No, I haven't read Aristotle, yet, but I am (finally) reading Thomas More's
Utopia. I guess I just didn't feel ready to read it until I had done some
background research on it so I would understand the context of it.
Shauni found a Norton Critical Edition of it for me, and there are several essays and introductions by famous authors and scholars, like C.S. Lewis, about the nature of the book, the history of the humanist movement, and communism. There is also a reprinting of Amerigo Vespucci's account of his travels among the Native Americans that was popular at the time More was writing
Utopia, and probably influenced his ideas.
I especially liked C.S. Lewis's interpretation of the book. He believes it's a work of fantasy and poetics, not a political treatise, and refers to it as a "jolly invention." He advises that the best way to read it is with the desire to be entertained and pleased, not necessarily educated and admonished. There are, of course, lots of incongruities and contradictions in More's descriptions of the perfect society, and some of his descriptions are obviously meant to make one laugh: for example, the Utopians have no use for gold and silver, so, they make their vessels, and, yes, their toilet seats out of it!
I think it's fascinating that a work of fiction like
Utopia began such an important genre of books, and even spawned an opposite genre:
dystopias. For some reason, the latter is more well-known and read, and includes many famous titles, like:
1984,
Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, The Time Machine, Animal Farm, A Clockwork Orange, The Sheep Look Up, The Giver, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and lots of well-known short stories, such as;
The Lottery, Harrison Bergeron, and
Those Who Walk Away from Omelas. I think the intention of the authors of such books is basically the same as those who write about Utopias, the only difference is their method. By portraying a dysfunctional and unbearable future, with its roots in current affairs and politics, the reader feels a sense of dread, and even rage at those affairs, and is mobilized to political activism out of fear, if nothing else.
The reason I bring this up, is because at present, my own political views are in a sort of toss-up. You've seen the headlines, that say "We're all Socialists now!" And it's true, but I don't know how I feel about that. My own understanding of the perfect society is rooted in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other modern and ancient prophets. From what I understand, the world should and will be run in a communist, theocratic, and dictatorial style when Christ comes again. The very mention of such forms of government strikes fear and disgust into the heart of many Americans, because, as we know, these forms of government have been tried before with disastrous results, and we count them among the "worst" regimes in human history. The main difference between those systems of government who have professed to rule their subjects in these ways, and the "Kingdom of Heaven," lies in the capacity, benevolence, and enlightenment of its
anointed king: Jesus Christ.
The first time I attempted to define my political positions, I saw that my, mostly religious, views about the perfect society were
inseparable from my ideals about the real world. I realized that, even though I claim to be conservative and Republican, my views lie quite far to the left on economic, environmental, and some social issues, and I also realized that the biggest reason why I continue to
identify myself as Republican, is because it is the only major party who
professes to support family values, the sanctity of human life, and individual, as well as national, freedom.
I say "professes," because after 6 years with a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the Presidency, the Republican party did very little to come through on its promises to social conservatives. It seems to me, that the party takes my moral
allegiance for granted, and supposes that they can impose all of their economic agenda on people like me, while doing as little as possible to assuage our growing concern that we are being taken advantage of.
Another important event in the shaping of my political philosophy came when I read George Orwell's
1984. Orwell, a self-proclaimed socialist, foresaw the great
dilemma of a socialist world revolution. After every revolution, or mass re-distribution of wealth, the social distinctions that create inequality are temporarily upset, but quickly settle back into their three, distinct strata: upper, middle (sometimes not obvious), and lower. The problem is, that with each successive revolution, the ability of the lower class to unite and disturb the social order becomes less and less. Those in power learn from history-- they refine their methods and motives in order to avoid another upset, and, as Orwell foresaw, eventually become so adept at thwarting these
proletarian revolts as to make a
successful campaign against themselves impossible. This leads to a complete police-state, "big brother," and seeking for power for power's sake.
The attempted socialist world powers were great failures at bringing the equality and better standards of life for the poor that they promised. The best way to measure the efficacy of an economic policy is to analyze its results. In this light, to paraphrase President Obama, "the free market is unmatched in its power to produce wealth." This is because the free market relies on market principles to function, i.e. going where the resources are, logistics,
opportunism, and supply-and-demand. The down side is that when a free market is left to itself, and all of society has become dependent upon it, the inherent greed and ambition of mankind can become a monumental stumbling block for equality, the gap between the rich and the poor can become
inexcusably large, and the overuse/misuse of natural resources and human labor can reach catastrophic limits. It also leads to a system where imaginary financial "products" become the life blood of many peoples'
livelihoods, removing them from industries that
truly produce and serve.
The opposite extreme is equally
undesirable. A system where prices and wages are fixed, where cities and factories and farms are built with no attention paid to market principles and logistics, is slow, inefficient,
un-adaptable, and prone to inability. It cannot respond to shortages, disasters, unforeseen circumstances, etc. These inabilities lead to underground "black" markets, where rare goods can be purchased, usually for much more than their worth. This creates even greater inequality than an unregulated free market. It also restricts choice of work and consumption, ignoring supply-and-demand.
The ideal economy would not necessarily be a compromise between the two extremes, but perhaps something new and unprecedented. John Nash, the mathematician
biographied in the film
A Beautiful Mind, proposed an economic theory that postulated a system in which instead of everyone aspiring for the best for themselves (i.e. highest pay, lowest price, highest quality, etc.), that we should be content with the 2
nd best, good quality instead of highest, average bidder instead of lowest or highest, that we should make our economic choices with all humanity in mind. To paraphrase Spencer W. Kimball, "why should some of us wear shoes, and some go barefoot? Couldn't we all wear
moccasins instead?" This is a
conscious choice, not to mention a more equitable one, and from an evolutionary perspective, an adaptation that better ensures the continuation of the species, or the system. This could also be construed as a celebration of the mediocre, which has some validity. But history has shown that during times of selective pressure, i.e. climate change and mass-extinction, it is those species in the middle of the road, the adaptable and pioneering ones, and not the highly specialized, or,
obviously, the terribly inept, that survive and thrive.
The reason I spend so much time talking about economic issues, is because I believe that being able to eat and meet the basic needs of life by working are a
priory to all other social problems. After all, it is unequal control of wealth which creates most social problems. So, in an ideal world, I think I would be a socialist; however, since Jesus is not here yet to be our enlightened despot, I think we must be pragmatic in our goal to create equality for all Americans, and eventually, all people. In between now and the next time I post something, I'll try to finish
Utopia and I'll let you all know what I think about it. To sum-up, here's a good quote from
the Republic:
...everyone had better be ruled by the divine wisdom dwelling
within him; or, if this be impossible, then by an external authority, in order
that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and
equals. (Book IX, pg 296)
Among the more notable names in my genealogy are: 
