Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

Thoreau and Machiavelli both have very interesting perceptions and beliefs in the government, and both have inspired great speeches from brilliant leaders. Although they both sit drastically on each end of the spectrum, there are still certain parts where their thinking overlaps with each other's.

Thoreau and Machiavelli both are discussing the same issue: governing. Except, Thoreau talks about how the government should run itself from a citizen's perspective; Machiavelli talks about how it should be run from a prince's perspective. Thoreau goes into depth talking about his time in jail, and the role of an individual in their society according to the government. He holds a bit more of an optimistic view towards change and believes in a very moral system. If we just lessened governmental power and people relied on their morals more, he would be happy. However, Machiavelli promotes a harsher rule and believes that a prince has to keep his people at a distance. He has to know how to use both his words and his force to get his point across.

The difference between the two can really be shown in the emphasis of morality. Thoreau believes that the ends should not justify the means, but the means should justify the end, meaning all the actions you take should be more important than the outcome. This is elaborated in his explanation of his time in jail, and the reason that he ended up there: he did not pay his taxes. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thinks that a prince should be able to do what he wants as long as the end result is alright. He doesn't necessarily have to have the moral justification to do so if he thinks something is right. As long as people believe you are powerful and just, you're set.

Although Thoreau and Machiavelli do take different stances on the issue, both are valid and set the stage for many following ideas concerning government. According to them, you can either step back and let the people have the power, or you make sure you're the one that always has it.