1. Machiavelli said that it is easier to govern a hereditary state than a new principality for two reasons. First, those under the rule of such states are familiar with the prince¡¯s family and are accustomed to their rule. So if the prince keep the ancient customs, the people would remain loyal to him because they do not want their ways of living to change. Second, even an ordinary prince can retain power unless unusual forces deprive him of it. But even if ahereditary prince loses power, he can easily regain it if the new ruler falters even a bit. So unless a hereditary prince is unusually cruel, his subjects will prefer a traditianal ruler to a new one.

2. I think Machiavelli is in some way very selfish, because he does not care for the rights of the minorities, thinking they are unable to cause much civil unrest. But from the prince's point of view, this is the best way for him to keep the state in his power.

1. A prince by birth has every rights to sit on the throne. It has been that way for centuries, and the people is used to the --- family ruling their country. So the subjects will take his or hers orders with no objections. But the reason he or she is ruling is "Custom". If the king or queen change that custom, the trait will break. There is no longer the shield called rights. So the ruler should keep in mind that custom.

2. It is a effective way. But the ruler should keep in mind something. The colonies go there. They are loyal and afraid to make mistakes. And they have no objections. Those who have objections are scattered without a home. The ruler will have no problem running the country. But if the ruler loses power, the colonies will have no peace. So the ruler should keep his powers intact.

A1. It is said in the book that the prince by blood has far more fewer difficulties than those who were not the right heir to the throne. A prince by blood just has to keep the ancient customs and then to suit one's actions to unexpected events. I agree to this thought. If you were born royal, than you just don't have to be a mischief-maker. A person with no great ability just has to keep the customs and then, the throne won't be stealed and even if the throne is stolen, it will be much easier to receive it back, because the people are used to that person controling the country.

A2. Well, Machiavelli said that colonies do not cost much so injuring just a little bit of the poor people can't be a threat to the king. At first, I didn't agree to Machiavelli at all. Because how can someone injure other people to save him or herself? All people have kind part in somewhere. But, sometimes people are selfish and they just care about themselves, too. Most people don't care about person who are poor than themselves. So thinking rationally, I think that Machiavelli can be right. Of course, a king can act as the exact opposite, too. A king can give freedom and money and house and other things for the colonies's people, but it will cost a lot of money and if the king just show kindness, then it will be a big threat to the king later. So, even though I do't like Machiavelli's opinion, I think that I have to agree to his opinion.