In the LOTR movies there is the common theme of collectivism. There is the overwhelming forces of the enemy, and if collectivist draft style military strategy is not employed, there is no chance of holding back the take over of Saruman’s and Sauron’s evil forces. Without central control over the nations remaining, all hope of liberty from those tyrants would be lost for the world. This is an argument against libertarianism, surely discoordinated libertarian militias could not stand up to the massive onslaught of those legions, especially against sieges of the strategic forts, Helms Deep and City of the Kings. It seems like it is justification for the draft.
argument from cinema?
Its not just a movie.. If youve seen it you would understand the enormous political trouble of that alternate world. I think that no libertarian grass roots level activity could muster enough power to stand up against the overwhelming forces. It wouldnt have the ideological power that the state posesses(having the most chivalrous, charismatic guys like Aragon and Théoden), it wouldnt have the information concentration, it wouldnt have the central coordination.
You know as Napoleon said, “A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him.” There need to be the guys that do this.
You don’t understand. Why would any “evil country” would like to go to a war with libertarian society? If there is no taxes to take over, everything decentralized… it would be complete waste.
Unless you talk about Osama, who hates USA for its FREEDOMS, lollolololo (sarcasm)
Are you saying LOTR is not libertarian? If so, I don’t think you understand it at all. You must realize those different nations (or groups, whichever fits) were living peacefully, are are uniting against the collective evil that’s coming to take over their lands. If you are comparing their fighting and allegiance to that of a military style draft you are mistaken. They are uniting to defend their own lands. Take a look at the Shire, the Hobbits live peacefully, and there’s no sign of rule or law.
For example; the Ents had no place in the war, when Treebeard was first asked about it he said “Side? I am on nobody’s side, because nobody is on my side…” and after seeing Saruman destroy his forest (and friends), he decided to fight the collective forces destroying the lands, “My business is with Isengard tonight, with rock and stone.”
I also cannot forget the entire point of the tale is about destroying the One Ring, the ring that controls them all.
Why would any “evil country” would like to go to a war with libertarian society?
Uh, to take their stuff and make them slaves. Look at how Americans dealth with the Iroquois, who were pretty libertarian if anyone ever was.
I think you’re missing the point of LOTR. Have you read the books?
The story is, Sauron created various “Rings of Power,” which he gave to various leaders of various races throughout the world. The leaders which used this power became corrupted by it - the 9 Ring Wraiths are human Kings who were given rings and corrupted by their power.
This is an allegory for how political power corrupts.
Sauron then created “one ring” which had power over all the other rings.
This is an allegory of how power tends to centralize; smaller powers tend to become enslaved to bigger powers.
Many ‘good’ leaders in the book are tempted to take the “Ring of Power” for themselves; but, being good, they recognize that personal (political) power could achieve their goals (defeating Sauron), but it would end up corrupting them and make them the new Sauron. In the movie you see this in the scene with Galadriel/Cate Blanchette.
The moral of the books is that (political) power has to be given to the “little people,” Hobbits, because they are the least corruptible and the least dangerous with this power - in the short term, someone has to have it, and they are the best choice.
This is an allegory for democracy and empowerment of the individual, which, if real, gives political power to ‘the little people.’
But, the Hobbits can’t just keep the Ring of Power, they have to destroy it, or else it will always be a danger.
This is an allegory for how political power can be destroyed; first it has to be given to the ordinary people, who must then use it to dismantle poitical power itself. Doing this involves an active struggle with negative elites in their own capitol; it can’t be done from Hobbiton.
As for the idea of “evil countries” which decent people have to band together against or be defeated - Tolkein was writing LOTR as Nazis were taking power and rearming Germany; which I’m sure was pretty frightening to observe from England.
The idea that there are powerful, aggressive forces which decent people either have to band together against or be defeated by is not just propaganda, it’s a political fact.
I think you’re missing the point of LOTR. Have you read the books?
The story is, Sauron created various “Rings of Power,” which he gave to various leaders of various races throughout the world. The leaders which used this power became corrupted by it - the 9 Ring Wraiths are human Kings who were given rings and corrupted by their power.
This is an allegory for how political power corrupts.
Sauron then created “one ring” which had power over all the other rings.
This is an allegory of how power tends to centralize; smaller powers tend to become enslaved to bigger powers.
Many ‘good’ leaders in the book are tempted to take the “Ring of Power” for themselves; but, being good, they recognize that personal (political) power could achieve their goals (defeating Sauron), but it would end up corrupting them and make them the new Sauron. In the movie you see this in the scene with Galadriel/Cate Blanchette.
The moral of the books is that (political) power has to be given to the “little people,” Hobbits, because they are the least corruptible and the least dangerous with this power - in the short term, someone has to have it, and they are the best choice.
This is an allegory for democracy and empowerment of the individual, which, if real, gives political power to ‘the little people.’
But, the Hobbits can’t just keep the Ring of Power, they have to destroy it, or else it will always be a danger.
This is an allegory for how political power can be destroyed; first it has to be given to the ordinary people, who must then use it to dismantle poitical power itself. Doing this involves an active struggle with negative elites in their own capitol; it can’t be done from Hobbiton.
Speaking of reading the books, have you read the forward?
“As for any inner meaning or ‘message,’ it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.”
“I cordially dislike allegory, and have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.”
Perhaps it’s more archetpye than allegory.
Perhaps it’s more archetpye than allegory.
It could certainly be the case that you read in this particular archetypal structure, but I’m still not sure that any particular reading was intended by Tolkien. In the forward Tolkien also says, ““I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
The fact that you read in this structure is a testament to the quality of the story Tolkien wrote.
You ddont understand my point. It is the particular time when the draft is used is what im pointing at. Both of the human kingdoms use it as means to protect themselves. Without using that, Sauron would have taken them over and Frodo wouldnt have been able to get to the volcano
at the moment you get drafted ‘your side’ lost the war for your freedom (was that what it was about?) and your slavery starts now.
I feel that you are confusing drafting the people into military service and uniting to fight what will destroy them all.
if you are going to be forced marching to someone else’s orders, and deserters die; what difference does it make which of the two warring flags you march under?
Are we going to go as far to say that an army fighting to preserve their land is collective (and evil)? You can fight under the flag of your people and fight to preserve your life and property, or die. It’s not like Sauron was only after a certain region or people, he wanted to dominate the world. Either fight back or be dominated and die.
Are we going to go as far to say that an army fighting to preserve their land is collective (and evil)?
no, but the army which grows its size by drafting unwilling ‘kinsmen’ is the ‘good guy’ to the unwilling kinsmen, because… ?
Either fight back or be dominated and die.
can those that want to fight back do so as freemen? …or must they be press-ganged and drafted into a nationalarmy and become so much fodder to be wielded by a bigshot general?
Besides the armies (or militias) that were already put together and equipped, you could point to the people who moved from their village to Helm’s Deep who were pretty much defending their own territory from invasion. Some of the big battles were by invading Orcs.
Could you fight without being part of the various armies? Yes. Would you most likely die in an instant by an Orc? Yes.
It is perfectly compatible with voluntarism to stand with your neighbours in a free-mans militia, and defend en-mass against invaders. This is not being press-ganged, or drafted. I hope this clarifies for you.
Lord of the Rings is not libertarian. It is little-Englander; and closer to Red Toryism than liberalism.