Tolkien and Western Government

[Elu Ancalime]

Today is the 230th birthday of the USA, when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The American Revolution was fought on nationalistic views that the Thirteen Colonies should be self-ruled under a democratic government, the Republic. The first Amendment of the Constitution is the leading principle of the Bill of Rights, which is the freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, and the right to assemble. The ninth amendment also states that there are many more unwritten rights of the people, but just because they are unwritten does not mean they can be restricted by the government.


Since then, the British monarchy has been altered to a ceremonial position over the Commonwealth rather than a political position. By Tolkien?s time, England was not that different in the ways of policy and people?s rights.

During Tolkien?s time many governments took position in Europe, from the fall of Empires and monarchies during WWI, to the rise and fall of the Third Reich, and the rise of the American republic and the communist Soviet Union. Did Tolkien have any opinions about America or any other forms of government?
________
Buy Glass Bongs

[Selmo]

I believe that Tolkien disliked all modern forms of government. He would have supported the return of an Absolute Monarchy. (He was, like all geniuses, not quite right in the head.)

The only thing he liked about America was their films; he was an avid cinema-goer. He loathed American music.

Maybe someone with a better memory and more time could give some quotes from his letters?
.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Selmo

I believe that Tolkien disliked all modern forms of government. He would have supported the return of an Absolute Monarchy. (He was, like all geniuses, not quite right in the head.)

Actually, I rather agree with him. Benevolent Dictatorship is the optimium form of government but, unfortunately it is unachievable in practice and so hopelessly idealistic.

He particularly disliked the "State" in its manifestation as an embodiment or apparatus of the government. A point on which I, again, agree with him.

There is lots there in the Letters but, unfortunately, I don't have them to hand ...

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien's word on politics:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Its clear he admired the idea of a benevolent monarchy - though he was fully aware that it was not a perfect system as seen in the long lines of sorry excuses for Kings that beset Numenor, Arnor and Gondor. He even seems to make out that Kings such as Aragorn are one in a million.

What Tolkien says in this quote is familiar to Brits as the kind of thing the Daily Mail and Telegraph (and most of the people for that matter) might say every few days, how the state is to blame for everything, etc. It's the mention of Anarchy that stands out as distinctly odd to me. Thinking about it, it is a philosophy kin to and opposite to absolute Monarchy. Kin because it also denies the presence of a State apparatus and opposite because Anarchy allows for no ruler whatsoever and instead is for collectivism.

I often think that The Shire has something of the air of an Anarchist commune to it, but not quite, as it has ownership and people have roles. In an Anarchist collective everyone would share responsibility. There would be no contrast between the Sams and the Sandymans as both would do each other's jobs at some point in the year. Sam wouldn't garden for Frodo but for the good of the community.

At least the Shire would have the pipe smoking off to a T, but would it have the necessary beard scratching to be a lovely woolly Anarchist collective?

the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind

Tolkien is correct here though. What is the identity of 'England'? Its just a bit of Britain seemingly, without any identity of its own, especially now Wales, Scotland and NI have their own assemblies. In that respect, 'England' has no mind. It also has no rights as we are not citizens, we are subjects, and servants of the Queen. We have no Bill of Rights.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Benevolent Dictatorship is the optimium form of government but, unfortunately it is unachievable in practice and so hopelessly idealistic.

Hmm. Hmm. Hmmmm. Let's not be hasty. On what grounds do you make this claim about "optimium form of government", assuming you are speaking also for Tolkien?

Is this the same thing as the quasi-divine right of kingship which Aragorn apparently represents?

[the guy who be short]

I think we should try to avoid turning this into a thread advocating our personal prefered forms of government. Otherwise the world might just explode.

Tolkien did say that his books were not in any way related to contempotary politics. However, we can look at the governments in the books and the letters to get a feel for his beliefs.

It's interesting that Tolkien says his political beliefs tend to Anarchy. Anarchy to me always evokes liberalism - each man for himself taken to an extreme. Indeed, this is what he says, "an abolition of control." I wonder to what extent he really believed in this - would his Catholicism get in the way of letting everybody pursue their own path in life?

I also refute that Anarchy could ever take the form of collectivism. Anarachism should not be considered as a form of socialism or communism. As Somalia shows, absolute abolition of any form of control leads to capitalism (which I believe Tolkien mentions disliking, though I may be wrong).

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

What is the identity of 'England'? Its just a bit of Britain seemingly, without any identity of its own, especially now Wales, Scotland and NI have their own assemblies. In that respect, 'England' has no mind. It also has no rights as we are not citizens, we are subjects, and servants of the Queen. We have no Bill of Rights.

I don't think that's quite what Tolkien meant here. I think that he was trying to say that the realm of England, unlike the English state (or the German state for that matter), is something that is inferior to the individuals who inhabit it. The State, as referred to in the gutter press, is a thing which is supposedly virtually omniscient, can claim arbitrary and sweeping authority and controls some mysterious nexus of genius that renders it practically infallible. Tolkien wouldn't be the first person to find that a disturbing entity to have in existence. England, on the other hand, is the proper noun for a country of North-Western Europe, bordered by Scotland to the north, Wales and the Irish Sea to the west and the English Channel and North Sea to the South and East. Nothing particularly threatening about that.

Tolkien did not agree with the personification of the State as a being with rights, thoughts and opinions. I regard such an entity as a useful thing for people to hide behind when doing distasteful things that they wouldn't want to appear in their biographies, and that's the biggest danger of that way of thinking. Both classical Anarchy and absolute monarchy, by on the one hand removing the apparatus of government altogether and on the other placing all of the responsibility in the hands of one specific person, allow no latitude to act in the name of an entity without a face. In a modern democracy it's possible to make nobody actually responsible for anything, yet still concentrate power into the hands of a few people. I'm not saying that Tolkien was right, but I can understand why he might have held his views. In any case, his ways are no more or less right than those to which we adhere, but political science, philosophy, and finally and inevitably madness lie in that direction.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I am supposed to be racing out the door, but can't resist throwing something into this pot. As was often true with Tolkien, it's possible to identify two contradictory ideals in his writings. Still, if forced to say whether Tolkien was closer to anarchism or benevolent dictatorship/monarchies, I would go with anarchism. Let's review the evidence....

First, there is the ideal at the end of LotR: the establishment of a Reunited Kingdom under a benevolent monarch. Note that this is not a "new" development, but rather the restoration of an ideal from the past. As Tolkien noted, "the progress of the tale ends in what is far more like the re-establishment of an effective Holy Roman Empire with its seat in Rome." While some readers may concentrate on the figure of the "emperor", asking what kind of power that individual wields, Bethberry is right to question that emphasis. Tolkien's real focus is not the figure of the ruler but what that ruler is trying to restore. The tight control of Saruman and Sauron, the machine horrors of Isengard, are to be replaced with a gentler hand.

It's certainly clear Tolkien believed absolute power was inherently corrupting, since the Ring could destroy even those with the best intentions. With this lesson in mind, one of the first steps Aragorn takes is to limit his own authority. What absolute ruler, even a benevolent one, would agree to have parts of his kingdom where he could not even set foot?

Just as Tolkien rejected Sauron's attempt to create a monolithic, machine-driven regime, he disliked the conformity and mechanization that inevitably accompanies nationalism and modernity. Tolkien felt any form of central planning was doomed to failure. The modern democratic state presupposes a huge class of bureaucrats, a group Tolkien considered morally subversive and little better than orcs. Whether or not we personally agree, Tolkien was strongly anti-totalitarian and anti-democratic:

"I am not a democrat, only because humility and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility but universal greatness and pride, till some Orcs get hold of a ring of power--and we get and are getting slavery.

For Tolkien "politics" was a nasty business that inevitably led to an unacceptable concentration of power. It is Denethor rather than Aragorn whom he pinpoints as the possible absolute ruler:

Denethor was tainted with mere politics: hence his failure, and his mistrust of Faramir. It had become for him a prime motive t preserve the polity of Gondor, as it was, against another potentate, who had made himself stronger and was to be feared and opposed for that reason rather than because he was ruthless and wicked......If he had survived as a victor, even without use of the Ring, he would have taken a long stride towards becoming a tyrant, and the terms and treatment he accorded to the deluded people of east and south would have been cruel and vengeful. He had become a "political" leader....

These quotes underline Tolkien's rejection of the modern state, democratic or otherwise. The first is from Mythopoeia and the second in a letter to Christopher, who was fighting in the second World War.

Blessed are the legend-makers with their rhyme
of things not found within recorded time.
It is not they that have forgot the Night,
or bid us flee to organized delight,
in lotus-isles of economic bliss
foreswearing souls to gain a Circe-kiss
(and counterfeit at that, machine-produced,
bogus seduction of the twice-seduced)

However, it is, humans being what they are, quite inevitable, and the only cure (short of universal Conversion) is not to have wars nor planning nor regimentation...All Big Things planned in a big way feel like that to the toad under the harrow, though on a general view they do function and do their job. An ultimately evil job. For we are attempting to conquor Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed. But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn Men and Elves into Orcs.....Well, there you are: a hobbit amongst the Urukhai.

Tolkien's second ideal was the agrarian Shire. 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. The Shire had a mayor or two, a few Watchers and Bounders, an hereditary thain only called upon in time of emergency, but nothing more. Until the arrival of Saruman's henchmen, hobbits did not know the meaning of the word "coercion".

If Tolkien's had a personal political ideal, it lay in the Shire. Since man is inherently flawed, it is best that no single individual or state wield great authority. In an ideal world, an absolute monarch who had no flaws would be the perfect answer, but realistically that situation posed too many risks. In Tolkien's eyes, better the agrarian Shire where no one person exercised control and even the notion of the "State" is non-existent.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I also refute that Anarchy could ever take the form of collectivism. Anarachism should not be considered as a form of socialism or communism. As Somalia shows, absolute abolition of any form of control leads to capitalism (which I believe Tolkien mentions disliking, though I may be wrong).

Spain in the 1930s. Anarchists there were exercising collectivism. I suppose the correct term for that attempt at a practical application of Anarchy as a collective 'system' would be Anarcho-Syndicalism. There is also Christiania in Denmark, and there are various religious communities whp have operated for hundreds of years on something og an Anarchist basis.

Originally Posted by Squatter

In a modern democracy it's possible to make nobody actually responsible for anything, yet still concentrate power into the hands of a few people. I'm not saying that Tolkien was right, but I can understand why he might have held his views.

Its clear that this was something Tolkien did 'see', that democracy may not be as wonderful as it is held up to be. There are choices given to us but these`are very limited choices and it is not altogether clear if those people up for election really are there for the good of the people or are doing it in order to gain the power to pursue a personal agenda.

I've recently realised (and quite shocked myself in the process) that the last thing I want to see in the UK is a president and a republic, as I know that the leader we would get would as likely as not be some 'charismatic' business leader, who would then go on to utilise the status brought by the position to make even more money. I feel more comfortable with the latest in a line of monarchs who have little or no 'agenda'.

This I think is what Tolkien was getting at with his attitude to monarchy and 'democracy' (and the super-state or nanny state); he could see that even democracy can feed into the hands of the power and money hungry, as we must still have 'leaders'.

I wonder if Tolkien's ideal of a leader is something entirely different to a Prime Minister, a King (or Queen), or a President? In Aragorn we see something of his ideal, but we do not see all that much of this man's actual Kingship. Instead we see his military leadership and his leadership of the Fellowship after Gandalf has gone. To me it seems he idealises the practical leader.

Though again, this begs the question of whether Aragorn's skill would shine through in quite the same way had he been say the fifteenth in a long line of Kings in a stable country.

Tolkien really sidesteps the issue of Politics as much as possible, only venturing into that territory to show how power corrupts? Which brings us back to those Anarchists...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hmm. Hmm. Hmmmm. Let's not be hasty. On what grounds do you make this claim about "optimium form of government", assuming you are speaking also for Tolkien?

Is this the same thing as the quasi-divine right of kingship which Aragorn apparently represents?

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

I do not claim to speak for Tolkien, although it was the discussion on another thread here concerning Tolkien and politics, together with my own intense dislike of our what passes for "democracy" in my country, that prompted my thoughts concerning the ideal solution of a benevolent dictatorship. And, yes, Aragorn's rule might be considered a representation of it, although the "divine rule" aspect is not, to my mind, a necessary element. It is more important, in my view, that the people accept the ruler as their ruler. Aragorn had both (and this issue, I think, was explored in the thread which prompted my original thoughts).

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).

A benevolent dictator has no need to worry about electoral success, and so is free to rule for the benefit of all the people. Being benevolent, he or she would be only too willing to do so. And, being wise, he or she would make the correct choices in doing so. Aragorn's rule at the end of the Third Age does indeed represent such a system.

The problem, of course, is that a benevolent dictator is, like Aragorn, a fantasy figure. It may be a cliche, but it is also a truism that powere corrupts and absolute power (which the benevolent dictator has) corrupts absolutely. A benevolent ruler, however well-intentioned to start with, would be hard pressed to remain benevolent. And, however wise, he or she would be hard pressed to always make the correct choices. Moreover, it would be impossible to rule for the benefit of all of the people all of the time, because people have different hopes, aspirations, goals and beliefs. There would always be malcontents who would wish to overthrow the ruler and install themselves in his/her place. This may be something that Tolkien intended to explore within the context of his tale of the Shadow returning in the Fourth Age (which I have not read), although (as I understand it) Tolkien portrays this in terms of the return of evil. In real life, the malcontents are generally not evil (not at the outset, at least), but rather idealists who believe that they can do a better job, based on their own aspirations and beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

What Tolkien says in this quote is familiar to Brits as the kind of thing the Daily Mail and Telegraph (and most of the people for that matter) might say every few days, how the state is to blame for everything, etc.

I don't think that Tolkien's views in this regard equate to those frequently espoused in the right wing press, which rejects the state when it interferes in ways it considers wrong, yet maniacally calls for yet stricter and more intrusive controls when it perceives them necessary to address wrongs in society (stronger anti-terrorism laws, stricter drugs controls, Megan's law, the death penalty etc etc). The right wing press is inconsistent, whereas I like to think Tolkien was more consistent, in that he rejected the apparatus of the state entirely and would rather have preferred to place the business of running the country in the hands of a recognisable indidviual who could be trusted. So, we're back to the impractical benevolent dictatorship idea again.

For my own part, I differ from Tolkien in accepting the need for a state apparatus but one which recognises individual rights and freedoms and intereferes only where necessary for the protection of individuals and for the benefit of society as a whole, and not where it has no business doing so. I am not sure that Tolkien was quite the libertararian that I am although, from what I have read in his Letters and his stated preference for anarchy, he does seem to have had a libertarian streak in him which, as TGWBS suggests, may well have conflicted with the tenets of his orthodox Catholicism.

And, as Child has suggested, I believe that this "anarchist" streak found its outlet in his portrayal of the Shire. Again, it is an idealised society, with no laws as such but rather customs and practices which all Hobbits respect and subscribe to for the benefit of their society, and where each Hobbit knows, and is satisfied with, his or her place in society. As I said, somewhat idealised, but it certainly has its attractions.

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.

[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!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Well, I am afraid then that such an ideal democracy is about as likely as my benevolent dictatorship. People vote with mainly their wallets - aka "It's the economy stupid!".

Are their any forms of democracy represented within Tolkien's works? The Mayor of Michel Delving was an elected post, but it was largely ceremonial in nature. How about the Master of Laketown? Was this role perhaps elective? If so, Tolkien does not exactly portray it in a good light. The elected official greedily using his position to line his own pockets. Hmm, sounds familar.

I suppose that Tolkien's putative ideal societies, The Shire and the Reunited Kingdom, might be regarded as democratic in a sense, in that those in authority rule with the will of the people. Then again, even assuming that the "people's" goodwill remains constant, any vestige of democracy ends with the death of the incumbent and the operation of the hereditary principle.

[Kuruharan]

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.

It is not really so hard to understand when one reflects that the system they designed could be interpreted as being intended to create a situation where every citizen could be something of a king on their own ground. In the public sphere they were citizens, in their private they were masters of their own domain.

To a certain extent, I think this might have been an idea with which Tolkien could have sympathized.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

It is not really so hard to understand when one reflects that the system they designed could be interpreted as being intended to create a situation where every citizen could be something of a king on their own ground. In the public sphere they were citizens, in their private they were masters of their own domain.

To a certain extent, I think this might have been an idea with which Tolkien could have sympathized.

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.

There is private property in The Shire, as we see the conflict between Bilbo and Lobelia over Bag End and I don't recall tenement, rental hobbit holes. Does Rohan have Viking forms of communal ownership or more medieval?

[Kuruharan]

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.

That's beside the point I was trying to make, as you well know...

[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?