In regard to this Machiavelli acknowledges that being liberal, which is how he describes a ruler freely spending his country's resources, is a good quality to have. However he believes that this quality, if unregulated, could lead to a prince's ruin. If according to Machiavelli a prince were to spend a country's resources too excessively and begin heavily taxing his subjects as a result of that, he would risk losing their loyalty. Machiavelli recognized that in reality resources would always remain limited no matter how much of it is saved for future use. Thus this entailed that rulers would need to learn how to spend wisely and minimally. Machiavelli thus stated that being miserly with one's resources was better for rulers in that case, since then he would have enough resources to spend when necessary. His subjects, though disliking his miserliness, would nonetheless remain loyal to him due to his spending resources wisely.

Finally, Machiavelli...

According to Machiavelli it should be allowed for princes to deceive their subjects in this regard because most people will not pry into their rulers' affairs in order to make sure that the way they behave publicly is the same way they do privately. He in fact preferred for rulers to pretend having those good qualities instead of actually practicing them. In contrast, More believed that it was necessary for all people in society, including rulers, to have strong faith and possess good qualities. This would ensure that members of society would abide by its rules due to their faith; this was why he condemned atheism. Between the two scholars, Machiavelli is seen to have had a clearer understanding of the complexities of human nature, which renders his work more interesting than the idealistic assumptions prevalent in More's work.