Was J.R.R. Tolkien a Libertarian?

Constitutions are legal positivist documents that give governments explicit authority where there would previously have been implicit authority, and grant legislative power – the power of the state to create law. In Europe in particular, constitutions historically gave monarchs more rather than limiting the powers that the monarch was assumed to have. They were never instruments of restraint against the government. I think that Tolkien therefore may have referred by “unconstitutional monarchy” to the tradition of the king being under the law. Specifically, the king was traditionally under Anglo-Saxon Common Law. Which, having been developed through market processes rather than springing from the pens of legislators, came very close to a natural rights-based legis.

He probably was. When he’s saying that he “lean[s] more and more to Anarchy” he seems to be saying that he really supports minarchism or libertarianism.

Deciding that government itself is the root cause of evil and should be abolished in its entirety is a difficult and shaky assertion – anarchy itself can lead to some forms of evil. A more compelling case can be made that government is a root cause of some evils and that minimizing it to reduce that risk is wise.

Peace to my Libertarian counterparts from a godless Libertarian! It’s our political philosophy that binds us together in ways our disagreements over faith never can. The spirit of “live and let live” is one that anyone can embrace, with faith or without. There clearly must be merit to a philosophy that’s so embracing of freedom.

Cool. I’m not sure how I missed this post, but I’m glad I found it today. I haven’t read Tolkien’s letters, and I don’t think I’ve ever read anything political by him except for whatever can be dug from his fiction.

I think here’s the central point: “the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men.” Here’s something, though, Norm: The Founding Fathers recognized this. Hence, they drafted a procedural document, the Constitution of the United States. Their purpose was to set up a system that would circumvent, as much as possible, human corruption.

I keep thinking of new barriers to the Christian masses agreeing with most of what you say, and I’ve come up with another: I wonder how many Christians still believe that our system–specifically designed to avoid human corruption–largely justifies where our Government is today. (I dunno; it’s a stretch.)

Now, I’ll opine (this week’s word, right?) on his statement about an unconstitutional monarchy. (Oh, by the way, here’s a larger quote from the letter filling in the ellipses: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/thesis/calco/home.html).

We typically think of European, Monarchical Constitutions as Dan does: Legal documents giving King’s authority that “were never instruments of restraint against the government.” However, the British legal tradition is quite different. They have a deeply ingrained “Constitutionalism” that does not have “A” Constitution. Rather, the English Constitution is, to put it simply: “the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.” See Dictionary.com, 8th definitino of Constitution. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constitution).

In fact, the parts of the English Constitution that ARE written (Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, etc.) were specifically designed to spell out limitations on the power the king claimed to have. And, ideologically, these were not positivist documents, but documents which relied on a Christian worldview that said, “Sorry, Mr. King, you are under The Law too, like it or not.”

The trouble, though, is that the English Constitutional Monarchical system turned into a situation where the king was limited . . . severely limited . . . and by what? The parliament. In America, practically speaking, nothing stands in the way of Congress from doing whatever it wants. However, on paper (The Constitution) it is severely limited. In the UK, it’s far different. There, nothing even pretends to limit Parliament’s power. Parliament is supreme. In the U.S., the Supreme Court sometimes overturns laws based on unconstitionality. In the U.K. there’s no such thing.

This, perhaps, is what Tolkien referred to.

Ward – I don’t think anyone here believes that government is the root cause of evil. However, a state, being a compulsory monopoly on violence, is the institution to which ambitious evil people will go to get away with doing evil. It is where parasites go to prosper. In its absence, there would still be evil. But it would not have an institutional, legitimized outlet from which to conduct itself.

I think one of the important points to be made about Tolkein’s quote here is that the terms “anarchy” and “anarchism” are widely misunderstood and frequently mischaracterized. It seems that Tolkein, on the other hand, understood the proper meaning of the term, simply being “the absence of the State.” Anarchy does not mean “disorder,” or “uncontrollable violence.” Sadly, hyperbolic writers and speakers (most of them Statists) have misused “anarchy” as a synonym to “mayhem” and “chaos” which are the correct terms for what most people today mean when they use the term “anarchy.”

Indeed, the absence of the State does not mean a system without government. But rather, it means a society that controls itself through voluntary mechanisms. It is for this reason that Tolstoy was an anarchist, as he saw all mechanisms of the State being wholly inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Tolstoy has been wrongly (in my view) labeled a “Anarcho-Socialist” since he advocates the generous sharing of one’s resources to help ameliorate poverty. What separates him from genuine Socialists, however, is that he does not support the use of force to achieve this redistribution of wealth, he believes it ought to be voluntary, and that Christians, following the commands of Christ, would do so voluntarily.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above ( Skinner’s ) contribution… For more info regarding what Tolkien may have been ‘getting at’ with the ‘monarchy’ reference I recommend ‘Democracy: The God That Failed’ by Hans-Hermann Hoppe…

I think, in many ways, The Lord of the Rings was about the dangers of political power.

I recommend the following article by Alberto Mingardi:
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=899&month=41

Great quote and conversation. I teach a class on LoTR at Concordia College in Moorhead. Tolkien’s unconstitutional monarchy phrase can be best discerned by his own presentations of the various kings in his fiction, Aragorn II being the quintessence of what he thought about how a king should rule: The pericope at the end of the novel which relates a conversation between Gandalf and Barliman Butterbur captures Tolkien’s view of monarchy: Butterbur worries that this new king announced to him by Gandalf will be meddlesome in the affairs of Bree. Gandalf assures him that the Breelanders will be left alone, and only that the king’s highway will be re-opened, and that when he comes, they will see that he wants them to be left alone, too. Such a king is worthy of much honor.

That view, coupled with his philosophical anarchism, and furthermore married to his quite old-fashioned and traditional Roman Catholic faith, make him an unusual ally regarding liberty. My own libertarian journey has been largely inspired by my study of LoTR.

Cheers, Jay

I think he in lived in the spirit of libertarianism.

I’ve not read any letters, but I’ve read LoTR a dozen times at least and the Silmarillion twice. But to see why Tolkien believes essentially in private, voluntary societal structures one only has to look at the Shire before Saruman corrupted it.

It had no ‘government’, Tolkien says, noting that the various families of the various burroughs basically govern themselves. If a person gets out of line, his mother or uncles will deal with them- note Frodo describes the scouring of the Shire as “the family” putting Lotho back in his place (which is to say, out of political power). Obviously there is no regulatory structure or war machine, although the unusually peaceful nature of hobbits has something to do with this.

Of course, Tolkien also believed in Platonic corruption over time, so no more utopian hobbit villages for us moderns.

Tolstoy has been wrongly (in my view) labeled a “Anarcho-Socialist” since he advocates the generous sharing of one’s resources to help ameliorate poverty. What separates him from genuine Socialists, however, is that he does not support the use of force to achieve this redistribution of wealth, he believes it ought to be voluntary, and that Christians, following the commands of Christ, would do so voluntarily.

Both he and Tolkien, then, could be considered Chestertonian distributists — they believed in individual rights and in the maximum distribution of private property through a free market.

How much of an Anarchist was he? Well, All he wanted to say on the subject was written in the tri-ology. An epic journey towards true Anarchy. Frodo’s mission was to melt the damn ring in the volcano, but along the way he used it to save himself, though every time he used it he got sicker, darker and was viewable to the evil one. ring=power over man=government. All the characters symbolize different types of people who would want to use the ring (government).

If Tolkien doesn’t believe in ‘bosses,’ he can’t be a libertarian.

In a word no.In fact actually, No. Tolkien was a Catholic scholar and he was deeply moral. He was steeped in the work of Chesterton and Belloc, and admired thier Distributism. Late in life he self identified (part jokingly) as an Anarchist, but always within the scope of his deeply held Catholic beliefs. He was ascerbically critical of modernism, to say nothing of postmodern screeds such as Libertarianism. There is not, until very recently, much criticism of Tolkien, although its a growing feild. There is however, really no need to speculate on such questions. He left behind enough of his beliefs and opinions in writing, that there is really no need to graft any onto him,