This is a thread for the in-depth and hopefully intelligent discussion of political philosophy. This is mainly to talk about the theories behind a lot of the day-to-day politics that we see.

To get things going, recently, I have been thinking about Machiavelli's vision of the world and Donald Trump's vision of the world.

Machiavelli said, in a nut shell, that you need to strategise according to how men really are and not how they ought to be.

He reasoned that if someone was a good Christian king, they'd likely end up dead because not everyone in the country is a good Christian. There are liars, and cheaters, and people who would screw you over. So he said that a good king needs to be more ruthless, more cunning, more clever than all of his rivals or he will come to ruin.

You can abstract this beyond personal politics to global politics. Your nation has to be more ruthless, more cunning, more clever than all of the other nations or it will come to ruin.

If we think about the current landscape, there are two visions of global politics that are broadly dominant.

The first is the vision of someone like Angela Merkel or Barrack Obama -- this vision of the world is egalitarian. It looks to help other people. So Angela Merkel signed an order that let 900,000+ refugees into Germany, because she -- as a good eagalitarian leader -- wants to help the Syrians.

Donald Trump has taken the polar opposite stance. He has literally banned Syrian refugees. He has said that he cares only about America's interests and those don't really include helping Syrians.

If I look at the two approaches. In Machiavelli's view, we can see broadly that Merkel / Obama is the old Christian virtue and Trump is more aligned with his darker, and more cynical vision of the world (he has implied that Merkel's egalitarian policies have bad for Germany).

Nietzsche later would call the former Christian / egalitarian way of seeing the world the "slave mentality", and the latter Machiavellian way of seeing the world as the "master mentality".

----------

So I want to kick things off with two questions:

- was Machiavelli right? Why?
- If he was right, then is Donald Trump also right? Why?

-------

Others are welcome to put other ideas for debate and discussion here, including things like the validity of communism / capitalism / globalism / nationalism, whatever you like.

There seems to be an implicit assumption that Merkel's immigration policies are utterly selfless and do not involve cunning or cleverness.

Can you elaborate on this?

What cunning or cleverness do you see in opening up one's borders to almost 1 million refugees?

In future, I suggest we just go straight to Trump is the first of the Ubermensch and skip the whole cunning part.

Well, if you want to argue that there are absolutely no benefits to immigrants from Syria, start with that instead of masking behind this Machiavellian stuff.

I was really interested more in if the Machiavellian vision of the world is correct, and if so, does that mean Trump is correct?

I am actually more interested in answers that explain why they might not be correct and why.

There is zero masking.

As presented, yes I think it's true that a leader must be capable of handling dissent, no I don't think this says anything about the qualities of Trump's immigration policy.

I'm interested to know what you think the net benefits are to the Merkel approach?

i.e. is there a way to argue that -- in the Machiavellian / consequentialist way of seeing things -- the correct course of action is what she did as opposed to what Trump has done?

I'm interested only in drilling down to the core reasons. I have no sides in this matter.

After a cursory examination of the past 300 years of history, it seems like your "immigration --> national ruin" thesis doesn't quite hold up.

I literally did not say this.

Guy who unironically calls people "SJWs" has no special views on Syrian refugees. That story checks out.

This thread has literally zero to do with SJWs. Nothing at all. Keep them out of it.

First assumption, Trump,bad and Obama,Merckel good; no need to discuss. LOL

When I think of the most machiavellian regimes, I don't think of success. It might increase longevity of a leader in some cases (North Korea, Stalin), but it surely cuts it short in others (Hitler, Mussolini).

A cooperative relationship with other countries would serve to reduce conflict, which, on its own, would help a country.

Thinking about the US: We are a country with some definite machiavellian strains, but also a stated ethic that we adhere to in the vast majority of dealings with other nations. It seems like the ability to trust a nation goes a long way towards success.

Agathocles the Sicilian. Where does the concept of virtu fit in here.

Your OP classed Merkel's immigration policies as the act of the "good Christian King", and if you're agreeing with Machiavelli that the good King would come to ruin, you need to demonstrate that Merkel's policies will lead to the ruin of herself or her country, and Trump's won't.

I'm not going to do that work for you. Mostly because it's absurd on the face of it.

The post asked if you agree with Machiavelli. It did not say that I do.

So why should I categorise Merkel's policies as those of the good King?

You've done nothing to show that that's the case.

Edit: Or that Trump's are ruthless and clever and not just the ravings of a madman.

Then make an argument as to how it is otherwise.

Erm...it's not me that's ascribing any such characteristics to them.

It's fitting that your in-depth analysis would end at being asked what the **** you're talking about in the first place.

What conception of egalitarianism are you using to describe Obama and Merkel as egalitarians?

Helping out others out of kindness.