The Unlikely Similarities

            Thoreau and Machiavelli initially seem to be polar opposites in regard to their respective philosophies. Thoreau discusses his idea that the people must rebel against the government if they feel that they are being treated unjustly, while Machiavelli explores the philosophy that the government or person in power must do anything to stay in power. Although Thoreau speaks to the masses and Machiavelli aims his philosophy at the ruling government, both stress that every person must stand up for what they think is right and not be taken advantage of by anyone.

            Thoreau and Machiavelli clearly have very different audiences. In his essay, Civil Disobedience, Thoreau is speaking directly to the public. Machiavelli, on the other hand, aims his philosophy in The Prince towards the government or person in power. Another difference between the two writers can be seen in their opinions on violence and when it is appropriate. Machiavelli says that executions are an acceptable way to punish subjects. On the contrary, Thoreau’s philosophy is all about nonviolent methods of rebellion. He provides an example in telling his story of being thrown in jail for a night for refusing to pay the poll tax. While Thoreau provides reasoning to practice “civil disobedience” in times of injustice, Machiavelli sees no problem in using violence if it is necessary to staying in power.

            Despite the different audiences and opinions on violence, Thoreau and Machiavelli do share common ground. Both philosophers emphasis that one cannot let anyone take advantage of him. Who that “one” refers to differs from Thoreau to Machiavelli, but the idea is more or less the same. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau writes, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.”  Similarly, in The Prince, Machiavelli says, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others.” Both writers imply that it is imperative for their respective audience to stand up for themselves and do what they think is right, regardless of what other people think. In Machiavelli’s case, the prince cannot be taken advantage of, and he must do whatever is necessary to stay in power. In Thoreau’s case, the people must stand up for themselves and not allow injustice to continue. He argues that it is the obligation of the people to rebel against these injustices. Although the overall messages of both writers seem contradictory, they are relaying the same idea to both of their audiences. A combination of both philosophies could actually result in a more balanced government where neither the public nor the government lets the other become too powerful.

            Both Thoreau and Machiavelli introduce very absolute philosophies. Both men feel it is the duty of their audience to act a certain way. For the prince, he must stay in power regardless of the circumstances. For the people, they must rise up against injustice.  Neither philosophy is perfect, but they share certain ideas.