The exhibit source helps give the reader a more informed perspective on sixteenth century politics because it presents opposing viewpoints to everything that More critiques in society. This allows the reader a chance to understand whether of not More’s criticisms of society were valid. More believed that a utopia would be the way to solve problems with society because creating a place where people have no private property could be harmonious. Meanwhile the article “On Private Property, Riches, and Poverty” notes that there are problems with society but it still says that living communally is not an effective lifestyle and that it is necessary to have private property. These two sources have contrasting views on how to make society the best that it can be.
The article argues that private property and the unequal distribution of wealth is okay because a person can “be rich without being out of the state of grace” (249). In other words, people should not make judgments about the rich because they can still be good people. The article argues that wealthy people should do charity and give back to the community but they also have a right to be rich and enjoy some of those benefits. More contrasts this argument directly and says that it is unjust that wealthy people who work in such idle jobs “live luxuriously and splendidly in complete idleness” meanwhile other people have to work so hard for so little.
Their arguments completely diverge on the topic of distribution of wealth. The article poses the concept of redistribution of wealth equally among a population. The exhibit source says that even the poor “would be so little enriched by what [they] received that [they] would still not be much more than beggar(s)” and the wealthy would be reduced to almost nothing (249-250). Essentially there is just not enough wealth in the world to put everyone at a happy medium so instead the article suggests that at least some people should have some wealth and happiness because there are always going to be people who have to struggle. More says the exact opposite and uses the example of a famine year where if a person were to collect all of the grain from the rich “you would find so much grain that if it had been divided among those swept away by starvation” they would not notice a difference because their surplus is so excessive (133). More in contrast believes redistributing resources is important because there are enough resources for everyone to get by so that nobody starves.
Another point the article makes about wealth is that the luxuries that the rich spend their money on are important because they employ other people and help them make a living. If people were not buying so many products than there might not be enough jobs. More counters that immediately and says that “a blacksmith or farmer works so long and so hard” and yet they receive so little payment for this hard work (131). In a sense More is saying that maybe the wealthy could just put the money they are spending on unnecessary luxuries towards the lives of these hardworking people and who could work less rigorous hours and still be able to survive.
The fact that this article so directly opposes More’s viewpoints helps me get well-rounded information on the state of 16th century society. I think that being more informed because I have heard multiple viewpoints helps me as a reader get a better idea as to whether or not I support More’s critique of society.