Machiavelli vs Thoreau

Thoreau and Machiavelli were two very different men from very different eras.  They share almost nothing and they hold conflicting views on what the role of government should be in the lives of men. Machiavelli believed in absolute control from a central leader that was attained and preserved through the clever uses of corruption and violence. Whilst Thoreau believed that government was unnecessary and that human ethics and virtue alone could preserve order in society. Yet, although Machiavelli's tactics are seen as tyrannical and brutal, he had experience as a leader and knew what had to be done to keep society moving. Although Thoreau's ideas are more appealing they are just not realistic. Never has humankind created a functioning anarchist society where people live off of ethics and kindness. Humans are naturally wild and violent and crime would sure to be rampant and profitable if Thoreau's imaginary world were made real. Machiavelli actually held a position of power and knew what it meant to keep society in check. His policies were employed by leaders like Benito Mussolini and Chariman Mao who (although brutal and heavy-handed) created necessary order and structure for their nations.

Thoreau was a profound and prestigious writer of the 19th century who was fervent in his beliefs. He was a stark abolitionist and advocated that if government is practising an injustice then it was a man's duty to stand up to government and break the law. Thoreau, like many other contemporary transcendentalists, believed that humankind possessed innate inner wisdom. He argued that this wisdom would cause people to feel personally responsible for mankind and prevent them from crimes that would harm others and thereby prevent society from falling into chaos. Thoreau is easily comparable to the french philosophes of the Enlightenment, such as Rousseau and Voltaire. A writer and thinker who through a rational and logical approach seeks to criticize the social and political structure of the Nation. He is also like them in that he is a bit of an armchair general when it comes to issues of political nature as he lacks the experience in a leadership role to be able to criticize government or provide logical alternatives. Instead he provides alternatives for government that are idealistic and overenthusiatic as they are too dependent on the supposed goodness of humankind.

Machiavelli was the ruler of Florence Italy during a short period of the Renaissance. He came into power as a puppet of the Mafia-esque family the Medicis. His views, although crude and disagreeable, were revolutionary. He believed government was a practical tool that created rules depending on the situation instead of abiding by predetermined laws. Machiavelli claimed that "acquisition, retention, and expansion of power," should be the priority of a ruler. Instead of seeing power as a means to an end Machiavelli saw power as an end in itself. Machiavelli does not emphasize the attainment, sustainment and expansion of power for the pleasure of the leader but for the efficiency of a government. He believed that a leader could not successfully lead unless he had utter and absolute control.