By the way, there is another classic book on Statecraft and Politics – Indian one – Artha Shastra (Rules of wealth or something) by Chanakya..From what my dad and grand mom tell me, it sounds a lot similar to Prince. And much older.

I must say it is not at all promising. Nicky starts out by saying the inhabitants of a city will have closer relations if the city is poor and that laws ought to compel men to work because work is better than idleness. He does go on to admit that men choose wealth over poverty and here is what can be done about it.

Maybe I was wrong to think the electricity bit was a joke. Well at least they had Marconi some years later.

I am still of the opinion that Mr. M. lacks vision re: the modern age but I don’t hold it against him. He was born a long time ago.

I was under the impression that we were discussing “the Prince”.

Under those terms my points are apt.

OTOH your point is well taken that I am not acquained with Nicky’s other works. No doubt a significant defficiency.

In times to come I hope to remedy that defect.

In the mean time I hope you will not hold it against me for discussing “The Prince” on it’s own terms.

How about a reading assignment: The Discourses on Livy by N. Macchiavelli. That way you can get a better idea of the extent of Macchiavelli’s political expertise as well as his preferred form of government, and spare yourself the embarrassment of writing silly and ill-informed posts like your contributions to this thread.

self government.

Point one for doing this is that it is nice to have the Iraqis dependent on America – for a while.

Point two is that the Iraqis need a period of adjustment.

So in a way Nick was right. It is just that as Tom Paine pointed out Liberty is very valuable indeed. More so these days than food, oil, or any material possesion. So the material goods are given freely. Only the most valuable stuff is doled out.

But that is a kind of world the adviser to Princes never imagined.

Nice to see the extensive rebuttal.

In any case I think what you do to create an independent state aligned out of sympathy and common culture (Japan any one?) is different than what you do to create client states (which was Nickky’s orientation). Think American foreign and military policy vs. the USSR.

Think the Brits and the Commonwealth vs the excresences of Belgium or the excesses of France.

Nick would have been right at home in the Foreign Office of France. He would not be well attuned to the foreign policies of Foggy Bottom. And even less so the American Department of War.

Nickky was writing for autocrats.

Different audience different prescriptions.

American policy is to create independent states not dependent ones.

Funny thing is I have read the book.

Nico was one very sharp guy and would have been right at home re: politics in any remaining tribal area on earth.

Less sharp on modern national politics and completely out of his league in the brand of international politics first hinted at by the Brits and more fully developed by the Americans.

Which is why my poor attempt at humor re: old Nick.

He does have a very lot of good things to say about palace intrigues and those still go on in the best of places. However, some new ideas have come along rather well since he stopped blogging politics.

“An apostrophe does not mean, ‘Look out! There’s an ‘s’ coming!’” – Dave Barry

- Josh

By the way, why do so many bloggers write it’s when they mean its (= of it)?