[Nogrod]

I think there are at least two different variables here in question.

Firstly, there is the actual size of the community. With a small commune it's easy to set up a straight democracy or a traditional rule of things. With a larger scale things get more complicated... as we can see from all ancient civilisations and from the modern world strifes around the world. Rousseau thought his ideals for a good community could be applied in Geneve of his time (40 000 inhabitants, about)!

Secondly, there is the question of the rule itself and its qualities. Here I think old Aristotle is unsurpassable. He said that all the institutions of government can be reduced to six categories of which three are genuine and three are twisted. So a self-rule, when it looks to the well-being of all all is called a Kingdom [basileia] and the twisted version (where the one ruler just thinks of his own benefits) is called Tyranny [tyrannis]. The all-encompassing rule of the few (the rich & the educated) is called Aristocracy [aristokratia]and the twisted version of the elite fooling the poor is called Oligharky [oligharkia]. The power of the civilised people is called Politeia. In it the people rule and think for the best of all. The twisted mob-rule is called Democracy [demokratia] - where the majority just takes care of it's concerns and the minority just have to endure.

So how did Tolkien play with these? Surely Denethor was a tyrant and Aragorn was a king? Saruman would have been a tyrant and Theoden a king? Sam would be something like a governor-character, albeit surrounded by well wishing aristocrats like Merry & Pip - so an aristocracy?

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

That still makes ownership of private property the prime criteria for full citizenship and still limits those who work for the Master to slavery. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.

As it is so Tolkienish - didn't Sam and Fredegar Bolger own their residences or at least have a claim to them? Were there slaves or "hired men" in the Shire? Surely not (see: a small, idealized community of "owners"). But at the same time it's so Lockean... the founding father of any ownership-thinking in the western world (curious enough, Marx had exactly the same ideas about the authorisation of property but just disagreed with the way that ownership could be granted). And when you come to the larger circles of Rohan or Gondor, this scheme seems to unfold all the more clearly... Tolkien seemed to have a realistic / pessimistic view about larger communities (added with the utopian hope for a good king to settle it right) combined with a purely utopian view of the Hobitton as the modern day sub-urbanity in the middle of an old world?