http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins73.html
In no particular order, I consider myself to be a small-L libertarian of the paleo variety, a sometimes paleoconservative and possibly even a monarchist. Sound confused? Blame J.R.R. Tolkien. Tolkien's vision of the Shire's gentle minarchy is tremendously compelling in this age of ever widening state expansion. Equally compelling is his vision of a wise king in distant Gondor, content to rule from afar and who's guiding philosophy might be "He rules best who rules least." Tolkien's king, Aragorn son of Arathorn, "knows and loves" the Shire, but is content to leave it in peace, free and untaxed. Initially, Tolkien shows us a peaceful Shire with an almost nonexistent government, but later we see that society ruled by an all-powerful central commander lurking in a guarded palace in Hobbiton. The differences between life under the two systems are both stark and instructive. Lacking a central government, the Shire was served (in the truest sense of the word) by ceremonial mayors and an unorganized body of "shirriffs," unarmed constables who also do duty as messengers between the various settlements. Tolkien was no economist, and as far as I know, he does not share details regarding the Shire's day-to-day system of market economics. We can surmise from events and descriptions in the trilogy that the society of the Shire was largely agrarian in nature and made use of metal coinage (gold, silver and copper) in transactions. Some manufacturing ability is indicated; we read about a mill for instance, and mention is made of many items that require a base of skilled craftsmen. Private ownership of property was widespread, ranging from large farms to smallholdings; with mansions like Bag End and small dwellings on Bagshot Row for the more "urban" inhabitants. And by no means did Tolkien's Shire enjoy open borders. Visitors were for the most part welcome, but the Hobbit's homeland was not a haven for free immigration. Rounding out this paradisaical picture, Tolkien never mentions tariffs or taxes. Later, we find the Shire twisted and transformed; a society with the nucleus of a strong central government, brutal and grasping in nature. All of the landmarks of the modern Western state are present: confiscatory taxation, internal passports required for travel, spies and informers recruited from the general population, open immigration and even "no-knock" raids, with the outspoken or politically dangerous beaten and imprisoned for indeterminate terms. In short, Tolkien paints a picture that looks suspiciously like where Western civilization 2002 is headed; a Mordor in miniature. Luckily for the sturdy Hobbits of the Shire, Tolkien was kind enough not to leave them in such dire straights. Like many today, the Hobbits found themselves chafing under the thumb of oppressive government, but they were isolated and afraid. Tolkien provided them with brave leaders and a happy ending, something that unfortunately is more prevalent in fiction than life. Happy endings aren't impossible though. The fact that The Lord of the Rings has been judged the book of the century is very heartening. The book is a paean to the strength of the human spirit and its inescapable subtext is a repudiation of the leftist, collectivist movements that thrived in the 20th century and endure into the 21st. To a lesser degree, the same holds true for Peter Jackson's film trilogy. While it's possible to see the films on different levels, Jackson has thus far succeeded in capturing both visions of heroism and the peaceful quotidian reality of life in the Shire. It remains to be seen if the final film of the trilogy will show us the Shire under siege and its redemption. One hopes Jackson doesn't skimp on this vital subplot. And as always, the popularity of the films are leading people back to the source material. Many cite Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as the book that introduced them to the ideas of freedom and libertarianism. For me, it will always remain The Lord of the Rings. I don't think a reader can experience the books and not remark on how life should be versus how it is. In Tolkien's own words, "My political beliefs lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy ... Give me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you care to call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers." Tolkien wrote those words in a 1943 letter to his son, Christopher, and they ring just as true today as they did during the dark days of World War II. After all, who wouldn't prefer Middle Earth, unless they've been corrupted by a Ring of Power? xponent Lorena Hobbit Maru rob ________________________________ You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
