The Leader formally known as The Prince

Is the security -- defined as the territorial integrity -- of the state the first and foremost thing that a state's leader ought to concern her- or himself with?

This is land is your land, I lied it’s my land, it never was your land, it was always my land…

To put it simply, the “territorial integrity” isn’t the first thing a state’s leader should concern themselves with. Land won’t kick you out/kill you/vote against you/encourage a military coup if it’s upset. The people who live within one’s state, however, will. Keeping the people content then, is the first and foremost concern of a state’s leader.

If a state’s people are satisfied with their ruler, when the time comes for defending a state’s land, then the people themselves will gladly take up arms because they feel it is their land. If, however, the state’s people are dissatisfied, not only will they accept an invasion (at first, mind you, maybe not later), but they will encourage new leadership.

That all works in Machiavelli’s time when people were like, “Hey, let’s expand the backyard. “ “Alright, how about adding on half of Italy?” “Sure!” In this day and age, invading someone for the schnitzels and giggles of it just isn’t going to happen so often. Regardless, a state’s, especially a democratic state, first priority remains satisfying the people, because if the people get pissed off, they don’t blame themselves – they blame the person on top, and will gladly knock that person off their pedestal at the first mention of “change” by some competitor.

If the people love the state’s leader, though, then stability is created, progress is achieved, and the UN will put the state on states with the best quality of life list.

For more information on why you should keep the people happy, please see The Prince.