First and foremost - More, if you have a reincarnate, please revise any literature or political science work you write. Although politics and literature often times come together, and often times work in a meaningful and enjoyable manner, your book does not. At first thought, there are two ways to approach this. 1) Mr. More, you can write a political philosophy or political science book that basically outlines what you think society should or should not do. This happens frequently, as many political books are written solely for the sake of politics. 2) You can write a literature book that is engaging, that has political undertones that the reader can draw conclusions to by actively think about the work, and that has some sort of literature meaning to it. Just please don't try to draw some sort of fictitious, superfluous plot into your political science book or make the conclusions so straightforward that the thoughts become so less self-found that the thoughts are more dictations.

Yell at long-deceased author? Check. Next on the to-do list: say something semi-meaningful.

Skipping straight to the politics: there are many facets in More's argument (ultimately with himself) of what a society should/should not be and should/should not do. First note of interest is the will and position of self vs. society (More presumes a monarchy). The idea of a republic or a democracy has not really not been well orchestrated or delivered since Golden Age Greece, but even that was sub-par in comparison to the ideals set forth in modern times. Considering the era in which this piece is written, the pragmatism of a monarchy was appropriate - although history has progressed the most utility-driven society towards the democratic republic (a micro and macro evolution seems to have taken place in the course of history to what it is today). The next topic of interest to me is the idea of capital punishment. More seems to take a Draconian approach to punishment - even something as a mere petty theft. Bluntly said, this is ridiculous. "You steal a loaf of bread! Now, you have to go be in our army or be a slave for the rest of your life." Awesome, I guess that I should be enslaved for the piece of gum I stole in first grade. The irony: forgiveness does not seem to have been mainstream in a predominantly Christian society (or even a predominately Christian More himself). More (not the Thomas kind) or less, each facet of this argument can be dissected, but the big picture gets called into question. Moral and social presumptuousness. Who is it to decide what the meaning of the cog of a person is in the machine of society? More decides for himself and for everyone else what their newly radical style of life is going to be in this Utopia. Immediately he knows what is the perfect best for society (nothing against More, but is it a person's, a congress's, or even a nation's duty to define every movement of a person?) The character, the creativity, even the essence of man is distorted into the unquantifiable idea of 'utility.' Sure, this idealism works if people can be reduced down to equations. But, that is all people would be - equations of function, ideas, actions, and life. Sigh. Keep your Utopia, please.