This ones for you, Machiavelli.

Today in A.P European, a discussion was brought to my attention, and it's followed me around all day. During the Renaissance period, the writer Niccolo Machiavelli rose to greatness with his book The Prince, a handbook for all political leaders, if you will. In the book, Machiavelli posed a question: Is it better to be loved or hated from a rulers standpoint? His conclusion was this. People love you... when you're pleasing them. However, as soon as a choice you made displeases your followers, all ties are cut. Fear, on the other hand, leads to obedience. If the people know that they can get punished for disobeying, they will be loyal.
This made me think. Is love really tied to something as petty as pleasing people? If Machiavelli is correct, then it can be argued that love is not a deep, connecting, and bonding emotion, but a meager exploit of people pleasing

I couldn't disagree with Machiavelli more. Love defined is an emotional and sacred bond between family and friends. How could something that meaningful boil down to something only caused when you please those around you? This makes no sense in the least to me. Think about it like this: Your family isn't always thrilled with you, whether it be lack of cleaning to annoyances and everything in between. But, even when your family isn't happy with you, the love doesn't stop flowing. It's much too deep to be cut off by a speed bump in relationships. So, if you are a ruler of a country then yes, fear may be the way to go to gain obedience.

I'll stick with the belief that my friends and family would still love me regardless of if I keep them happy at a constant. If that was the case, I'd be a very lonely person!