Machiavelli's Conception Of Liberty

Much of Hobbes specific conception of liberty is derived from his understanding of human nature. This is where the value lies in comparing his principles with those of Machiavelli. Both make a concerted effort to refute a dominant concept in prior thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle by rejecting the notion that reason is a primary unique trait in humans. In his discourses, Machiavelli admits that freedom and not feeling oppressed are good for the people. Too much freedom however, leads to self-destruction. Machiavelli points out that, "Men never do anything that is good except when forced to. Where there is a good deal of freedom of choice, and this freedom can be abused, then everything quickly becomes buried in confusion and disorder." (Book

Through this argument, Machiavelli essentially claims that anything is justified if the other option is self-defeating. Like Hobbes, Machiavelli claims that men naturally oppress each other. They act as if, "there were no choice but to be either the attacker or the victim." (Book One, Chapter 46) This furthers supports his argument for political structure. Civil laws create an environment in which individuals do not overly oppress one another. Much like for Hobbes, liberty is about a fine balance between freedom and oppression. A political system cannot be built only on the foundations of freedom because humans are by nature selfish and desire to oppress. It also cannot be built only on stability through the removal of freedom. A mix between the two extremes is the only solution. For the most part, Hobbes and Machiavelli share a similarly bleak opinion on human nature. A critical area where Hobbes and Machiavelli differ is what kind of political structure is ideal in achieving this solution. Machiavelli argues for a republic derived from the people and with the purpose of serving the interests of the people while Hobbes argues for a totalitarian sovereign power whose main imperative is to secure the safety and preservation of the