally, thanks to the contract that I have managed so that the most powerful work on behalf of us in the works, so that or everyone gets all the money for each lost it gains great power. ”

Of course, Rousseau, in general though, but not within their own borders for a city-state has expressed. Except for the exceptions, ‘’the supreme administration of the general claim.’’ cannot always benefit its citizens. The social contract is in effect but the economy is like this section is about sovereignty with a number of explanations.

The sovereign is the sum of persons for the same reason as the one I mentioned about freedom in the previous chapter. Rousseau says that it shouldn't be possible for them to do something to their detriment. But although he was a thinker who had enlightened the century after himself, he did not think about the big economic system, and global capitalism had not been formed, and he was fooled by the fact that he was already interested in what he should be in. To give an example from today, if the sovereign does not harm the general; Is the attitude of our power that keeps the amount of raise in 2010 lower than the increase in the amount of raise made to officials and in the interest of the people?

‘’If we obey our own will, our slave is freedom to bow to the laws we have set for ourselves.’’But did he know that Rousseau; every ruling power can change the law itself in order to protect itself or in line with its own cultural characteristics. He's working there. therefore, others respect those who do this. But a tyrant who doesn't respect him can come and take all his labor from this person. This problem is already solved by the community contract and the property is legally protected. According to Rousseau, this right is more important than other rights.

In Chapter 9, ‘’J.Jack, who makes a basic description of the term and makes statements, concludes with the book; people are equal in contract and law, even though they are not equal in power and intelligence. In my opinion, Rousseau is a thinker who illuminates the liberal system. In his work, because he deals with a democratic city-state rather than a representative democracy or a law-based monarchy, he may have made some mistakes as he draws a structure based on spiritual elements. But when I think of its age, I think it's far enough to illuminate the next century.

In the second chapter, in the work of Machiavelli, he explained the principle of capturing principals and their kinds. He advocated that they could be captured by arms, skill or skill, luck, and chastity, and gave them princes the way to adopt a way of governance after the capture of these princes. At this point, it seems that the author does not care much about the connection between ethics and politics, and this is the reaction of his contemporaries. According to him, the Prince must be compassionate, reliable, understanding, honest and trustworthy. But the power of the Prince must allow very little to be truly merciful. At this stage, the author, with the virtues, skills, and abilities of the prince, difficult to reach the principality, but easily protect; some of the difficulties that they face in order to reach the principality comes from the new institutions and regulations that they have to establish in order to ensure their security. At this point, the author says, with the support of luck, the prince does not spend much effort, but they have to make a lot of effort to protect their place. In other words, they encounter no obstacles on the way, because they pass by, but when they reach their original place, all the difficulties arise. Machiavelli tried to come to a conclusion by revealing the difference between them by making a comparison between the principals in the form of conquest.

In these parts, there is a prince in Prince and there are slaves in Social Contract. On the other hand, he has evaluated in a very specific way how special people, clerics, and militia forces will categorize their princehood. They expressed what they would encounter with these people as princes with their titles and how they would adopt a management style. In a sense, prince and other titles to create an image of how to create a reader opens. Being an ordinary prince, a prince with special abilities, being a prince with high religious rituals or being a prince at the point of religion and being a prince, the differences between the rank of prince and a prince, offers us by analyzing.

First one is telling that about statesman should be pressure on the government to public and the other one is telling that about how brute force creates slaves that’s why I chose this books to show that how it is contradictions between each other. In the third and final chapter of the book, Machiavelli focuses on the tasks that the prince should be able to do and the qualities that should be the prince. In this respect, the author argues that the prince has a number of responsibilities and responsibilities in social and political fields, especially in the military field. According to him, san the prince's only purpose should be war, martial art, the rules of this art and its specific rules and discipline-specific to him, there should not be any other goal, idea or art outside of them. Because it is the only art and skill that is expected from a commander of command and command. Em In another respect, he tells the prince to display a measured generosity and to avoid excessive stinginess. When it comes to the other qualities that the prince should have: All the princes must want to be known not as ruthless but as compassionate, but this must avoid abuse of compassion.

It is also claimed that the Prince must be very sensitive about his alleged pause and in some cases, he may be able to return from the prince's promise. This situation promises to give up the promise of his promise to give up the end of this situation. The author mentions the necessity of avoiding humiliation and hatred about how the prince's characteristics are.

Niccolo Machiavelli, with this work, has been history as an important political theorist in the history of thought. In his work, he formed the basis of political science and gained an important place in political philosophy. Although the work was written on behalf of the Medici family and advised to establish Italian unity, it was a guide for many monarchs in the history of the world. The focus of Machiavelli's recommendations is that the prince should preserve power and consider the survival of the state. In doing so, the prince must be able to go beyond ethics and be able to do everything necessary. Although Machiavelli was not interested in the period when the work was written, he believed and defended the accuracy of his writings despite not being cared for by the ruler of the time. The Prince, who has a fluent and simple narrative in his language, has gained importance in the following periods and has been accepted as one of the most basic works which gained a universal dimension and gained the philosophy of the world by the whole world.

As a result, Niccolo Machiavelli has worked in this study to explain how a prince (ruler), who is in power by being an important intellectual thinker of his time, is formed, how it should be classified and how he should be in terms of duty and quality. Even when he went to present his work to the prince of the time, even though he knew that his determinations in his work could be misunderstood and remain in a very different situation, he did not give up this idea and made reference to the way that his work reached the present day and at some points shed light on today's leaders. This reveals the unquestionable and universality of the author's work.