Both Machiavelli and Thoreau have the best interest for society. Though Machiavelli focused more on the prince relying on his position, he felt nearly self conscious because he focused on reactions or judgement from citizens of Florence. Thoreau was more of an optimistic thinker towards how he should react to society's issues. Between Machiavelli expressing his views on how a prince should run a country and Thoreau's voice on injustices of political figures it's clear that the general public "mass" just wants to be satisfied and safe.
Now, it seems quite ironic considering Machiavelli pondered many options of fear in order to gain authority over the oppressed. His rule is like a monarch; it's his words, his actions, or nothing at all. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau rants against this. His era was need of a non corrupt system. But, does it matter what these systems do if it's for the citizens own good? Possibly no. In fact that's what the prince is perceived to be doing. All of his consciousness, thoughts, and actions are for the people. Morals can't be fought. In Thoreau's insight, if people can't be heard it's not a democracy.
It can be fairly difficult to satisfy the public as well. In Thoreau, it was challenging to find anyone worth trusting if they worked for the government system. Between lack of civil rights with minorities and going to an unnecessary war in Mexico nothing will be rebelled against. The gov. strikes fear as much as a prince would with restrictions, laws, and punishment. Is it necessary? It can be. It may lead towards the saftey; whether or not it's justified, these powerful figures get things accomplished; yes, with exceptions like slavery and bearing when to be man or beast when running the county play a factor. It needs to be realized that they have authority.
No matter how unmorally unjust running what seems to be a corrupt government from a citizens point of view, or observing how sly and authoritative a prince can be with something like parsimony the public will be fine. As long as they see the "superficial apperance" there's not much to worry about in both perspectives. These officials have a duty to please the people just as their servants do to them.
You picked an element of both writers that ,i don't think, anyone wrote about . Score one for Chyna ! Plus you analyzed both authors well and i still heard your tone of voice through it all . Score Two! And had a good conclusion and best of all ending sentences : "These officials have a duty to please the people just as their servants do to them.". Well done . If you added some text or quotes from both author it would of added more credibility to you and more sense to other audiences that haven't read these text.
ReplyDeleteHi, Chyna. I agree with Gena, on both the highlights (original angles and strong voice) and spots of improvement (adding quotes). I would also add that the sentences can be a little confusing at times. As we discussed last week, especially when you're wrestling with new ideas, keep those sentences as simple as possible. Ideas first. Fancy language later.
ReplyDelete