Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

            The major differences in these two pieces of work are power and freedom, while Thoreau advocates that the government shouldn’t have so much power and the society should stray from the majority, Machiavelli believes in making the society fear the ruler (or government) establishing the power, giving the society very little freedom. Both authors establish two different perspectives as to how a society should act and how it should governed.

Machiavelli believes in belittling citizens, making them feel small, intimidating them, establishing that he is in charge and no one should even think to cross him or they will face the unknown consequences. He also says that lying before being put into power is okay, you have to do what you have to do, once you’re in power you can you’re your real colors. We discussed in class that, in some ways, this is how real politics works. Many candidates that run for any position promise the people many things just to look good, gaining votes. Now are these lies bad? Are the necessary? That was something we came to a dead end with. There’s no way to stop these “white lies”. Machiavelli addresses this when saying a ruler should show his generosity, spend his own money giving back and such, but once elected as ruler, use the citizens money for whatever he may be showing his “generosity” towards.

Thoreau, however, almost argues the exact opposite, the government shouldn’t have as much as power as it does. He even goes on to say that the government treats the citizens, and any government employers as “puppets”. He expresses in a sense that militants are government puppets that have lost all humanity, who will do anything for the government at any costs. This creates and evokes his readers, what if we are really just puppets for the government? Thoreau even goes to the extent of not paying his taxes to get his point across….he suffered those consequences.