I disagreed with Machiavelli when I read his book in one of my business classes (got an A on the paper too) since the situation is far different today than it was during the age of Monarchy. I think his conclusions were mostly correct for his day and age though.
His work is considered one of the keystones of MODERN politics.
He is considered by some to have been the central figure in helping to usher in the era of capitalism, industrialization, secularization, rationalization, and the modern nation-state.
And your brush with him in a business class lead you to the conclusion that his work wasn't applicable to the modern era? Consider the probability that they didn't cover enough of it for you to get a more accurate understanding. Suggesting Machiavelli is irrelevant to the modern state/politics is like claiming the work of Pythagoras wasn't relevant to modern mathematics. Blunt, but you know what I mean.
However, my concern is not how best to rule over a population, but rather how best to have an orderly and civilized society where
everyone has a reasonable shot at living. Those things are different subjects.
Every civilized society of note had and has, rules as a foundation. To suggest it's a different subject, when it's the practical foundation, is not reasonable.
That's why I brought up Machiavelli. He was known from this perspective to have:
1. ushered in an era of realism in politics, displacing the common idealism of the day. In other words, he brought science to politics. Just as Galilo helped displace idealism on the earth with science. And Gregor Mendel brought science to genetics, displacing idealism. When are you going to replace your idealism with reason? It's yours to have any time you want it.
2. I would have hoped even more to your liking, he brought this realism of how rulers ruled in practice, to the common people. He pulled the curtain back for them to see not only how they were being manipulated, but how they can rule themselves. He literally gave power, to the people.
Fear is chosen over love as a matter of practicality. The answer matrix looks something like this:
Good people accept rule by love (they are good people, they are gonna do the right thing anyway)
Good people accept rule by fear (they are good people, they are gonna do the right thing anyway)
Bad people have no rational reason to accept rule by love (they are bad people, they will do whatever it takes to get what they want)
Bad people have a rational reason to accept rule by fear (they are bad people, but getting locked away in prison for 30 years is *really* bad)
So if you choose love, it's only viable to rule the good people.
If you choose fear, it's viable in ruling both. Good people are not the problem. Good people don't steal, you don't need laws prohibiting it or punishment if you do. But having no laws against theft in a random society? Idealistic folly. Applicable today as it was 400 years ago, or 4000.