- Jul 7, 2022
- 42
- 7
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I always thought that the movies should have ended with the battle for the shire, and that something was missing from them. I ran across these essays recently (I'll have to post the forum because I don't have a blog link, and they make the convincing case that the shire was fighting pretense socialism gone amuck.
ie
"Left out of the movie is the last section of the LOTR, the scourging of the Shire. It contains much on Tolkien’s view of government. It is a section that “conservatives and progressives alike have recognized this final portion of LOTR as a critique of modern socialism.” When the hobbits return, they find there libertarian paradise controlled by an oppressive government led by Saruman, with Orcs and local evil men to help. No longer is it a peaceful happy paradise, the Shire and Hobbits are under government control. Those now controlling the Shire are referred to as “sharkey and the ruffians.”
“The character of government is totally altered while its forms are not markedly changed. Before, the shire enjoyed easy going with max freedom and min government interference, the new regime operates through expanded restrictive rules, enforced by equally monstrously expanded military and para-military forces…the purpose of government is plainly to maintain, consolidate, and expand its own power.”
-Robert Plank, author of “The Scouring of the Shire: Tolkien’s view of fascism”
During the scourge there are groups of “gatherers and sharers...going around counting and measuring and taking off to storage, supposedly for “fair distribution.”” Yet it just ends with, as one hobbit says, “Them getting more and we get less.”
and
"The main reason I love the Fellowship of the Ring movie and the book is because of The Shire.
The book goes into more details about it, but The Shire in LotR is a very libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. They have no organized government. All they really have is a Mayor whom they all elect who pretty much officiates parties and such.
The only services the "government" offered was the post-service and the Sherrifs whom were volunteers whom wandered the land and protected the hobbits from natural dangers(such as wolves) and mediated disputes, in total for the entire Shire there were 12 of them. The Bounders were also an unofficial border control of militia volunteers whom protect the Shire from outside dangers such as gangs and ruffians, and many years ago: goblins.
There is also the Thain and the Master of Buckland, but these are rather hereditary titles granted to the heads of two families(the Tooks and the Brandybucks respectively) by the King of the North many years ago. They exercise little, if any power beyond ceremonial.
The Hobbits live in a completely voluntaryist society, where private property is respected and so is the rights of every individual.
At the end of the Return of the King it goes into great detail about how a bunch of ruffians and bandits took over the Shire(lead by Sauruman) and made tons of laws. It's hilarious how blunt Tolkien is when laws such as "redistribution for the poor" are introduced, one of the hobbits says "All they mean is that they take more food from us and redistribute it amongst themselves." The hobbits then muster a voluntary militia force in which they fight back the occupiers."
and
Tolkien was an old-time catholic conservative, from a modern American perspective a libertarian. His political leanings were toward anarchy (abolition of control). He said, “The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” He hated socialism, communism, and progressivism; he thought totalitarian governments and control were evil. Tolkien said that the evils of the world are mechanism, scientific materialism, and socialism. “It goes by many names but always ends in greater centralization political authority at the expense of individuals, families and the church.” He warned that if England and others were to adopt the up and coming socialism “It would reduce each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherds.” Tolkien viewed all men as fallen, including politicians we might elect and hope to bring about a better society. Tolkien said that in contrast to the politicians, “I am not a socialist in any sense....most of all because the planners when they acquire power become so bad.” He felt that as a devout traditional catholic, the lust for ultimate power in government was to try and place oneself in gods place. Tolkien was a strong advocate of creation care and a lover of God’s green earth; this is just part of the reason he hated totalitarian governments.
etc.
from essays and biography at
J.R.R Tolkien Libertarian Creator Of Middle Earth
The Lord of the Rings: A Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Message
I thought about posting this before today because its been awhile since I read the end of the trilogy, although I reread them many times as a child, but it struck me as right what the movie left out by leaving out the battle for the shire at the end. I then saw the is Tolkien pagan thread, and thought it would be an interesting counterbalance viewpoint.
ie
"Left out of the movie is the last section of the LOTR, the scourging of the Shire. It contains much on Tolkien’s view of government. It is a section that “conservatives and progressives alike have recognized this final portion of LOTR as a critique of modern socialism.” When the hobbits return, they find there libertarian paradise controlled by an oppressive government led by Saruman, with Orcs and local evil men to help. No longer is it a peaceful happy paradise, the Shire and Hobbits are under government control. Those now controlling the Shire are referred to as “sharkey and the ruffians.”
“The character of government is totally altered while its forms are not markedly changed. Before, the shire enjoyed easy going with max freedom and min government interference, the new regime operates through expanded restrictive rules, enforced by equally monstrously expanded military and para-military forces…the purpose of government is plainly to maintain, consolidate, and expand its own power.”
-Robert Plank, author of “The Scouring of the Shire: Tolkien’s view of fascism”
During the scourge there are groups of “gatherers and sharers...going around counting and measuring and taking off to storage, supposedly for “fair distribution.”” Yet it just ends with, as one hobbit says, “Them getting more and we get less.”
and
"The main reason I love the Fellowship of the Ring movie and the book is because of The Shire.
The book goes into more details about it, but The Shire in LotR is a very libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society. They have no organized government. All they really have is a Mayor whom they all elect who pretty much officiates parties and such.
The only services the "government" offered was the post-service and the Sherrifs whom were volunteers whom wandered the land and protected the hobbits from natural dangers(such as wolves) and mediated disputes, in total for the entire Shire there were 12 of them. The Bounders were also an unofficial border control of militia volunteers whom protect the Shire from outside dangers such as gangs and ruffians, and many years ago: goblins.
There is also the Thain and the Master of Buckland, but these are rather hereditary titles granted to the heads of two families(the Tooks and the Brandybucks respectively) by the King of the North many years ago. They exercise little, if any power beyond ceremonial.
The Hobbits live in a completely voluntaryist society, where private property is respected and so is the rights of every individual.
At the end of the Return of the King it goes into great detail about how a bunch of ruffians and bandits took over the Shire(lead by Sauruman) and made tons of laws. It's hilarious how blunt Tolkien is when laws such as "redistribution for the poor" are introduced, one of the hobbits says "All they mean is that they take more food from us and redistribute it amongst themselves." The hobbits then muster a voluntary militia force in which they fight back the occupiers."
and
Tolkien was an old-time catholic conservative, from a modern American perspective a libertarian. His political leanings were toward anarchy (abolition of control). He said, “The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” He hated socialism, communism, and progressivism; he thought totalitarian governments and control were evil. Tolkien said that the evils of the world are mechanism, scientific materialism, and socialism. “It goes by many names but always ends in greater centralization political authority at the expense of individuals, families and the church.” He warned that if England and others were to adopt the up and coming socialism “It would reduce each nation to nothing more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as shepherds.” Tolkien viewed all men as fallen, including politicians we might elect and hope to bring about a better society. Tolkien said that in contrast to the politicians, “I am not a socialist in any sense....most of all because the planners when they acquire power become so bad.” He felt that as a devout traditional catholic, the lust for ultimate power in government was to try and place oneself in gods place. Tolkien was a strong advocate of creation care and a lover of God’s green earth; this is just part of the reason he hated totalitarian governments.
etc.
from essays and biography at
J.R.R Tolkien Libertarian Creator Of Middle Earth
The Lord of the Rings: A Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Message
I thought about posting this before today because its been awhile since I read the end of the trilogy, although I reread them many times as a child, but it struck me as right what the movie left out by leaving out the battle for the shire at the end. I then saw the is Tolkien pagan thread, and thought it would be an interesting counterbalance viewpoint.
