The Lord of the Rings: A Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Message

[tremendoustie]

Tolkien was an anarchist. And he did incorporate that message into LOTR.

But why do you specify "anarcho-capitalist"? Did anarcho-capitalism even exist when Tolkien wrote it?

He does seem to believe in property rights in LOTR. As I understand it, that's the main thing that differentiates an ancap.

 

[erowe1]

He does seem to believe in property rights in LOTR.

If you mean Tolkien includes something in LOTR that somehow defends the concept of property rights, especially property rights in a sense that clearly comports with anarcho-capitalism and not other forms of anarchism, then what part of LOTR do you have in mind?

 

[tremendoustie]

If you mean Tolkien includes something in LOTR that somehow defends the concept of property rights, especially property rights in a sense that clearly comports with anarcho-capitalism and not other forms of anarchism, then what part of LOTR do you have in mind?

I'm no expert in "anarchism" -- I wasn't aware that there are forms of anarchy, other than anarcho-capitalist, that respect property rights. Really, the only other form I'm familiar with is anarcho-communist, and I know they don't respect property rights.

But, throughout LOTR I'd say property rights are respected. There are well defined homeowners and landholders almost every civilized place in middle earth. There is lots of trade, markets, pubs, stores, etc.

I'm no LOTR expert either though ...

 

[erowe1]

I'm no expert in "anarchism" -- I wasn't aware that there are forms of anarchy, other than anarcho-capitalist, that respect property rights. Really, the only other form I'm familiar with is anarcho-communist, and I know they don't respect property rights.

But, throughout LOTR I'd say property rights are respected. There are well defined homeowners and landholders almost every civilized place in middle earth. There is lots of trade, markets, pubs, stores, etc.

I'm no LOTR expert either though ...

I don't think that including scenes that involve property and trade should be read as somehow advancing an anarcho-capitalist agenda, as opposed to an anarcho-communist one, as though an anarcho-communist author would not include those things in a book he writes. To say that Tolkien advances anarchism in LOTR (to the degree that he does at all, which I agree he does to an extent) isn't to say that everything he portrays throughout the whole story is one enormous picture of the kind of society he thinks is ideal, it's to say that some of the ethical messages that he embeds in the book are messages that especially comport with anarchy. I also am skeptical that anarcho-communists believe that nobody should live in homes, grow things on land, or engage in any trade with one another.

But at any rate, given the time that Tolkien wrote LOTR, I don't think that there was the same taxonomy of the same different kinds of anarchists as there is now, so it might be anachronistic to say he's either one or the other. We do know that when he wrote that he leaned toward anarchy in 1943 he didn't mean that term with any sense that could have been influenced by Murray Rothbard.

 

[Original_Intent]

Rereading the LOTR books is more fulfilling than the initial read, I think. You know which parts to skim through. Damn but there's a lot of pointless filler in those books!

Tom Bombadil needs to die in a fire. Entirely.

Will you marry me?

 

[tremendoustie]

I don't think that including scenes that involve property and trade should be read as somehow advancing an anarcho-capitalist agenda, as opposed to an anarcho-communist one, as though an anarcho-communist author would not include those things in a book he writes. To say that Tolkien advances anarchism in LOTR (to the degree that he does at all, which I agree he does to an extent) isn't to say that everything he portrays throughout the whole story is one enormous picture of the kind of society he thinks is ideal, it's to say that some of the ethical messages that he embeds in the book are messages that especially comport with anarchy. I also am skeptical that anarcho-communists believe that nobody should live in homes, grow things on land, or engage in any trade with one another.

But at any rate, given the time that Tolkien wrote LOTR, I don't think that there was the same taxonomy of the same different kinds of anarchists as there is now, so it might be anachronistic to say he's either one or the other. We do know that when he wrote that he leaned toward anarchy in 1943 he didn't mean that term with any sense that could have been influenced by Murray Rothbard.

Sure, I mean, frankly, I wouldn't have guessed he was an anarchist at all just by reading LOTR. But, if he were, I was just saying he sounds more ancap.

I think most people, if you somehow made them anarchist, would be ancap. Not very many people actually advocate a usage based definition of property, for example (I believe that's the an-comm position). My understanding is that ancoms do not believe in land ownership at all, business ownership, or employee/employer relationships. They don't believe there should be such a thing as people who rent property to others.

I guess, I'm just saying, if you're telling me he's an anarchist, he really doesn't sound like some other, frankly far more extreme version of anarchist. I don't picture him throwing bricks through starbucks windows, that's for sure.

If you believe everyday life is more or less reasonable in the US, and would not drastically change how people interact on a daily basis -- selling goods, renting property, business ownership, etc, and you're an anarchist, you're ancap.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Tolkien was an anarchist. And he did incorporate that message into LOTR.

But why do you specify "anarcho-capitalist"? Did anarcho-capitalism even exist when Tolkien wrote it?

Yes. Molinari penned the first Voluntaryist scholarship soon after Bastiat's death in the 1850s. He was Bastiats protege.

 

[Meatwasp]

I read in an old book called University of knowledge, that Gollum was a bogey man to European Jews.
I also did not like Tom Bombadil.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Look at my last post; in his own words, Tolkien leaned towards anarchy. I suppose that's also why he preferred the lifestyle of Hobbits to those of the other races.

On that note, I don't think LOTR was meant to be regarded as a political story, nor did Tolkien intend for us to be reading into it and clue hunting. If anything prompted him to write it, it was his love of languages, not a political agenda.

Eh, I've heard it was his experiences in WWI which contented himself to write it. Though I must say most of it is mere conjecture as he never permitted his thoughts to pen on this matter (To the best of my knowledge).

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Too many Bombadil hatez in HEEA

 

[Vessol]

There are so many ways to view this movie and espcially the books. Religously, politically, historically, esoterically, just for entertainment, etc. It's a story that can be dissected through many lenses. Most people haven't a clue the genius of the movie on so many levels.

Though it promotes One World Order (King Aragorn) more than libertarianism. Kings and freedom are like oil and water. I sure wasn't dissapponted when I looked at Tolkien's biography to see ties into the manipulator's of the One World Order. Just a couple of obvious clues: Son of a banker and appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II.

You must be reading the Spark Notes of Lord of the Rings..

One World Order?

Not even close.

At the end of the Return of the King he only seeks to reunite the ruined kingdom of the North, Arnor to the Kingdom of the South, Gondor. Which had been divided for many years.

He leaves much of Middle Earth alone. Breelands is still self-administered in a similar, albeit not exactly like the Shire. The other lands of Men, such as Dale and the Beornlings he leaves completely alone.
He leaves Mordor alone, and he gives the only hospitable land, Nurn to the slaves of Mordor to keep as their own land.
He never really occupies Harad or Umbar either, only defends from their incursions.

Gondor's society is relatively undefined, so while we know it is a monarchist society we know little on how Tolkien meant for it to be ordered. To that end I imagine he mainly used Gondor as a story-telling device when compared to the society of the Shire which he described in great detail.

 

[Flash]

The Lord of the Rings: A Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Message

See I've heard the complete opposite. I had heard a theory that Saruman and the Orcs represented an evil side of a capitalist society, one that does not care about the environment and one that wants to keep growing and expanding its power/wealth.

You must be reading the Spark Notes of Lord of the Rings..

One World Order?

Not even close.

At the end of the Return of the King he only seeks to reunite the ruined kingdom of the North, Arnor to the Kingdom of the South, Gondor. Which had been divided for many years.

He leaves much of Middle Earth alone. Breelands is still self-administered in a similar, albeit not exactly like the Shire. The other lands of Men, such as Dale and the Beornlings he leaves completely alone.
He leaves Mordor alone, and he gives the only hospitable land, Nurn to the slaves of Mordor to keep as their own land.
He never really occupies Harad or Umbar either, only defends from their incursions.

Gondor's society is relatively undefined, so while we know it is a monarchist society we know little on how Tolkien meant for it to be ordered. To that end I imagine he mainly used Gondor as a story-telling device when compared to the society of the Shire which he described in great detail.

Didn't Aragorn also take over the land that belonged to the Easterlings?

 

[keh10]

Ok, first of all property rights were blatantly criticized throughout the books. In fact, the whole book is about showing the inherent flaws of property rights. Case and point: the one ring clearly belonged to Sauron, but was stolen from him and subsequently destroyed despite his best efforts to recover it. So much for property rights...

Also if you go back to the Silmarillion, all of middle earth rightfully belonged to Melkor, but the Valar (government) came in and took everything from him.

Haha jk btw.

 

[Vessol]

I lol'ed.

Speaking of property rights, I wanted to make a quick addon that there is a specific mention of Frodo having to give the deed of Bag End to the Sacksville-Baggins, so the concept of private property is respected in the Shire.

Didn't Aragorn also take over the land that belonged to the Easterlings?

If I remember right, the land that he took back from the Haradim and the Easterlings was Gondor's original boundaries to begin with before those hostile forces took them.

 

[specsaregood]

You know which parts to skim through. Damn but there's a lot of pointless filler in those books!

Now Melissa, I know that you know full well that the "filler" was not pointless. It all has a very good reason for being.

 

[Srg1]

I think LOTR is based off the ancient indian stories mahabharata and kurukshetra war.When i read and watch the movies it reminds me of these stories.Some of these stories have been dated back 3000bc to 6000bc.Here a basic idea


YouTube - Purpose of Kurukshetra war

The north west india looks similar to the lotr map

 

[AZJoe]

'I wish it need not have happened in my time,' said Frodo. 'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'