Government is an important part of any country. Whether or not incumbent officials are qualified in their jobs can make or break the country. The United States of America will probably head more towards “pause” due to the upcoming elections, but for now I will focus on governing another country. Those Italian Renaissance people were very interested in the way their country was run. The governments described in Machiavelli's The Prince and More's Utopia are based on very different ideals, but they nevertheless have some characteristics in common and therefore deserve to be compared. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The ideal leader for a country is described in The Prince. Machiavelli wants a leader to be strong and take what he wants, no matter the cost. This leader is only concerned with doing what is necessary, not what is right. Well, if they do what is necessary, Machiavelli considers it "right." There is nothing wrong with a prince coming to power by questionable means, as he says, "when the rise to power is through ways of wickedness and crime; and secondly, when a private individual becomes governor of his country thanks to the favor of his fellow citizens” (Machiavelli, 20). Due to the energetic and ruthless nature of this type of leader, most governments were not very fond of these ideas, as they feared that they would be overthrown. However, this is not the case The way a leader is described in Utopia. The utopian leader is virtuous and does what may not be easy, but what is best for his citizens. It is said: “A prince should care more about the happiness of his people than of their own" (More, 23). Another big difference between these two governments is the way they perceive war. Machiavellian leaders crave war. They are always strategizing, even in times of peace because they are never too prepared . “A prince, therefore, should have no care or thought except for war” (Machiavelli, 37). For the utopian leader, peace is preferable. “They detest war as a very brutal thing” (More, 63). If war is inevitable, however, they will send others in their place. Another strategy is to send citizens to war with their family members alongside them. This way, they are more likely to fight harder because they want to save their loved ones. Something governments need to think about is the economy. What kind of money will they use? How will citizens pay for goods and services? Who will do which jobs? For More, the ideal is for the inhabitants of Utopia to be self-sufficient, sharing with each other everything they need, such as "any man can freely enter any house" (More, 33). Everyone works in the occupation that suits them best after spending some time as a farmer. One problem, however, is that leaders are more willing to give assistance to those who are lazy than to those who work hard, since they are more likely to be in need. This is kind of similar to how I feel about modern America. For Machiavelli the people are not so self-sufficient. Soldiers are preferred, who love the spoils of war and taking what belongs to others. They want their citizens to work harder and be the best they can be, so why should they waste time working? I believe this is similar to the Machiavellian leader in that they prefer soldiers to the hard working common man. Both leaders show favoritism towards some members of their countries, but they also take pride in people who do their best. They will always appreciate hard work. Keep in mind: this is.