Machiavelli vs. Thoreau (Compare and Contrast Essay) Essay

The way hotshot and simply(a) should govern and the way for unity to be governed testament always be an ongoing dispute. How can a government bear on place and the safety of its mountain til now at the same(p) time remain its citizens natural right to be forgo? The ideas from Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian aristocrat, who published The Prince in 1513 for a Medici prince as a guideline on how to rule a country, gives a fusty approach to how one should govern. Henry David Thoreaus Civil Disobedience published in 1849, offers a liberal approach on how one should be governed. Machiavelli stresses the importance of giveing sanctify slice Thoreau suggests reform.Although their views are incompatible both(prenominal) men approach their positions in an hard-hitting globener. Machiavellis approach for his audience would be through fear and army unit darn Thoreaus approach for his audience would be through nonviolent acts, such as being a nuisance to the government. Mac hiavellis audience would be any psyche in a position of force, peculiarly that of a prince. Machiavelli uses aphorisms and historical references when introducing his argument. Not only would he present his argument tho he likewise presents an opposing smear of view and discredits it. Thoreaus audience would be people who share his views on a less controlling and a honorable government. Thoreau appeals to his audience through the use of aphorisms as well as analogies with which people would be able to identify.Machiavelli insists that a regulation moldiness do whatever is in his power to rule his people regardless of whether his actions are moral or evil and that it is safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the twain must be lacking.For one can widely distri andedly say this active men that they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain, and while you work for their heartfelt they are all told yours, offering you th eir blood, their property, their lives, and their sons (Jacobus 44). These comments support the pessimistic views that Machiavelli has almost compositionkind. He theorizes that valet is immoral wherefore justifying a rule being immoral.He states that in return for a prescripts protection that a universe must give his life. Contrary to Machiavellis views on morality, Thoreaus states, That government is best which governs non at all (Jacobus 145) and that It is truly large said that a community has no conscience but a  dope of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience (Jacobus 146). Thoreau believes that it is a slices moral beliefs that would make a moral government. He believes that a man, if left(a) at his own ordain, will do what is right and in return, if in government, will do what is right for the people.When governing a country, a normal must maintain an army. In that aspect, Machiavelli states A prince, therefore, must non have any other object lens nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession, but war, its institutions, and its discipline (Jacobus 37) and that between an fortify and divest man there is no compare whatsoever, and it is non reasonable for an armed man to obey and deprive man willingly, nor that an unarmed man should be safe among armed servants (Jacobus 38). These statements suggest that a ruler must always prepare for war and military strength is more intimidating than any other type of force. In revision to maintain a country, a ruler must have a loyal army to keep it. Thoreaus whimsy on the military seems to differ in which he describes an army as itty-bitty movable forts and magazines at the service of almost unscrupulous man in power (Jacobus 147). He clearly describes men as machines of a ruler lacking morals, preferably than men protecting country.Machiavelli emphasizes a ruler maintaining order and control while Thoreau emphasizes on the citizens ruling or having a n impact on their government. For example, Machiavellis approach on how this order can be established would be through appearance. When Machiavelli states, And men in general judge more by their look than their hands for everyone can see but hardly a(prenominal) can feel. Everyone sees what you seem to be, few perceive what you are, and those few do non dare to contradict the opinion of the umpteen who have the majesty of the state to defend them and in the actions of all men (Jacobus 47), he is stating that what a ruler does that his citizens do not know about should not ingrain his reputation, as most people will follow the volume if the majority believes that their ruler is just and fair.He then continues to explicate how this can be accomplished. Machiavelli continues to explain how a ruler can be deceiving when need be but can also be depicted as merciful, faithful, human, forthright, religious (Jacobus 47),  attraction yet at the same time, he states, in order to m aintain the state he is often obligate to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion (Jacobus 47). In these statements, Machiavelli is logical argument that in order for a leader appear moral he is often subjected to immoral acts.Thoearus views seem to disaccord with Machiavellis reasoning as Thoeau states, A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority it is not even a minority then but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight (Jacobus 155). Thoreau believes in the good in men and that every man will do what is right for himself and if he believes a government to be immoral then it should be a mans duty to rebel for what is right. Although one might be a fraction of the minority, an impact can still be made if the group stands together.The power struggle between government and undivided emancipation has been and always will be a never-ending battle. Comparing Machiavellis standpoint, which would be order and contr ol, and Thoreaus standpoint, being individual freedom, would give one an idea of this conflict. up to now though both men were from different countries and lived during different times in history, their secernate ideas still live through people in societies today and will spring into the minds of others in societies to follow.