Two different ways to Solve Poverty, A look at More in Comparison to Swift.

In Sir Thomas More's Utopia we are given an interesting way to solve many of the problems that have afflicted nations in one way or another for thousands of years.   Poverty, thievery, greed and corruption are just a few of the things More covers in his story.   However, More isn't the only writer that  had offered an interesting way to deal with a nations woes, especially poverty.   Several Centuries after More, Jonathan Swift also tried to tackle the effects of poverty on England in his well known Satire, The Modest Proposal.   In their works Swift and More both offer a solution that can combat this plague that affects all nations, big and small.   After comparing how each of these works addresses the same problem of poverty, we can get a better look on how people of two different times thought poverty could be solved, though each one has their own moral dilemmas involved in them.
In Utopia, poverty plays an important as the cause of much of a nations problems, though there are other things that cause the poverty in the first place.   According to the character Raphael, thievery comes about from poverty because "A man of courage is more likely to steal than to cringe"(532) and from there worse crimes like murder occur when the punishments to combat thievery far exceed the crime.   Considering that thievery leads to more poverty if the stolen items are not returned, poverty begets more poverty making the problem worse than it was before.   In order to combat poverty at the root, Raphael suggests that a thief should "make restitution to the owner" and be "sentenced to hard labor"(534) for his crime, which he based on what he learned from another nation.   This seems like a reasonable way to solve a problem brought about by poverty.  
However, it's not until later in the story that a more concrete way to solve poverty is truly given, and that solution is itself.   Raphael first deals with the problems caused by poverty as he gives his explanations to the Cardinal.   Once he begins telling the story of the Utopians is when he gives a truly concrete solution, which at first sounds like it would be an ideal society.  All the land and possessions of the country belong to everyone living inside, no poverty because everyone can easily acquire the most basic things they need to live and have their daily lives mapped out for them by their leaders.  The punishments for breaking the few laws Raphael says they have are either solved with some form of slavery, or death if they are so severe as to concern the society as a whole.
On the other hand, in Swift's "A Modest Proposal", he feels the best way to deal with poverty is to make sure the poor have an easy way to make money.   His suggestion, gruesome as it may be, is to turn babies into the new hit source of food for England.   His reasoning behind this is that doing so would "lessen the number of papists", give "tenants something valuable of their own", children would only need to be raised for 1 year, and preventing husbands from committing domestic violence.   All for the loss of the lives of an uncountable number of children, the problems of parenthood and society would all be solved, doesn't it sound great?  While Swift's proposal might sound too good to be true for the rich, it is a satire and should always be remembered as such.
So which way is the best way to deal with poverty in the world?   Would making everything everyones to use and forcing them to follow the plans of their leader or suffer some form of punishment be best?  Poverty would definitely be solved , by removing the need for currency.   Of course the other option would be to sell children as a delicacy which makes it a very hard choice.    Hopefully sometime in the future the governments of the world will pick one way or the other and make life better for everyone.


Swif's Modest Proposal can be found here and is where I got my information from, since I didn't have my previous copy of Norton that contained it on hand.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Conspiracy, Revolution and then Gerrard

Remember Remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why the gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot.
-Nursery Rhyme

Many people probably find this rhyme familiar, whether they are from England or have had a chance to enjoy the movie V for Vendetta.   Even though we are now focused more on prose than poetry, this rhyme is still a reminder of a conspiracy that threatened to bring a country to its knees because of a few peoples dislike for their king.  The king, and the majority of nobles would have died if the plot had come to fruition.   On the other hand, the same people that decried a conspiracy took it upon themselves to remove a king.   King Charles's execution would herald a large change in England's government.  In Gerrard Winstanley's "To the Parliment and Army" we see one person's response to King Charles's execution and the drastic changes that he hoped would come.

First, let us take a look at King Charles, son of King James and every bit as willing to get involved in running the nation as his father was not according to the introduction.   Described as more prudent and inflexible than his father, Charles's religious beliefs and choice of Laud as Archbishop would start the Revolution that would end in his Execution.   While he would eventually be canonized for how he held himself  up-to his execution, before then his death would be celebrated by some, like Gerrard.   

In Gerrard's letter "To the Parliament and Army" he can easily be seen as one that was opposed to King Charles's reign.   His saying of things like "Wheresoever we spy out kingly power, no man I hope shall be troubled to declare it, nor afraid to cast it out"(page 1752) and constant comparison of kingship to sin, leave his opinions all over his writing.  However, his anger doesn't seem to just stop at kings when he soon focuses the brunt of his letter on what he believes the Parliament must do.

What starts as a reasonable request to no longer have a king on the throne, quickly changes to a call for drastic change in England.  The way in which he writes the second part of his letter also makes it sound like he has the backing of the other people of England and that his letter is more of an ultimatum.      The best example of this is at the end of his third point and goes into his fourth point.  He writes "take away the power of lords of manors and of tithing priests, and the intolerable oppression of judges... and your work will be honorable" and follows it with "If this freedom be denied to the common people to enjoy the common land; then parliament, army and judges will deny equity and reason....And if equity be denied, then there can be no law but club law"(1756).  He essentially tells parliament to  remove the power of nobles, judges and priests and also to give let the land be free to own or else all law is guaranteed to fall apart just because those things didn't happen.

While his desire to have the land be free to use is probably a good idea, the consequences for not doing so, as he writes seem a little unbelievable.   For all established law to fall apart because of Parliament choosing to not do what he wants seems a little far fetched.   When the conspiracy mentioned in the beginning is looked at again, Gerrard's letter begins to sound more like he would have liked if it had happened.   He is essentially asking for the same power vacuum that the gunpowder treason would have created.   Perhaps Gerrard should have thought through his reasons better before trying to order the Parliament to do anything.