Yes, I've read Machiavelli. The total failure of Machiavelli was that he believed the ends justified the means. That type of justification is decrepit.
In reality and practicality, the ends are meaningless if the means to that end were immoral.
I disagree.
Let me clarify -
You want world peace. You then decide that in order to get world peace you must start a nuclear war and exterminate all human life on the planet because without humans there would be no war and therefore you end up with world peace because you have exterminated all human life on the planet.
Does that means justify the end result? Obviously not because there would be no point in world peace if no one was there to enjoy it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely and totalitarian systems are absolutely corrupt even by their own warped standards.
If one's goal is to produce a system that results in absolute stability, the only way to do that is to produce a system that keeps everyone happy. You can't coerce people into being happy. If you know of a way to do it, please let me know and we can rule the world and everyone would be happy.
@ HC - Yes, I haven't been living in the same reality as 'the rest of us'. If that means I don't believe in being a power hungry mongrel that tramples everyone else for the sake of self-aggrandizement. Present company excluded.
Stability, by definition, would be counter-revolutionary mainly because in order for a revolution to be perpetual, it requires a constant state of instability - that is if stability is the real reason for a revolution (and a contradiction in terms).
Now, personally, if I wanted to create a genuinely stable, self governing system that could protect a feeder region (or user region for that matter, and that would serve to create a stable feeder region with immense power, it would be a very simple thing. And everyone partaking would have a democratic system to govern them, be free from coercion, and would offer incentives for people to cooperate and join the system.
Here's how it would work:
1. You take any sufficiently large region (feeder or user) and you establish a representative democratic government with a Delegate who has sufficient executive authority.
2. You then award, by merit, certain individuals, with the authority to establish their own self governing regions, each region being represented in a separate house of the legislature (one house representing the home region, the other representing 'colonies). Each 'prelate' of a given colony region recruits it's members exclusively from other regions (preferably feeders). These tier regions are protected by an active founder who can boot invaders, raider, etc.,,, so that the regions subservient by treaty are impervious to invasion.
3. Each 'colony' then continues the process by creating subservient regions who gain representation in the home-region's government.
4. Each region subservient to the home region must pledge military support to defend the founderless feeder or home region.
5. Encourage other regions (founderless or otherwise) to join the system and guarantee them protection.
6. Regions that attack subservient regions are immediately given the opportunity to either join the system or get militarily defeated - Pax Romana, but only against those who act as aggressors against any regions in the 'system'. You seek expansion but only by voluntary accession of member regions.
By distributing your 'state' amongst numerous totally protected (founder protected) colony regions, you create a pool of nations that can come to the aid of a home region (feeder or founderless user region) without having to worry about having to defend their own home regions in their absense.
7. If a sub-region wants independence, you let them go and even encourage them to go off on their own. If they remain friends, then all the better.
Yes, the system is imperialistic, but a voluntary system in which no region or nation is coerced but requires a democratic republic to govern collectively. You get increased power and numbers by cooperation and not by coercion resulting a very large numbers of nations and regions, thus maintaining the stability of the home region and all those involved.
It would take fewer than 10 nations/individuals dedicated to this cause, and it would result in the greatest stable arrangement NationStates has ever seen. It would be the ultimate perpetual 'revolution' driven by the goal of democratic cooperation. And even if little pieces fall off, the principle would perpetuate itself.