Machiavelli vs. Thoreau- Who's right?

After reading both Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and Machiavelli’s The Prince it’s hard to determine which philosophy is truly the best. Thoreau is more idealistic and difficult to execute in life whereas Machiavelli’s is a lot more applicable but not as moral. Although both authors write to encourage a more proper government their philosophies comes from different ends of the spectrum.

One of the points that Thoreau and Machiavelli spend a great amount of time on is the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Machiavelli stresses that a prince must do what is necessary to remain powerful. “A wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others.”  He believes that a prince should constantly be in control even if it means being feared by the people. Meanwhile Thoreau shows a different idea; that “government is best which governs least.” In this perspective the interventions of the government only succeed in holding back the state from becoming a more “prefect and glorious state”. When the people comply with the government’s law’s they are no longer individuals but ‘machines’.  Not only are Thoreau’s ideas different, they completely reject Machiavelli’s views on government. Machiavelli is writing on the assumption that the people aren’t competent to make their own choices and need to be governed to and protected from new states. This significantly differs from Thoreau’s notion that the government is unjust and that the people have the duty to act on their morals in correcting the corrupted government. Their philosophies on governing also reflect their value of the individual. Machiavelli’s rational but less compassionate ways shows that the state itself and its prosperity is a higher priority than the individual needs of the people. “Thus no prince should mind being called cruel for what he does to keep his subjects united and loyal.” Thoreau on the other hand, says many times throughout his story that one should be able to live contently by following their principles regardless of the higher authority. As someone who spends a night in jail because he refused to pay taxes he disagreed with, Thoreau is very concerned with the mental state of the individual people. Considering the idea that a government does not exist without the people it is interesting to see how the two regard the subjects in such contradicting way especially Machiavelli with his text The Prince that continuously says the ends justify the means.

At a quick glance Machiavelli does seem more logical but if taken seriously both philosophies can become extremely dangerous. Thoreau may be read as a cry for action by overzealous readers to take extreme action while Machiavelli could be taken as favoring a tyrannical rule. Neither is completely right. Rather than sticking to one side it would be beneficial to incorporate elements of both.  Maybe then we will have an ideal state that doesn’t act in extremities.