Would you rather be the Prince of Complacency or Peasant of Prevalence? According to Machiavelli it is "wisest" to define your people. It is "wisest" to put up a facade of a perfect man. It is "wisest" to be feared. However for Thoreau, a Peasant of Prevalence is one who must let go of family, love, money, and home for change. Because Machiavelli is addressing the leader's conservatism, and Thoreau is addressing the individual's activism, they both share concepts of power, but are directed towards different audiences.
Power of government is the defining feature in how one can gain independence, or dependence. To Thoreau, having money, and a home, and a family, only increases one’s dependence on government. Thoreau sees this as as a comfortable lifestyle, and therefore a selfish lifestyle, for this lifestyle is one that needs government to survive. One who would rather live in complacency than advocate change, is therefore one who is too dependent on government. So all in all, Thoreau believes independent power for the individual comes from the lack of government, for through a lack of government, one may make their own decisions. In Machiavelli's case, he says the same to princes. It is through your power and royalty, that you given the right to independence. As a prince, you are the one to make decisions on the people's behalf. You may take counsel, but a good prince is one that makes his own decisions. Although only princes are given all the power, much like Thoreau, Machiavelli is encouraging for princes to be dependent on no one.
Both of these roles can also be flipped. The Prince of Complacency is one who ignores their people’s suffering, and one who is ignorant of their state’s key problems. Similarly, the Peasant of Prevalence is one who must have no government to make changes in a government they don’t follow. So ironically both are either unable to hear, or are unable to be heard. To be a Prince of Complacency, one must use fear to gain the respect to rule people. And likewise, to be a Peasant of Prevalence, one must have confidence to rebel leaders. Despite both are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they both share playing on people’s pluck.
This is a thoughtful, intriguing post, Matt. That thesis is a little weak, though, and you have a much stronger thesis implicit in that second paragraph--that both Thoreau and Machiavelli rely on individual independence. (Of course, you should probably qualify the Machiavelli point, since he also relies on the complacency and shepherding qualities of the masses to obey the prince.)
ReplyDelete