His whole thesis is based primarily on the belief that so long as there is money, and individuals own property in a state, there will be no equity, no justice, and no happiness. On this point, he agrees emphatically with Plato. At length he is willing to concede that laws restricting wealth and eliminating corruption in government might mitigate to some degree the evils of present conditions.
More questions the elimination of private property, arguing that in a nation where all things are held in common the incentive for achievement is lost, a situation which would be conducive to sloth. He further believes that in a period of shortages there would be danger of outbreaks of sedition.
In response, Hythloday admits that More's suppositions are natural for one whose experience is limited to our present system, but if only More and Peter Giles could have been with him when he lived in Utopia for five years and have had a chance to observe their government in operation and to perceive how happily those people lived together, it would be clear why he supports these views.
After such large claims for that unknown commonwealth of Utopia, More and Giles beg Hythloday to explain in all particulars the nature of the country, the people, the manners, and the laws — to which request he readily assents.
