The Prince

Only 98 pages long and the second time that I read this famous paper and it still took me a month. Too many distractions in the month of December. This particular translation of Niccolo Machiavelli was published in 1950 by the The Modern Library and with an introduction by Max Lerner who was a professor of American Civilization at Brandeis University.
Written in the early 16th century after Machiavelli had been cast out of government by the resurgence of the Medici's. The author had written this and the Discourses as complicated sales pitch, he enjoyed being an advisor to the powerful and wished to obtain a position.
This book is the subject of many collegiate courses and instruction by more able liberal arts trained students so I will limit the review to the sections I enjoyed.
In speaking of leaders having a love-fear relationship...

"men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who make himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by dread of punishment which never fails."

As with most of the paper, direct and to the point.
When speaking of disarmament of the populace.....

"when you disarm them, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred against you."

A little different than today in the sense that in our Republic, there is a movement, albeit a minority, that is applying disarmament pressure via litigation. The politicians involved are only in it for the votes.
When speaking of flatterers (suck-ups) Machiavelli advised care when choosing aides.....

"by choosing for his council wise men, and giving these alone full liberty to speak the truth to him, but only those things that he asks and of nothing else"

and..

"It is an infallible rule that a prince who is not wise himself cannot be well advised,"

I would have to say that the mainstream press and many Democrats believe this to be true of current President, they may however be confusing their opinion with what is ultimately right.

In Chaper 16 Machiavelli writes about "Of Liberality and Niggardliness", and I won't explain the latter, look it up in the dictionary. Specifically when the prince wishes to do everything to obtain money (taxes)...

"This will make the subjects begin to hate him, and he will be little esteemed being poor, so by having this liberality injured may and benefited but few, he will feel the first little disturbance and be endangered by every peril."

And for the miserly prince.....

"In course of time he will be thought to be more liberal, when it is seen that by his parsimony his revenue is sufficient, he can defend himself against those who make war against him, or undertake enterprises without burdening his people, so that he is really liberal to all those from whom he does not take, who are infinite, who are few in number, and niggardly to all to whom he does not give, who are few."

Still digesting that, do you think that a parallel would be the Soviet Union? The state operated on a shoestring but developed a nation of dependent citizens. Is this socialism?
This should be a short book to read and the advice that he generates reveals that human nature is unchanged.