Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions during a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.

Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.

In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked whether the Pentagon has plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 33 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Machiavelli had some useful points.

    like the whole, "if you rule through fear to keep people in line, they'll take your head off the moment you're weak" observation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    oh. he was a total asshole. But even he respected the need for representation and to constrain the elites from doing shit. At least, he was later on. (See Discourse on Livy)

    I'm just saying, assholes like trump being all Machiavellian seem to forget the whole "we know how behead" aspect of being an assholish monarch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Was he an asshole? Or was he writing a commission with malicious compliance? For a historically verified asshole?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not to be too pedantic, but "The Prince" was intended as a sincere operating manual for governing (not a satire in any way).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

    The shocking lack of morality in the book is what made it rather infamous. It was not a joke at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    This part's interesting

    Mary Dietz, in her essay "Trapping The Prince", writes that Machiavelli's agenda was not to be satirical, as Rousseau had argued, but instead was "offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed."[83] By this account, the aim was to reestablish the republic in Florence. She focuses on three categories in which Machiavelli gives paradoxical advice:

    He discourages liberality and favors deceit to guarantee support from the people. Yet Machiavelli is keenly aware of the fact that an earlier pro-republican coup had been thwarted by the people's inaction that itself stemmed from the prince's liberality.

    He supports arming the people despite the fact that he knows the Florentines are decidedly pro-democratic and would oppose the prince.

    He encourages the prince to live in the city he conquers. This opposes the Medici's habitual policy of living outside the city. It also makes it easier for rebels or a civilian militia to attack and overthrow the prince.

  • source
  • parent