I think the question is a bit out of context… The book is an instructional manual for a 16th century ruler. At it’s most basic level it explains how the ‘game is played’. Is politics essentially evil? Yes. The ends may not always be evil, but the means normally are.

‘The Prince’ is also one of the best and most blunt expositions on human nature; not what a philosopher wants human nature to become or what we may want it to be, but what human nature actually is.

No - it is just grim advice in a difficult time. You must know your evil enemy in order to defeat him.

Not really. I posted a full review of it somewhere on r/books which I’ll try and dig out. A lot of it is just taken for granted these days as ‘how one does business’.

I wouldn’t say evil, but not good either! I kept reading bits out to my husband and relating them to past political scandals. I’m assuming it’s required reading if you go into politics

Books are neither “good” (in the moral sense) or evil, no more than people are. ACTIONS are either good (itms) or evil or neither. Let’s try to remember this time and energy saving rule of thumb, shall we, everyone?

I prefer at Tsun Tazoo, the Chinese Prince Machiavelli.

Depends how you look at it. Some think it’s satire, and I tend to lean that way as well given that in his Discourses on Livy, he presents much stronger and more thought-out arguments as to why a republican form of government is best for the state and keeps the country more stable than being guided by the whims of a monarch. Even in the Discourses he has a very Realpolitik way of thinking, but imo it reveals his true opinions much better than The Prince does.

I don’t think it’s satire. Nor is it evil. It is merely a look at the reality of politics in a clinical way. Try reading it without preconceptions, without emotion, and just as an info dump. Draw your conclusion post reading. It’s fairly short and I enjoyed it, and whether or not one agrees with his takes you can clearly see its influence in the world if you look.