This is How I Fell in Love with Machiavelli | Q&A

But let me tell you how I fell in love with Mackie Valley. He saw kind peasants [music] going to heaven. And then after he woke up, he says, "Man, I really want to go to hell. That's that's that's where all the interesting people are."

>> When do you think it's the right time to rebel? And what do you think the rebels should do [music] today? In Makave Valley's lens, >> Florence as a whole was excommunicated by Rome. [music] And the the Florentine response at the time was fine. We love

by Rome. [music] And the the Florentine response at the time was fine. We love

our fatherland more than our souls. Do you think he still might have a shadow and that he's not acknowledging it? >> More so than any thinker, I'd probably want to hang out with Machaveli. Like even [music] in his darkest time, he was

a joyful lad. He played cards with his friends. >> It seems like somewhat of a reckless act um to sort of hand these tactics over indiscriminately. >> To establish civil law in the Romana, you need a strong dictator.

Yeah, as you're reading of Machaveli that he's um perfectly genuine in his intentions in writing the prince that he's just trying to uh inform these like great men of history um with the tactics that will make them most effective at

like creating the types of societies that he would favor or you know because it seems like somewhat of a reckless act um to sort of hand these tactics over indiscriminately to like the public to both you know great men of history that

he wants leading but probably many more sort of bad leaders. So is there like some Straussian reading we should be taking in terms of his like intentions?

>> So first of all there is a reason why Strauss went to town on Machavelli right Machaveli is one of uh his I would say most engaged with thinkers his thoughts

on Machaveli is a canonical work um and the reason is because Machaveli is so difficult to pin down of what he actually thinks. One reason is just how

he writes. Okay. Machaveli would sometimes in the same paragraph say

he writes. Okay. Machaveli would sometimes in the same paragraph say agathocles we cannot call this virtue when he betrays his friends and then he just calls him virtue virtue virtue. He just uses virtue all the time. And

Machavel does this a lot. Remember when I said um uh he ranks founders higher than uh higher than uh uh philosophers and he actually ranks religious leaders higher than founders of political states. he potentially changes that later on in

the book. So, Machaveli is so hard to pin down, especially in the discourses

the book. So, Machaveli is so hard to pin down, especially in the discourses because he is someone who kind of entertains ideas in their extreme mode.

The reason he does this like back and forth and it seems completely inconsistent because he says X here, he says Y over there, and he oscillates a bunch with with conquest and expansion as well. Um, and I read that as him,

how should I put this? I read him as him thinking that the extreme form of an idea is able to tell us more than its ordinary form. So this is a very

mathematical intuition that the ex or scientific in intuition. The reason we perform experiments in extreme scenarios is we want to put things to the limit,

right? Um and in a similar way he thinks by observing the extreme in political

right? Um and in a similar way he thinks by observing the extreme in political scenarios, this is why he focused a lot on founding and refounding. [snorts] It

tells you a lot more about where power actually comes from than focusing on the normal the everyday scenario. And so, sorry this is a long-winded answer, but this is why one of the reasons why he just oscillates left and right between

all these different kinds of um ideas. So, first he he'll he'll explore a then he'll explore non A. So, all this is preface to say he's extremely difficult to pin down. And if you're interested, I filmed interviews with two of the top

Machaveli scholars that represents the polar opposite views. Harvey Mansfield

thinks he's the antichrist and he thinks that he's just in it for for power and he's a teacher of evil. Period. No qualification. The other person, Maritu Villi thinks he's a genuine patriot and a genuine Christian. Okay. Okay. So, so

the scholarship I of all the thinkers I've delved into, I have not observed a scholarship that is as divided partially because of the way he writes. And because of the way he

writes, he also gives rise to like numerology. Like some of it I I find a bit ridiculous, but sometimes the scholars would be, "Oh, he uses uh the the letter 33 here a lot." And 3 and if you look at 33 and it starts being like

that conspiracy theory thing where you have all the threads everywhere. Um,

okay. So hopefully that answers part of your question of why he's so difficult to pin down. Another really difficult question to pin down is why he wrote The

Prince. Um, some people think that it's all a sarcastic ironic critique of

Prince. Um, some people think that it's all a sarcastic ironic critique of princely power. Rouso actually thinks this. I I I don't think that reading is

princely power. Rouso actually thinks this. I I I don't think that reading is right. It just doesn't fit well enough with discourses because if you read the

right. It just doesn't fit well enough with discourses because if you read the discourses which is supposed to be this republican tract and you read the prince which is supposed to be this princely tract that that's another curiosity of Machavel is how do they integrate? And I think it's quite simple which is that

prince doesn't just mean ruler of a principality. It means a strong leader, a strong founder and reounder. And this is going to be one of the future lectures.

You need one needs the other. The the Chesire and Romero is a good is a good example to establish civil law in the Romana. You need a strong dictator. So

that reading I don't think really works of this as a critical work. Some read it as a desperate uh employment plea to the Medici. I think that is more right than people

think it is. I mean, in his private correspondence, he does literally just say, "Man, I really want to be hired." Like, I only And so, and you know, if it was ironic, he wouldn't have to do that. Um, he wouldn't have to do it in his

private correspondence. A third way to read him, this is the most extreme way

private correspondence. A third way to read him, this is the most extreme way to read him, is to say, this is how Harvey Mansfield reads him, that he was the progenitor of all of modernity, modern science and uh modern political

theory. Of course, he had this great theoretical revolution in mind and you

theory. Of course, he had this great theoretical revolution in mind and you know, he is the kind of origin point that broke us out of the classical

traditions. Um, I'm probably somewhere between that view that that that he wanted to to

traditions. Um, I'm probably somewhere between that view that that that he wanted to to

engender a genuine intellectual innovation and um the view that he's looking for a job and that uh he's a genuine patriot and wants to teach people how to actually

rule. So to answer your question about whether it's dangerous just to let these

rule. So to answer your question about whether it's dangerous just to let these things let these things loose and let these things out there h I think now it seems a lot more

problematic to to coach this kind of behavior. I think at the time he was more worried about the lack of a kind of manly virtue and the consequences that

that would bring. And let me put it this way. We live in peace right now. And

um in states of peace, we forget, this goes back to the first thought of the extraordinary case. We forget what peace really requires. And so I think you and I tend to

extraordinary case. We forget what peace really requires. And so I think you and I tend to over appreciate, over worry about the dangers of that kind of violence

behavior and underappreciate the positive consequences. Yeah. Um All right. Second question.

>> Um, it seems at certain points that Mchaveli or your take on Mchaveli

perhaps is advocating for that the founder self-interested glory motivated leader is better because that leader is more willing to commit the necessary brutal acts um that are

able that that is necessary for basically founding these states.

and and creating kind of great great um big G outcomes. Um and the more altruistically motivated leader is is not as as able to do that because they

shy away. But then it seemed that the point was an altruistically or uh so

shy away. But then it seemed that the point was an altruistically or uh so that the greatest thing to sacrifice is the soul as Plato suggests in in gorges.

So wouldn't that mean and then it seemed like that you were suggesting this.

Wouldn't that mean that the one who is actually able to commit willing to commit these brutal acts is the person who is altruistic because they are willing to sacrifice what is most important which is the soul um and

perhaps even secondarily the reputation and the kind of like glory but um yeah I just wanted to resolve that. Yeah, great. Thank you. The scholarship is kind of everywhere with Machave Elliot. So So you're going to be able to find

serious scholars who kind of go every direction and I'm not totally sure that my reading here is right if not for the only fact that I think he might actually think the philosophers's glory is greater than the founders's glory. So

remember how I said uh in his discourses book two I think he said um he ranks the founder over the philosopher I I think so that's that's book one and then I think in the preface of book two he he plays around with this idea that maybe

the philosopher has the greatest glory this is how Harvey Mansfield reads it he reads it as him defrauding the pol the political founders making them think

they have the greatest glory in order to execute his will I'm serious. This is

how this is how he interprets it. And so this is all to preface to say that I I I I'm not extremely sure about my reading in general. [snorts] But to answer your question, I what I am pretty certain of is he differentiates between fame and genuine

glory. And fame is what Caesar had. And he doesn't like Caesar because he destroyed the republic.

glory. And fame is what Caesar had. And he doesn't like Caesar because he destroyed the republic.

Genuine glory is both a desire that is extremely altruistic because it's doing a great deed of founding or refounding. Um but it's also deeply selfish because

it's it's their reward that they're seeking. And if you say well if you give a choice to these founders you say do you want the reputation or do you want the the the actual result I think they would just say both are equally or or

like both are not as good as each is not as good as both together. So what I am pretty sure of is when they when Machaveli wrote um I love my father land more than my

soul. He actually didn't exactly write that in his letter but we can ignore that. Um

soul. He actually didn't exactly write that in his letter but we can ignore that. Um

what he is saying is okay so so where where that phrase came from is Tuskanyany sorry Florence as a whole was excommunicated by Rome because of some political conflict and the tusk excommunication and you know people who are familiar

with Catholicism means you're going to hell and the the Florentine response at the time was fine we love our fatherland more than our soul so m that's the context that Muay takes it from and the way I interpret him in my reading which

Again, I I don't know if it's the the right reading. When I interpret him saying that, I interpret him saying um I want to save Florence. Part of that is genuine. Part of that is for the reward

it's associated with. And for those two things together, I'm willing to be a bad person. Morally conceived. And this is a funny anecdote. This might be

person. Morally conceived. And this is a funny anecdote. This might be apocryphal, but he dreamed that he was he saw two groups of people in the

dream. Uh the classical captains uh Achilles, Cyrus and the classical

dream. Uh the classical captains uh Achilles, Cyrus and the classical thinkers Plato, Aristotle going to hell. And then he saw kind peasants going to

heaven. And then after he woke up, he says, "Man, I really want to go to hell.

heaven. And then after he woke up, he says, "Man, I really want to go to hell.

That's that's that's where all the interesting people are." >> [laughter] >> So anyways, I don't know if this has fully answered your your question, but but I think what what your question captures is that recognition, right?

Let's not just talk about glory, but but recognition is this dual thing that both has a very selfish aspect, but also has a genuine selfless aspect. And uh Smith

in his moral theory of moral sentiment says we not only want to be sympathized with but sympathizable. So so humans aren't satis humans aren't really satisfied with just one or the or the other. We want both to have we want

to both be and to appear. Okay, let's uh let's go on to the next question up here. Kyle,

>> I had two questions. Um the second question is that you you spoke about um this imperative for expandary states to be expansionary but caveat that in modern day you know due to nuclear warfare and AI um under the premise that

uh if you um if you're you know if you're the first to reach artificial super intelligence or artificial general intelligence that you can suppress other states uh attempts to do the same then wouldn't an expansionary policy be the

one to follow? That is the one you followed. Yeah. Okay. What's your first question or >> and first question is um who was the OG Machaveli? So Machaveli um you know uh he he came to these conclusions from studying history and some of that the

history of Rome. uh who were some of the original thinkers that um were proponents of the strategy given they you know persecuted this strategy very intentionally and um how did they not see or not organize around the decadence

that was their downfall great thank you so great questions I'll answer your uh the second one first which is Machaveli conceives of himself as doing

something completely unique in the following sense He is imitating classical uh he is resurrecting the classical world but for the first time he's putting the actual principles of classical action in a theory. Okay. So

Plato Aristotle they they don't capture how Thesius and and uh uh Cyrus actually acted. They talk about virtue all the shiny high kind of uh noble sounding

acted. They talk about virtue all the shiny high kind of uh noble sounding things that he dislikes about the Christians. So one way to answer your question is that he conceives of himself as doing something completely unique because for

the first time he is theorizing classical action which means that his reading of Rome must be Rome betrayed her deepest values and her political action. Rome might

talk all about Ciceronian virtue, uh, Arisilian virtue, but the actual way the Romans act acted were far from it. And his works are the first works that is to to capture that. There's a slightly different way to answer your question,

which is who are the intellectual predecessors to to Machaveli?

Um, I can't remember who it is in the Republic. I think it was Calacles, uh, who also has this more real politique kind of kind of view. And I think Thusidities is the other clear one who is who is very just real about how

politics actually worked in his histories and I don't think it's a surprise that I believe uh Nze himself who is also extremely similar to Machu Valley in all these

different ways um also I believe really elevated Thusidities. So those are the two ways to answer your your your last question. to answer your first question. Um,

yeah. So, the the question is should we isn't expansion still the right strategy because if we have AGI we can let's take let's take let's accept

the premise that it can stop nuclear warfare and give you a disproportionate advantage. Yes, I would say that and I would say that's what the great powers

advantage. Yes, I would say that and I would say that's what the great powers are doing. And keep in mind, I never said expansion was not the right

are doing. And keep in mind, I never said expansion was not the right strategy in modernity. In fact, I said it was the only strategy in modernity, but the domain of expansion just changes from military, geopolitical to

technology and business. Um, that these are domains that exercise similar appetites. In other

words, um, most founders wouldn't agree to this, but I think if they were born in a different age, they would have been the concistadors and they would have been the Roman generals fighting in Gaul. Okay. Who's next? Yes, please. Right behind you, Kyle.

>> The so-called Makaveli paradox. I don't know if this is something you maybe coined yourself.

>> I made it up. Yeah, >> sounded like it. very um on point about the idea of how um people who are willing to actually speak on the darkness that is required to actually

you know wield power. They end up um exercising that power much more benevol benevolently than people who maybe you know try to like keep that out of the picture and they crop it out altogether. And those people who never want to talk

about it, never want to look at it, they, you know, tend to, you know, be a little bit uh um a little bit more evil. Yes. So along those lines um bringing

into the concept of like the Yian shadow perhaps I think Makaveli is can can be regarded as a figure who has very much um you know integrated his shadow so to speak because in the pursuit of the good he's willing to delve into the darkness

the shadow. Do you think though that Mchaveli might have a shadow? That for

the shadow. Do you think though that Mchaveli might have a shadow? That for

all of his talk of looking into the darkness and the evil that's necessary, he seems to kind of take credit for being willing to look at the full picture of light and darkness. Do you think he still might have a shadow and

that he's not acknowledging it? >> Yeah. So, let me tell you what, this is a different slightly tangential way to ask to answer your question, but let me tell you how I fell in love with Mackie Valley. who was in one of the interviews

I did with Maritzio Varolei. He is this uh Italian professor, one of the top uh Machaveli scholars and he's writing a book right now called Machaveli's loves

his love of again beautiful women that a bit too much there whormongering and uh extrammarital affairs um for great food and just like being a a funny guy like a

funny guy that you want to spend time with. And again, I'll I'll emphasize that he wrote The Mandre, which is considered by some to be the greatest Italian comedy, when he was exiled, humiliated, when he was just tortured.

Okay? He he wrote it to entertain. I think it was a Medici wedding. Um,

and that is a pretty cool philosophy of life that he is someone cuz a lot of the people who want greatness, right, they're kind of stuck up. You wouldn't

want to hang out with him. But but I really get the sense that I'd really like hanging out with Machaveli because on one hand he fully allows himself to enjoy the

delights of of the world but on the other hand he still has this desire for kind of immortal glory.

Um in terms of does he have a shadow? I I I would say that he's like it doesn't mean he doesn't have that part, but he's probably made peace with whatever shadow that he's had in the sense that like like that dream I told

you about. I'd rather go to hell, you know, like he's very blatant about

you about. I'd rather go to hell, you know, like he's very blatant about letting his shadow out. So, so it's not an unintegrated one if there if there is one. Yeah, that's the point that I'll just emphasize that you won't get from

one. Yeah, that's the point that I'll just emphasize that you won't get from reading the Princeton discourses is like more so than any thinker, I'd probably want to hang out with Machaveli. Like even in his darkest time, he was a

joyful lad. He played cards with his friends. He said he said uh he wrote in

joyful lad. He played cards with his friends. He said he said uh he wrote in that same letter he said um even though it was for a few pennies, they could hear my screams miles away in Florence [laughter] when he lost or something. So yeah, he's

a he he's a he's a fun guy, I think. Cool. Who else wants to ask another question? Uh that gentleman right behind you. >> Hey Jonathan, uh thank you very much for

question? Uh that gentleman right behind you. >> Hey Jonathan, uh thank you very much for the lecture and you talked about Rome and Sparta being completely opposite um states where one was following conquest and more like disorder like entropy

wise. The other would be stability which is like order which humanity has been

wise. The other would be stability which is like order which humanity has been chasing for such a long time. Right. Um so so you mentioned that stability like following stability and going down this path would lead to like almost as if

like praying that fortune doesn't molest you in the future. Uh what would you say? So Makaveli seems to be advocating for a disorderly way to gain order in

say? So Makaveli seems to be advocating for a disorderly way to gain order in the future as a state uh as humanity, right? What would you say the vision for

the future as humanity is for Maveli or for you? And um what is he ultimately trying to achieve with like he's using this order he's using this um

character against the universe to for humanity but what is like going for humanity for Maveli.

>> Great awesome thank you. So uh I I have a whole lecture you can look on on the intellectual history of innovation and you touched upon something very interesting there which is that classical political philosophy

is suspicious of change. It's chaos and the good thing is stability. But in

modernity that is completely flipped. We call stability stagnation and instead we want innovation or as the tech bros call it disruption. So something has completely flipped in our

political intuitions. And I think Machaveli is a key link in that flip in

political intuitions. And I think Machaveli is a key link in that flip in the sense that uh the scholar called uh Benoagoden wrote an excellent book

called innovation contested where he traced the intellectual history of the word innovation and its predecessor roots a book of etmology essentially and it found that the only time in the classical period if we were saying

Machavel's classical is in Rome in the Latin language in oo where innovation has a positive connotation and in Machaveli. But to make a long story short, you are

totally right that Machaveli wants to use disorder to gain an order. Like he

he is totally about using this flexible expansionary. This is why he says impetuousness is better than than caution and coldness to to be always on the mood surfing the waves of of of his political state. And the thing I'm

trying to highlight, which I know is not your question, is in modernity, we want to do not what Machaveli wants. We don't want to use change to combat change to get order. We want to use change to excel to to to get us away from

get order. We want to use change to excel to to to get us away from stagnation to get to innovation. So, so we're actually a slightly different stage from that. Um but you are exactly right that Machaveli of all the again

classical if we want to call them classical political theorists who I think has in mind an ideal state that is everchanging and needs to respond to change and that's why I think he's so important for modernity because again it

was possible for Sparta to freeze her laws for 800 years that's not a possibilityility today and Mchavelli really wrestles with that in terms of what he wants for mankind mind. I think the ideal vision for him would be to

spread this kind of new teachings that he has let loose on the world. And what

that would result in is not a one world state. He criticizes Rome for for that exact reason that Rome got too big and comfortable and that's why it collapsed.

He wants a bunch of states who are all men by these kind of uh princely figures that kind of push up against each other. I don't think he wants the allout war that World War I and World War II does, but I think he does think healthy

competition between states, even even wars once in a while, uh that's I think his ideal vision, which is like vivaceious virtuous leaders leading all the different states in the world pushing against and shoving each other

and expanding at the same time, which keeps the spiritual life in your life healthy. And the point of my lecture was to say that that's not possible today.

healthy. And the point of my lecture was to say that that's not possible today.

We can't hope for a future like that. That's just not workable. Yeah, we'll

probably take two more questions. Great. Oh, Teddy, you got a question?

>> It seems like there's kind of like a a paradox or contradiction where the more effective the leader possibly and the more order they create, the more docile the population becomes. Um so on the one hand you were just talking about you know you have a very viv vivacious leader they instill order but then like

your your friend was saying about uh you Chicago they're not decadent because they're up close with violence in a personal uh real way in their in their personal lives whereas if you do have a very ineffective leader um they free us

from that violence and so how do you think or how do you think Maveli thinks about um the right level of disorder or order in a society and and the relationship between how effective the leader is and the ill effects that can

create uh in the population or is that just like unavoidably cyclical?

>> Yeah. So, so there is a good contradiction that you've pointed to but I don't think it's an irresolvable one. Remember the cycle that I described virtue leads to XYZ and stability. I think he thinks and he says this in

the discourses but back to Kevin's question I don't think you can always just directly take any line that he says and says this is his view because often he'll just say the exact opposite somewhere else. But I do think he thinks states will there's so many different ways that states are going to destroy

themselves. It's a very platonic kind of ideal that that even the ideal state

themselves. It's a very platonic kind of ideal that that even the ideal state kind of tends to corruption. But I do think that he thinks virtuous leaders will

be able to halt that and maybe even reverse it. That's what refounding is, right? Because it's not just founding like Moses, it's refounding like Chzare.

right? Because it's not just founding like Moses, it's refounding like Chzare.

And there's a big difference between violence that makes civil what he wants is rule of law. He wants egalitarianism. So so not wealth inequality. He wants a modicum of freedom. And there's a clear distinction between violence that hurts

that and does not hurt that. So for example, if America went into civil war today, that would hurt that, right? That's the not that's not the kind of freedom that he that violence that he would want. But I think he would say

something like 911, right? Um that would be something that's limited that actually strengthens the institution and the spirits of the people because it gets people altogether. And so there's different species of violence. And maybe

it just goes down to how much the violence is. So maybe it's just a quantitative and not a qualitative question. Um and this is actually a great question because in one chapter I think in book one he says

tumults. Tumults. This is his one of his innovations in political philosophy.

tumults. Tumults. This is his one of his innovations in political philosophy.

Tumults were one of the reason that Rome's kept free. Tumults are like uh like class warfare or something like that or pushing between political factions. And then he says division is the death of states. Okay. So what's the

factions. And then he says division is the death of states. Okay. So what's the difference between a tumult and a division? And I think it's maybe the answer is just as easy as as quantitative. And you as a political leader need to know what kind of

quantitative. And you as a political leader need to know what kind of violence is needed to get the best outcome. Yeah. Toeer. >> Um, I really loved how you dwelled on the, uh, story of Fabius going through the dark forest and, uh, I think, uh,

you know, we we really are seeing a parallel today. What do you think of the panoptica that we have in our modern times and our inability to be sure that there is a deficit of information that leads to somebody striking out and doing

something that is against the accords of maybe the Senate, maybe our one world government, you know, whoever's in charge? When do you think is the right time to rebel? And what do you think the rebels should do today in Maki Valley's lens?

>> Uh oh, sorry. C can you make that uh question a bit more specific like Yeah. Can Yeah.

>> Yeah. So I guess in America on the home on the home front it would be you know when do we stop uh uh paying attention to regulation when it comes to building skyscrapers in Manhattan? You know when do we just start doing it?

>> Um and then abroad it's like you know when do you stop uh when do you stop like asking governments for you know permission and you start just sort of >> right >> piece of cords. we we forgot about that, you know, that sort of thing.

>> Got it. Amazing. Thank you. That's a great question.

Remember what I said how so again this is like a you'll blink and you'll miss it when you read Machaveli. He he's so much about extraordinary action about like the the extraordinary things we need to get civil society to work. you

might miss the few instances where he literally says like always always try go going the legal route because even going extra legal once destroys the institution that requires so much violence to establish and the reason he thinks that the public

mode is better than the private mode is because the private mode inflames tensions doesn't resolve anything can lead to greater division and faction whereas the public mode can get it done I mean this is one thing people don't appreciate in our rule of law society like Elon and Bas OS, one of some of the

two most powerful men, they can just sue each other and be over with it. It

doesn't have to degenerate into a blood feud. Not yet, at least. Uh, and yeah, and so I think he would say again, this is prudence. Machaveli is never going to give you, well, then if a happens, do this. Like the reason that he uses

history so much, the re the reason that he wrote the Florentine histories >> is because you need to kind of train that intuition from studying these great leaders. This is why he wants you to study and imitate uh the biographies of

leaders. This is why he wants you to study and imitate uh the biographies of the great men. I I can't give you an analytical definition. At this point, you should ignore the UN. At this point, you should ignore the regulations.

It's all more mushy. But here's the general principle behind the mushiness.

On one hand, there's a huge danger if you if you use extraordinary modes in ordinary political life because it destroys whatever ordinary political life is still left. Okay. On the other hand, if you don't use extraordinary

methods in messed up political life, you're going to stay messed up. And so

that's the general principle. And it's going to be through all these different kinds of examples. Um yeah, uh that and it's through like reading all these examples

examples. Um yeah, uh that and it's through like reading all these examples to train your intuition. All right, we'll do one last question because then I want to eat pizza.

>> So David Senor just released this like interview of Michael Dell, right? And

Michael Dell talks a lot about how he injects necessity, right? It was like when there's no crisis, create crisis, right? Um, and so when you translate that to like political leaders, right? Would would Makia encourage political

leaders to commit like massacres such as 9/11 uh like or mass shootings and kind of hide those and and inject the necessity so to speak uh into like when

when none exist uh naturally? Um, and would Makaveli like probably like would Makaveli believe and encourage actually those kind of actions that like rules commit those kind of actions against themselves? >> Um,

[laughter] uh, and for my final act of the day. >> Wow, these are these are these are tough ones. Let me think. So the answer is yes. And I'm trying to think of an

ones. Let me think. So the answer is yes. And I'm trying to think of an example from the discourses where there's a clear like fake setup.

I Okay, I I can't think of any, but something like let's say Pearl Harbor.

Let's say the president knew it at the time. and let's say he knew that the only way to get everyone to agree to go to war is for the ship uh the Pearl Harbor to be struck. That would definitely be Mackie Valley would definitely be okay with that.

Um and and things like that and and that's the Moses example kind of right like lying about your kind of intentions. However, when he thinks about injecting artificial necessity, he more has like tough laws in view like

like Hyergus or he he more has like let's not have uh people to be too wealthy and have inequality reduce people. The reason is because okay this is

actually a good answer. I think he thinks even when you do extraordinary action try to do in legal means. Okay. So, it was important that Brutus killed

his sons in the founding of the republic that he did it legally. Um because

because vi setting up a president as a founder of violating the law is very dangerous. So yeah. So that's probably the two answers I would give is one for

dangerous. So yeah. So that's probably the two answers I would give is one for sure he would be open to to things like the ones you suggested. Um,

and number two, even then he wants to do it more legally. And so translate into the business context, this is not like beating up your employee or something.

It's like making the performance reviews a bit more brutal, right? And so, so even the extraordinary action and artificial necessity. And this is again what people don't appreciate about Machaveli. He's really big onto rule of law. He's really big in freedom, equality, stability. It's simply he

law. He's really big in freedom, equality, stability. It's simply he thinks that [music] those things need to be grounded on kind of extraordinary actions once in a while. All right. Thank you everyone. [applause]

actions once in a while. All right. Thank you everyone. [applause]