Jim Choate wrote:
> > on the other side, scholars with seemingly much more direct knowledge
> > disagree heavily with you. read any machiavelli lately?
>
> Let's see Rome was pretty much destroyed by roughly 568 AD by the
> Lombards.
>
> Machiavelli lived 1469 - 1527, yet. That's certainly direct
> knowledge...Not.
he also lived in italy.
ca. 1500 in italy is certainly a lot closer to the source than ca. 2000
in northern america, right?
but of course, we all today are soooo far above those dark age crooks...
our judgement is just perfect, right? doesn't matter that we're 500
years and several thousand miles further away.
> Machiavelli was a backstabbing son of a bitch who'd be right at home in
> todays lying, cheating, corrupted society. I'd further posit that he in
> fact wouldn't disagree but rather would hold that was the natural state of
> human society.
why don't you shorten that two sentences to "but I haven't read much by
him"? I propose his "discorsi", which is a quite complete work on the
art of running a state in his time.
it also debunks the "backstabbing, lying, cheating, corrupted" good.
