[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Hehe. I knew that someone would pick me up on my little aside and I could have laid odds on it being you, Bb.

Making book on me, Sauce? I suspect Child just about beat me to it.

Originally Posted by Child

As was often true with Tolkien, it's possible to identify two contradictory ideals in his writings.

Truer words were never spoken here! For all his comments about politics, I don't think Tolkien ever really gave it the kind of serious attention which he gave to language or fairie, and so his ideas about government and politics were not as deeply developed. I think this is what Lal means when she says that Tolkine side stepped the issue? We have here on this thread arguements for anarchy, benevolent dictatorship/monarch, libertarianism. That's quite the range!

My thoughts have always been that Tolkien tends to fall back upon enclosure as a way of protecting a social entity, such as Melian's Girdle, or Aragorn's ruling about The Shire for the Fourth Age, although this could be seen as a metaphor for the good vs evil theme rather than a legitimate political understanding.

Originally Posted by Child

What fascinates me is how the Shire embodies the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson (at least before Jefferson's life became tangled up with politics and slavery). Both Tolkien and Jefferson espoused an isolationist community of farmers, a half republic loosely ruled by a natural aristocracy.

That's a fascinating observation, for as I recall seeing both Washington's Mount Vernon and Jefferson's Monticello, they both struck me as a very medieval form of organisation rather than a model for democratic organisation, despite all the statements of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here was Washington's estate of 8000 acres, essentially a self-contained community, with, by his death, almost 3000 slaves and yet as a private estate, no rules but his own. (I am relying on my memory that Washington freed 3000 slaves in his will, as I cannot verify this on the web.) Jefferson's plantation had the same affect on me: here was an estate like a medieval fiefdom, no matter how democratic were the acclaimed words of the lord of the manor.

Originally Posted by Sauce

The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that an elected government always governs with an eye to the next election and thus concerns itself more with keeping itself in power rather than truly governing for the good of the people it represents. Thus, it is reluctant to take "difficult" measures which might make it unpopular, such as those which may be in the bests interests of the society which it governs in the long-term but which may be unpopular in the short-term (measures required to protect the environment are a clasic example here).

Well, who says that the aim of democracy is "the good of the people"? That is for the people to determine, and if they determine to fall for short term flattery, then that is what they deserve. "Democracy" requires that the electorate have a strong understanding of what it means to run a society, so that the success will depend upon how the electorate is educated in their rights. I doubt that in Tolkien's time, and even in our own, there are many people who yet could articulate what issues of power mean. Because a form of government may take a long time to come to fruition is not, I think, a valid reason for rejecting it.

After all, now long did Monarchy have to establish itself in England? And certainly monarchy was always in a running feud with the lords. Much of the history of monarchies is merely a "might makes right" which is then formally imbued with hereditary priviledge. And I think Tokien never looks at this bloody aspect of monarchy. Henry VIII always frightens me!

Originally Posted by Sauce

So, I think that Tolkien's ideal from of government finds representation in both Aragorn's rule of the Reunified Kingdom and in the Shire. Although these are very different societies, there are elements common to both. The general acceptance of those "in charge", the "laissez faire" approach to the business of government, the idea of those in charge (albeit loosely so in the Shire) working together with the people for mutual benefit and the absence of any state apparatus. In these regards, perhaps his seemingly conflicting ideals of Absolute Monarchy and Anarchy may be reconciled, or at least combined.

Possibly, but neither lasts.

Originally Posted by Squatter

but political science, philosophy, and finally and inevitably madness lie in that direction.

This is the first time I've seen this description of the long defeat!