What is the problem with private property? Why is it a problem (what is one possible objection or argument against it)? Consider such issues as equality, envy or resentiment, and providing for basic necessities (perhaps human rights). Is it convincing? Are there problems with abolishing private propert and money (as well as luxury items such as fancy houses and trendy clothing)? Is Raphael correct about private property?
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
No More Lululemon, Tesla, Or Uggs?
Perhaps the most striking and controversail element of More's Utopian society in Utopia is the abolition of private property (and the related reforms of uniform homes and clothing, communal living and the absence of currency). As Raphael professes in Book 1, "I must freely own that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily (44). He adds just a page later, "I am persuaded that till property is taken away, there can be no equitable or just distribution of things, not can the world be happily governed. . . (45).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Private property is one of the central principles of American society, but people rarely pause to consider its merits. Most people take private property for granted, thinking that all functioning societies must have it. But is it that important? Throughout history, various thinkers have given their opinioins on this topic, with English writer John More providing one of the first written arguments against private property. In his work titled Utopia, More argues that abolishing private property is necessary to create a perfect society. He presents his ideas through the voice of Gabriel Hythloday, a traveler who has visited the island of Utopia several times. Hythloday has concluded that a lack of private property is a key factor of Utopia’s prosperity, stating, “In all other places it is visible that, while people talk of a commonwealth, every man only seeks his own wealth; but there, where no man has any property, all men zealously pursue the good of the public. He continues by arguing that because the Utopians’ basic needs are provided by the government, they can divert their efforts toward benefiting the public, explaining, “In other commonwealths every man knows that, unless he provides for himself … he must die of hunger… but in Utopia … they all know that if care is taken to keep the public stores full … and though no man has anything, yet they are all rich; for what can make a man so rich as to lead a serene and cheerful life, free from anxieties? Although I agree with many of Hythloday’s arguments, the abolishment of private property could also have significant consequences. Many people make the collection of luxury items a life goal (such as owning a fancy car). Without any private property, they might not have the motivation to work or benefit society. In addition, private property allows people to express their identity and beliefs. Like school uniforms, abolishing private property would remove any individuality from a civilization, confining people to a homogenous life.
ReplyDeleteWith the book Utopia, the Utopian country has gotten rid of private property. No one can own land or houses. Their philosophy is that it makes everyone equal and there is no jealousy in society. Raphael stated with private properties, “The best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few… the rest being left to be absolutely miserable,” (PG 44.) While I do agree that in a society where the best things are left to the richest and the worst to the poorest, is inherently not a Utopia, I do think that idealogy can be fixed. When the bare minimum is absolutely horrible that it leaves people on the streets, it isn't a Utopia. The poorest of the poor should still be able to receive private property and a house where they can at least live in. Raphael also states that, “it seems to me that men cannot live conveniently where all things are common. How can there be any plenty where every man will excuse himself from labor? For as the hope of gain doth not excite him, so the confidence that he has in other men’s industry may make him slothful,” (PG 46.) I completely agree with this statement. If everyone gets the same thing no matter what, and there is no sense of identity, why would people work? If there is no goal to strive for what is stopping them from either not caring, or not trying to do enough? There has to be some sort of goal they can strive to achieve in the fact that they can gain more private property and a bigger house. The sense that everyone is the same takes away from everyone's individuality and uniqueness.
ReplyDeletePrivate property has been abolished in the island nation of Utopia. With no private property, the Utopians experience equality with their possessions and do not feel jealousy. Unlike our society, the Utopians do not have socioeconomic classes. The rich do not have big houses, designer clothing, or fancy cars, and the poor do not live in envy. Instead, there are no rich or poor Utopians, they live in uniformity, “Throughout the island they wear the same sort of clothes,” Raphael explains (59). In addition, their homes “are so uniform that a whole side of a street looks like one house” (54). With no private property the Utopians can not be jealous of one another’s home or clothing, which is very beneficial to their society’s philosophy of equality. Yet, with no private property, there is no individuality. The Utopians can not express themselves freely. Whether they have the will to or not, they do not have the freedom to wear vibrant clothing, or to pick how they want their bedroom to look, for example. Is sacrificing individuality and freedom of expression worth it to get rid of the envy and resentment that comes with private property? In the eyes of the Utopians, it is. They would rather have equality, as shown throughout their society with no racial discrimination and much less gender discrimination than was common during Thomas More’s time. Utopians switch houses every ten years, meaning they can not even call their home their own. Yet, their new house is exactly the same as the one they had; complete uniformity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe luxury of private property is taken for granted as it makes a person a person, meaning they can be themselves in the comfort of their home without worrying about being intruded upon by others. In the nation of Utopia, private property isn’t a thing. Every house is in uniform, including a set dress code, free food, and other necessities that are free of charge. It doesn’t sound that bad, so why even have private property? Stripping everyone of their possessions, clothes, and uniqueness removes jealousy and greed from society. This could be seen as equality, but it should also be seen as inhumane. It is said that “throughout the island they wear the same sort of clothes, without any other distinction except what is necessary to distinguish the two sexes…” (More 59). The problem with this is the strict dress code policy since it removes all individuality. This could be looked fondly upon because if everyone wore the same clothes, there wouldn’t be anyone who wants something that someone else has or is unhappy with the things they have. Humans have personalities, and those personalities dictate the things we do. By stripping away the choice of personal identification, everyone is dull and the same. Human rights go out the window in this society, as abolishing private property is detrimental. The Utopians can’t express themselves even if they have free will. Free will doesn’t matter when there aren’t any choices to make. Raphael perfectly constructed this society to be perfect and uniform. Another significant piece of information comes to light shortly into book two. “‘On the contrary,’ answered I, ‘it seems to me that men cannot live conveniently where all things are common” (More 46). This statement is the whole truth of the situation and is one of the most vital points against the Utopian society. It is even said that people cannot live comfortably when everyone has the same things. Having a bigger house than someone else can create jealousy, but humans are programmed to feel jealous and need to be better. In Utopia, everyone is already ‘perfect,’ so bigger houses and trendy clothing would make people feel envy or greed. Is it worth it to strip everyone's uniqueness away in order for a better world? Disagreeing is the truth, but the Utopians try to prove otherwise. In short, Raphael couldn’t be any further from reaching a perfect society. A utopia means that everyone gets what they want, and that’s it. Simple, but impossible.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn Utopia, by Thomas Moore, the island of Utopia banned private property and the use of currency to remove envy and greed from civilization. While this fanciful decision breeds prosperity within the confines of the story, the same would never be true if this principle were applied to any society outside of the book. The simple philosophy of their belief is that “all things should be divided among a few, (and even these are not in all respects happy), the rest being left to be absolutely miserable.” (Pg.44) While this claim may possess some elements of truth, the society of Utopia either should have collapsed by now or is far worse than our contemporary society. The first issue is that all the conditions on the island are so ridiculously advantageous that any society could become a paradise. The land of the island is not only so fertile that it produces enough crops to feed the entire country, secure two years’ worth of rations, and “send out, commonly in great quantities, to other nations.” (Pg.73). This island produces such a surplus that they actively give away all crops to those who need any for free. However, there is no land so fertile that it could withstand the prolonged decade-long droughts that we see historically occur. It is this natural scarcity of some essential resources like food that demands some form of currency. Because there is only so much to go around, inequality between the haves and have-nots would have exploded, the thing this system is meant to banish. Creating an island where food is always plentiful creates a disingenuous thought experiment because scarcity is a truth of the natural world. No country could ever consistently produce that many crops and therefore their system of distributing food for free would have already faced collapse in the real world. Another issue is that the people of Utopia would not lose their envy absent private property, rather they would merely have it diverted. For example, it is evident that appearance is highly valuable in Utopia's society. So blatantly so within the society that before marriage the men and women are presented naked to each other for inspection, all the men of Utopia are “not so wise as to choose a woman only for her good qualities”. (Pg.98). The fact that appearing conventionally beautiful is still valued in this society means that any aspect of envy that is meant to be reduced in Utopia is merely redirected. Envy will always exist so long as not everything is 100% equal, even appearance. Envy is a distilled aspect of human nature that cannot be removed with the removal of currency. Removing multiple sources of envy does not reduce the amount of envy, it only increases the severity of envy over certain subjects like appearance, being able-bodied, strength, wit, etc. The only result of this brave new currency-free Utopia would have been a starved community with residents just as envious of one another as they are in contemporary society. Though, I suppose that wouldn’t make for as interesting of a book.
Thomas More thinks of private property as the first source of inequality in Utopia. Raphael shows evidence by talking about how private property separates the rich from the poor: but while we have the property and the money, we shall not have justice and happiness. He things that envy, resentment, and war are caused by private property. The solution that More brings up is that the solution lies in the abolition of private property so that everyone is equal and has housing, clothes, etc. He believes that if everyone was equal, that injustice would come to an end. I believe there are unanticipated things that may happen if private property is abolished. Wealth causes people to look for ways to innovate and further push humanity into the future. Many may lose interest in inventing and trying to be productive or even have a goal to strive towards. Someone's life shouldn’t be all about luxury, but at the same time, it’s something that almost all humans think of at some point. No one can express who they are or who they want to be. Everyone has to be the same in this in and of itself feels like an injustice. Although Raphael points to crucial issues of injustice connected with private property, there are still practical and ethical considerations to take into account. There may be a solution that allows people to still have private property while also making the difference between rich and poor less extreme. The question arises as to what this solution is.
ReplyDeletePrivate property and distinguishable apparel and commodities are a thing most common in capitalist society. Most argue that their existence is necessary to promote freedom of expression and freedom of ones own life or decisions. On the other hand, from a more socialistic point of view, one could argue that private property and valuable commodities create class divisions and identifiers for said classes, they segregate society into economic sectors based on what your appearance is and what you can and can't afford. This argument is the side that I agree with more, the ability to express oneself is important, however in our society we go beyond that and use apparel and commodities as a vehicle to convey our excess and riches. When it comes to apparel such as LuluLemon and Uggs one could find comfort or identity in the pieces the brand produces, however these two brands have become a signifier of wealth and status that convey to the viewer how important the wearer is. There are lines to be drawn when it comes to expression and trendiness, just because someone wears Lulu doesn’t mean they’re wealthy or want to convey that, they could just like the clothing for what it’s quality, without the significance of the brand giving it any meaning. By eliminating these brands that become a trend utilized to showcase ones wealth or status, the world would be better off in the sense that people wouldn’t compare themselves to others or be jealous of others or lust for what others have and we could eliminate the need for excess in our society that leads to negativity.
ReplyDeleteIn Raphael’s book, utopia he presents his idea of an ideal society where all needs are met, and there is social harmony. Raphael’s utopian society suggests a critical aspect in most societies, private property. Raphael argues that the existence of private property leads to significant social divisions and inequalities. He states, “The best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few… the rest being left to be absolutely miserable” (page 44). This quote reveles Raphael’s idea of the possession of luxury items and fancy clothing. Raphael believes these things that may bring wealth to individuals, becomes a source of discrimination among them. People of the society who own more or have access to resources are often higher in status, creating a hierarchy between the people, fostering jealousy, resentment, and discrimination. Discrimination due to wealth can lead to a culture where worth is measured by material possessions rather than character or contributions to the community. Raphael’s Utopia suggests that the elimination of private property and luxury items could eliminate these issues. Giving a sense of equality and community among all citizens. Taking away wealth and privilege could eliminate the possibilities of individuals judging one another based on their possessions. Instead, the society would focus on shared values and collective well-being, creating an environment where everyone has equal access to resources and opportunities.
ReplyDelete