Answer:
It’s common to describe ruthless or devious politicians as “Machiavellian.” But rarely in the United States have we seen an embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump, the president-elect.
Go down the list of Trump’s controversial characteristics and you will find many of the qualities the cynical Machiavelli thought were essential for a tough leader. Trump can be a liar, which the Florentine philosopher believed was sometimes a necessary part of leadership. He can be a bully, like some of the Italian potentates Machiavelli lauded. He has boasted of a voracious sexual appetite, like Machiavelli himself.
To say that Trump displays attributes that Machiavelli deemed necessary in the fractious, perpetually warring states of the 16th century is not to recommend him as a modern leader. Nobody would want a neo-feudal dictator to lead a 21st-century democracy, you might think. But the American public voted Tuesday for Trump, perhaps in part because it shares Machiavelli’s concept of strength, or as he liked to call it, “virtue
Explanation:
hey here is your answer
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
They were inexpensive and readily available to large numbers of people
The chart is showing the differences and similarities between the opposers and supporters of the Alien and Sedition Acts
