Utopia by Thomas More

Scholars are divided on this book, and so am I. Some say More is actually espousing an ideal way of life, while others insist it is all moral allegory. I'm afraid I cannot tell. More was a devout Catholic, and rather intolerant of other religions, and so the vague communal faith of the Utopians seems entirely imcompatible with his beliefs. But for what, then, did he write the book.

The Utopia is an island in some inscrutable place. Its inhabitants are housed, fed, clothed, and employed by the government. In return, they work diligently eight hours a day. They're moderately well-educated, and encouraged to attend instructional lectures in their spare time. Gold and jewels are despised and used for chamberpots and such, and no one seems to mind not owning anything because they want for nothing necessary. Church attendance is compulsory, but the service is inter-faith, for various beliefs abound, their only common thread being a monotheism.

For, the whole of the societal structure depends upon the individual's belief in a benevolent higher power. As More readily admits, no man would work toward the good of the whole his entire life if he didn't have any spiritual incentive, any afterlife impetus. As long as the Utopians believe that their cooperation is in their best interests, they will continue to do their respective shares.

The state holds a terrible amount of power in Utopia. Travel is restricted; marriage is regulated. Every aspect of the citizens' lives is dependent upon the government. Though each is guaranteed food, shelter, and steady work, the arrangement is neither desirable nor feasible. At the end of the day, it is all no less that state-controlled slavery. Freedom, even an impoverished freedom, as Frederick Douglass said, is surely better than this.

Individual ownership is one of the chief desires of man. As I heard a pastor recently say, "The early Christians did not preach Communism. Communism says, 'What's yours is mine.' Communalism says, 'What's mine is yours.' The early Christians practiced communalism." Philanthropy should be born of an intrinsic motivation to give, not by the state's insistence. The motive to do good, in fact, in completely eradicated when sin and virtue are determined by authority, when unquestioning compliance is all that is asked of the individual.

So why did More write this book? Perhaps, in the pre-Marx world, a communism seemed plausible. Or perhaps More was entirely aware of the shortcomings of his invented society, and intended it only as a backdrop upon which to present his carefully veiled critiques of his contemporary life. For my part, I hope for the latter.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

Machiavelli actually served as an excellent converstion starter. I read the entirety of the book over the course of a few days, sitting in a coffee shop in Idyllwild. I was asked twice if I were reading The Prince for fun, once by an innocuously middle-aged man who said, "You don't see people reading Machiavelli very often," and once by a slightly formidable biker, replete with leather and tattoos, for whom a penchant for literature would not be one's primary inference.

I was also asked by a scruffy, long-haired local boy, if it was "cool."

"Yeah," I replied. "It's about how to gain politically in 16th century Italy." He just nodded.

That is essentially what the book is about, but much of it has more universal implications. Machiavelli proceeeds systematically, giving common-sense advice to any who would seek to achieve and maintain a position of power. He draws on ancient and contemporary sources to serve as examples, both of what to emulate, and of what to avoid.

I found myself agreeing with much of what he says, except for his exhortation to follow a path of immorality when it would further oneself politically. Of course, it makes sense to do so when one's sole goal is political gain, but it is folly to consider that one's chief end.

At any rate, Machiavelli had many points which are as applicable now as ever. He said that "knowing afar off...the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured," and he describes a times when the Romans declared war on Philip and Antiochus "for they knew war is not to be avoided" and they preferred to fight them in Greece rather than in their own country. Has anyone ever used Machiavelli to defend the Iraq War? Sounds like praise of the pre-emptive strike to me.

His wisdom can be applied to the personal life as well. "The first impression that one gets of a ruler and his brains is from seeing the men that he has about him." And, "there is no other way of guarding one's self against flattery than by letting men understans that they will not offend you by speaking the truth."

The Prince was terribly accessible and delightfully applicable. I probably won't be invading any countries any time soon, but if the occasion arises, I know whom to consult. There was a sufficient amount of everyday advice to make this book a profitable read even for a mere citizen.