Identify and explain precisely the most important points and arguments Raphael Hythloday presents in Book One and Book Two
Raphael Hythloday in Book “Utopia,” discusses the probable chance of having an ideal world where societies work for the gain and benefit of each other. According to the scholar, resources and opportunities should be for communities and not private people; the scholar felt that private ownership of property is the main hindrance to the attainment of a utopian world.
Raphael Hythloday, in books one and two was of the view that the government and the state operate within an economy for the benefit of the societies, they are given power and authority to dictate the distribution of resources among communities. The writer feels that the nature of human beings is likely to exploit and accumulate wealth for themselves at the expense of others; the government should be the sole owner of property and people taken as laborers at the same level. The writer argues that if this were the angle taken then the world would be utopian.
A culture of a country determines the value and ideologies they hold; when the government assumes the role of controlling the economy then people are likely to accept the culture and solve differences in culture and social rivalry among them. He noted the role that domestic laws play in creating an equal society in legislative matters; he observes that the breakthrough got us only possible since the government has taken the ownership of constitutional power. The approach with law gives him the arguing point of why the same cannot be implemented across the board.
According to Raphael Hythloday, the government should take the central role of activities in their countries; the underlying ideology is the distribution of wealth. They aim at having equal distribution of wealth and do not recognize individual wealth accumulation. From this angle, it is a good approach aimed at ensuring that the national cake is shared among the entire population. There are no classes and the government is seen to choose the direction that the masses will go.
Sometimes, and it has happened most often, the actors in the government make some decisions for their interests. They may look at the interest of a few at the expense of the masses. Production is seen as not geared to profit-making and thus the adopted methods of production are in most cases, not the most efficient. The inefficiency limits the level of economy in the country; in this era of limited resources, these systems are not good for a country more so in the developing and less developed countries. They are meant to encourage a vicious cycle of poverty (More and Clarence 1-3)
Explain in detail why you agree with Hythloday or side with Thomas More
Thomas More has criticized the concerns brought about by Raphael Hythloday; he thinks that the world cannot attain utopianism with centralized control of resources. Thomas More supports the idea of a capitalist system of governance. The system does not limit the citizens to the amount of wealth that they can accumulate and gives them a level playing ground for wealth creation. Business in all sectors of the economy is enhanced; however, the economy creates a high competition in resources as people seek to win the limited resources, the result is some people gaining at the expense of others.
As much as the system by Thomas More can be seen in, some economies like China and the United States, some vices are seen to be associated with the system; the system encourages selfishness that results in corruption, secondly, the distribution of wealth is not uniform and the economy can favor small groups. Class (that is measured by how much one has) influences major decisions in these countries. It is common to get a large part of the population poor and resources centered on a small group.
Raphael Hythloday’s approach to the attainment of a utopian society is sound with a limited population growth rate and countries that have abundant resources, however the situation on the ground is different, resources are limited and need to be optimally utilized; this cannot be possible with Raphael Hythloday approach.
In 2011, if it were “possible,” would you base a society on Utopian ideals? Yes? No?
If it was possible to have a utopian world, then the world will be a better place to live in, people would be able to respect and value others despite their minor differences. Some international and national rivalries have been blamed on differences in power and resource distribution; with a utopian world, then such rivalries would be unheard of.
Some dangers can arise with a utopian economy; the system of production works with landowners and laborers, when utopianism has been attained, then the world would suffer from a lack of laborers and when available, the wage rate would be high. This leads to under and inefficient exploitation of natural resources; when resources are not effectively utilized, then the world will suffer a lack of essential comedies and deterioration of living standards (More and Clarence 23).
In my view, modern economies should have a hybrid governance system where the government intervenes in its country’s economic management but allows the private sector to drive the economy. The government should intervene to facilitate an appropriate economic growth rate and protect citizens from violation of their constitutional rights. Before making an investment decision, the government should consider the economic, political, social, global, and environmental implications of such a decision.
Works Cited
More, Thomas, and Clarence Miller. Utopia. New York: Yale Univ. Press, 2001. Print.