The modern political ideas in Machiavelli's The PrinceMachiavelli's The Prince presents many political ideas that are still relevant in modern politics. He discusses topics such as whether it is better to be loved or feared, whether to be generous or stingy, and how virtue can be manipulated. Machiavelli references well-known figures from literature and history to support many of his points such as Caesar, Achilles, and Alexander VI. Although these essays in The Prince were intended to serve as advice to princes in Machiavelli's time, he presents political ideas that are in line with modern conservatives, and these ideas are still widely seen today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayOne of Machiavelli's arguments is that it is better to be stingy than generous. While he agrees that liberality can earn you a good reputation, “the generosity that earns you that reputation can do you great harm” (1610). He argues that a prince with a reputation for liberality will be “immediately branded a miser” if he decides to put an end to his generous ways (1610). He also believes that it is not in the public interest for a prince to be generous, because this will result in higher taxes to finance the prince's donations, while a stingier prince is able to keep taxes low because he does not spend. likewise. As such, Machiavelli believes that avarice, not generosity, will ultimately give you a reputation for generosity. The two sides of this argument – ​​liberality and avarice – can easily be aligned with modern liberal and conservative beliefs respectively. Machiavelli's idea of ​​giving money and being generous looks a lot like a liberal tax plan: higher taxes that fund welfare programs that provide for the poor. Machiavelli, however, aligns himself with a more conservative tax plan, believing that higher taxes “rob his subjects” and lower taxes are for the common good (1611). Machiavelli seems to have strong support for conservative economics, and this is still a valid idea today. Another topic Machiavelli covers is whether it is better to be feared or loved. He explains that it is better to be feared, because men will serve a prince they love “until the danger is remote” (1612). But, Machiavelli continues, “when danger is near, they turn against you” (1612). Machiavelli firmly believes that it is better to be feared than loved, but he also emphasizes the importance of being feared but not hated. It says that a prince can avoid hatred by keeping his hands off his citizens' property and shedding blood only when necessary. Here it is clear that Machiavelli is in favor of the death penalty, but says that it should be carried out only with “strong justification and manifest cause” (1612). However, Machiavelli does not provide further insights into what would be an act that could be justified by the death penalty. This is where the debate still lies today, as there are many different perspectives on where to draw the lines between crimes punishable by death and those that are not. This debate involves many different variables, including the age and mental state of the criminal, the context of the situation, and many other factors. However, there is a larger debate about whether or not there should be the death penalty, and it is clear that Machiavelli is in support of such a penalty. Machiavelli's own justification of the death penalty as a punishment is that "men are quicker to forget the death of a father than the loss of an estate" (1613). Perhaps in Machiavelli's time property was worth much more, but this idea that life is worthwhile.