I think you are interpreting the quote incorrectly. It is not that the prince should be immoral, but rather that he must understand political reality is often filled with perfidious actions and motives. He must recognize that within his principality, there will be those ready to backstab him to gain power. His duty is to the continuation of his principality and the preservation of his own power.
This is not merely selfish ambition; it becomes a duty. People depend on him to defend their city and owe him for the stability of their affairs. Therefore, he must dedicate himself to his principality and, by extension, his power, rather than acting morally like the common man who must navigate political reality.
What is incredible about the current state of the western world is that Andreessen Horowitz seem more like common men. They believe they can simply continue their profession, they are the prince's of are time and are the pinnacle of power in the west. They seem to think there are good guys and bad guys, viewing those who dislike them as bad, while those who accept their power are good. They believe people should never conspire against them.
Precisely because they are dedicated to a particular set of morals, they are unlike the prince. These are morals both of us dislike, yet they believe in them dare I say, naively and idealistically. They view capitalism and profit as an immutable moral truth that others must accept as righteous power.
This is a luxury only afforded in most times to the common man, who can maintain false notions of morality despite his profession depending on the political stability of some sovereign. I don't hate these people; I am just perplexed by their lack of understanding that history is littered with men who worried about politics, yet still fellto fellow members of their class, mercenaries, and scions seeking more than money.
I don't think there is much good in the common people, as bitter resentment is always their. They would do well to know that money does not protect them from it. Most of what is called morality and ethics are cheap, self-serving philosophies. The only exception is true mystagogy, a beautiful flower that cannot grow in the barren American mind. It grows only through the blood of the martyrs.
> Precisely because they are dedicated to a particular set of morals, they are unlike the prince. These are morals both of us dislike, yet they believe in them dare I say, naively and idealistically. They view capitalism and profit as an immutable moral truth that others must accept as righteous power.
They actually don't believe in capitalism and profit, because if they did, they'd recognize that extreme concentration of wealth is actually detrimental to capitalism (the system's) performance. Ricardo, Mill, and Smith all saw this dynamic, but "capitalists" like Andreessen have shown zero interest in combatting it for the health of the capitalist system as a whole.
I concede partially to your point about not believing in capitalism,
the issue is I think though Smith sincere I do not think that Smith's
moral positions are based on a need to ascribe moral value to the
budding industrialists and the moral scorn on the aristocracy and Tory
power. The adoption of these ideas by the British empire is that they
are the best way to exploit and the talk of free markets by empires
both British, American and Chinese? (later no doubt) is that they are
to be promoted when it is useful to do so. The best capitalists
therefore are the ones who understand subconsciously or consciously
that the ability manipulate the market by some means or to have the
market already pre-figured in your favor is the purpose of the talk of
the good of the free market. It is true how ever that free market no
doubt turns against all empires and the economic, political, military
reality shifts in a way that is outside the control of the empire.
That is all to say that the cynical attitude of Andreesen or Thiel is
what I think it's always been about. I probably sound a little Marxist
or just cynical but I am not a Marxist and I do right and wrong, I do
think that the modern theories of morality should be understood
cynically as their purpose is primarily a political attempt to change
or preserve something and in some sense when one examines them deeply
we see self interest usually hidden and diffused by moralising prose
and sentiments in these modern theories of morality. So techno
optimism manifesto is a more brash, bold and crass version of these
works of moral theory indeed a making a sort of unintentional
parody. None of this is to say that political economy is only
moralising (which techno optimism is).
> Ricardo, Mill, and Smith all saw this dynamic, but "capitalists" like Andreessen have shown zero interest in combatting it for the health of the capitalist system as a whole.
They just tried to cope by denying the essence of capitalism, just like wannabe commies cope by proclaiming that "it wasn't a true communism". Andreessen just follows the system to its natural conclusion.
The difference is that capitalism is a human creation, whereas mitogenesis is not. And this kind of naturalization is one of the reason we end up in the current situation, where it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.
This is not merely selfish ambition; it becomes a duty. People depend on him to defend their city and owe him for the stability of their affairs. Therefore, he must dedicate himself to his principality and, by extension, his power, rather than acting morally like the common man who must navigate political reality.
What is incredible about the current state of the western world is that Andreessen Horowitz seem more like common men. They believe they can simply continue their profession, they are the prince's of are time and are the pinnacle of power in the west. They seem to think there are good guys and bad guys, viewing those who dislike them as bad, while those who accept their power are good. They believe people should never conspire against them.
Precisely because they are dedicated to a particular set of morals, they are unlike the prince. These are morals both of us dislike, yet they believe in them dare I say, naively and idealistically. They view capitalism and profit as an immutable moral truth that others must accept as righteous power.
This is a luxury only afforded in most times to the common man, who can maintain false notions of morality despite his profession depending on the political stability of some sovereign. I don't hate these people; I am just perplexed by their lack of understanding that history is littered with men who worried about politics, yet still fellto fellow members of their class, mercenaries, and scions seeking more than money.
I don't think there is much good in the common people, as bitter resentment is always their. They would do well to know that money does not protect them from it. Most of what is called morality and ethics are cheap, self-serving philosophies. The only exception is true mystagogy, a beautiful flower that cannot grow in the barren American mind. It grows only through the blood of the martyrs.