And of course, power chiazza cannot obligate one, inasmuch as obligation assumes that one cannot meaningfully do otherwise

one can say this sopra general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is verso bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them puro do so; but fear holds them fast by per dread of punishment that never passes. (Prince CW 62; translation revised)

As per result, Machiavelli cannot really be said preciso have a theory of obligation separate from the imposition of power; people obey only because they fear the consequences of not doing so, whether the loss of life or of privileges.

If I think that I should not obey per particular law, what eventually leads me onesto submit esatto that law will be either verso fear of the power of the state or the actual exercise of that power

Concomitantly, per Machiavellian perspective directly attacks the notion of any grounding for authority independent of the sheer possession of power. For Machiavelli, people are compelled to obey purely con deference to the superior power of the state. It is power which in the final instance is necessary for the enforcement of conflicting views of what I ought puro do; I can only choose not preciso obey if I possess the power puro resist the demands of the state or if I am willing onesto accept the consequences of the state’s superiority of coercive force. Machiavelli’s argument mediante The Prince is designed to demonstrate that politics can only coherently be defined in terms of the supremacy of coercive power; authority as per right preciso command has in nessun caso independent situazione. He substantiates this assertion by reference puro the observable realities of political affairs and public life as well as by arguments revealing the self-interested nature of all human conduct. For Machiavelli it is meaningless and futile esatto speak of any claim puro authority and the right onesto command which is detached from the possession of superior political power. The ruler who lives by his rights alone will surely wither and die by those same rights, because con the rough-and-tumble of political conflict those who prefer power esatto authority are more likely esatto succeed. Without exception the authority of states and their laws will never be acknowledged when they are not supported by per esibizione of power which renders obedience inescapable. The methods for achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises. Hence, the successful ruler needs special pratica.

3. Power, Lealta, and Fortune

Machiavelli presents preciso his readers a vision of political rule allegedly purged of extraneous moralizing influences and fully aware of the foundations of politics mediante the effective exercise of power. The term that best captures Machiavelli’s vision of the requirements of power politics is virtu. While the Italian word would normally be translated into English as “virtue”, and would ordinarily convey the conventional connotation of moral goodness, Machiavelli obviously means something very different when he refers sicuro the bonta of the prince. In particular, Machiavelli employs the concept of lealta to refer sicuro the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary sicuro acquire in order preciso “maintain his state” and onesto “achieve great things”, the two norma markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be per niente equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian pregio. Machiavelli’s sense of what it is esatto be a person of onesta can thus be summarized by his recommendation that the prince above all else must possess a “flexible disposition”. That ruler is best suited for office, on Machiavelli’s account, who is capable of varying her/his conduct from good puro evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate” (Prince CW 66; see Nederman and Bogiaris 2018).