Power & Market

JRR Tolkien on the Danger of Centralized Political Power

08/01/2018Zachary Yost

At the recent Mises University, Jeff Deist and Ryan McMaken recorded a live edition of Mises Weekends focused on radical decentralization and addressing some of the points raised against it. While in this conversation and in many others related to it intellectual titans like Mises and Rothbard are invoked to support the decentralist view, many libertarians unfortunately fail to call upon one of the most articulate critics of centralized political power with unparalleled intellectual and cultural influence; JRR Tolkien. While Tolkien is no doubt a popular figure among many libertarians, an unfortunate unfamiliarity with his work on a deeper intellectual level often prevents his enormous cultural influence from being brought to bear against the forces of statism and centralization.

There is no need to wonder about Tolkien’s political leanings, as he made them quite explicitly clear in a 1943 letter to his son Christopher Tolkien (who would later edit a great many of Tolkien’s posthumous works) he wrote “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) – or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy.” In the same letter Tolkien continued that “Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and 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. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”

With such political sentiments, it is hardly surprising then that Tolkien incorporates a disdain for centralized power and a warning about its seductive nature in his work. In The Lord of the Rings, perhaps Tolkien’s best known work, the story traces the journey to destroy the One Ring of Power and chronicles the various effects the potential to wield this power can have. Tolkien does not attempt to hide the nature of the Ring, its purpose is clearly labeled upon itself:“One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.” The One Ring is just that, one, singular, representative of a unitary will that imposes itself upon all.​

Sauron, the creator of the One Ring, is unambiguously evil, driven by a desire to impose his will and dominate all others. Yet, Tolkien’s message does not simply end with the idea that power should not rest in the hands of clearly evil tyrants, but rather penetrates much deeper into why centralized power by its very nature is too dangerous to exist.

One of the first characters to fall prey to the temptation of the Ring’s power is the wizard Saruman. Saruman’s reasoning for wanting power is quite simple and is certainly a sentiment that we hear everyday from the DC class. “The time of the Elves is over” he tells fellow wizard Gandalf, “but our time is at hand: the world of Men, which we must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the wise can see.” Such an attitude is all to common when it comes to the actual and aspiring members of the governing class who believe that they know best and are justified in imposing their kind hearted plans upon everyone else. Whether it is social democrats who believe they can plan the economy, or neo-conservatives who believe they can plan the entire world order and engage in “building” entire nations at the point of the gun in the Middle East, the world is full of wannabe Saruman’s fully convinced of their own wisdom and infallibility.

Tolkien examines in great psychological depth the process by which ordinary people end up abusing power, most poignantly in his creation of the Ring Wraiths; men who were once mighty kings who over time became subdued to Sauron’s will after accepting the nine rings of power gifted to men. Tolkien expert Dr. Thomas Shippey has said that “the Ringwraiths are Tolkien’s most original and distinctive image of evil” in part because they represent the danger that power poses in the hands of anyone, even oneself. Shippey calls this process by which ordinary people who begin with good intentions end up becoming corrupted and twisted as they acquire power the “wraithing process.” The use of the adjective “twisted” is quite intentional, as the word “wraith” stems from words such as wreath and writhe which are both twisted things. The etymology of “wraith” also draws upon the important element that wraiths are more defined by shape than by substance. According to Shippey, what fills this shape is ideology with power.

The suspicion is that people make themselves into wraiths. They accept the gifts of Sauron, quite likely with the intention of using them for some purpose which they identify as good. But then they start to cut corners, to eliminate opponents, to believe in some ‘cause’ which justifies everything they do. In the end the ‘cause’, or the habits they have acquired while working for the ‘cause’, destroys any moral sense and even any remaining humanity. The spectacle of the person ‘eaten up inside’ by devotion to some abstraction has been so familiar throughout the twentieth century as to make the idea of the wraith, and the wraithing-process, horribly recognizable, in a non-fantastic way.1

The dangers of the wraithing-process by which ordinary people end up becoming consumed by ideological power and committing atrocities are known all too well to anyone familiar with the bloody history of the 20th Century, a century in which, with bureaucratic efficiency, millions were exterminated in the ideological crusades of the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Communist China among others. According to Shippey, Tolkien’s portrayal of evil through the wraithing-process “is a curiously distinctive image of evil, and… a very unwelcome one because what it says is it could be you and under the right circumstances, or I should say the wrong circumstances, it will be you.”

While there is still much left to unpack from Tolkien’s prodigious body of work, one of his central theses is very clear: centralized power is too dangerous to be allowed to exist. If concentrated power exists people will be corrupted by it. This important point cannot be ignored in arguments for decentralization.

  • 1. Shippey, Tom J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century pg. 125
Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Jeff Deist on the Tom Woods Show: Is the Term “Libertarian” Still Useful?

Jeff Deist joined the Tom Woods Show yesterday to discuss whether the term "Libertarian" is still useful.

To quote Tom Woods, "This one’s a doozy, my friends."

Listen here.

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Judge Napolitano on Trump's Tariff Disaster

03/28/2018Ryan McMaken

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Gerri Willis discuss Trump's new tariffs and how they will affect everyday Americans.

Not surprisingly, Napolitano takes strong anti-tariff views, and also notes it's unconstitutional for the President to impose taxes without the explicit approval of Congress. wishing to dodge responsibility, however, the Congress has abandoned its role in taxation. 

Willis goes on to note that while some workers in the steel industry will likely benefit from the tariffs, the vast majority of workers will be hurt. After all, only 200,000 workers nationwide are involved in steel, but many millions more work in steel-dependent industries. Costs will rise in those industries, making them less competitive.

Judge Nap: Why impose tariffs if they'll hurt Americans?

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Justin Raimondo on the "Libertarian Remnant"

03/22/2018Jeff Deist

The always provocative Justin Raimondo, longtime editor of Antiwar.com, has a new column in Chronicles Magazine that asks a very simple question: Whatever happened to the libertarian movement?

It's a question worth asking, especially given the multifarious disagreements over what "libertarian" even means at this point. This may be the natural result of growth; more people means more disagreement over principles and terms. But is libertarianism really growing on a per capita basis in the US, outpacing population growth? Depending on the source, libertarian-ish Americans are anywhere from a discouraging 2% to an optimistic 20% of the electorate. If in fact liberty-minded people represent only a single-digit percentage of all Americans, we may face a reality described by Lew Rockwell as "the smaller the movement, the greater the factions within it".

In Raimondo's view, the movement he grew up with was unified in its overarching concern with, and opposition to, state power:

The Three Pillars of the libertarian platform—economic freedom, civil liberties, and a noninterventionist foreign policy—were practically uncontested. While no one could accuse us of avoiding internal debates over abstruse issues that were of interest only to committed ideologues (it often seemed to me as if libertarians did little else!), we basically knew what we believed. Not only that, but we stuck to it. There was talk of “transitional programs,” and debate over which issues to emphasize, but there was a basic unity of vision in that none of us ever sought to justify any extension of state power. We didn’t side with the state. We saw ourselves as radicals, with the Establishment on the other side of the barricades being typically corporate liberal.

This conception of libertarianism gets it right, in my view. War and peace, central banking, and state power (i.e. civil liberties, spying, taxes, regulations, drug war) are the three areas where libertarians should agree. And a focus on these fundamental and timeless issues eliminates many questions about cultural preferences, Left vs. Right, and "thick vs. thin."

It is precisely when we veer away from core concerns that libertarians get into trouble, as Raimondo posits. Watering down the non-interventionist message, fretting over RussiaGate or gay marriage, siding with intelligence agencies, and jettisoning the primary focus on coercive statism has left the movement watered-down, listless, and unrecognizable. 

In response, Raimondo calls for the "remnant" of "Old Libertarianism" to stand against an ideological degeneration that cedes too much to the Left's cultural precepts and the Right's neoconservative foreign/intelligence policy:

The last remnants of the Old Libertarianism—the wonderful folks at the Mises Institute, the Ron Paul groups—are doing a great job.  But I’m afraid that their role, at this point, is to keep the Remnant intact, and hope for better days to come. The ideological degeneration of “official” libertarianism is not only far advanced but a threat to the future of liberty itself. The sheer insanity of a “libertarian” siding with the most unaccountable and coercive sectors of the state apparatus, the “intelligence community,” in their quest to overthrow a sitting President is something I would have thought inconceivable. But that was back when the world made sense.  Now, the “libertarians” are either clowns or apologists for power.

It's nice of Mr. Raimondo to praise the Mises Institute. But his thesis, that liberty is in a holding pattern against the dominant political powers of Trumpism, progressivism, SJWism, and neoconservatism, is worthy of consideration. Do we water down the message to grow, do we engage in politics, do we "whisper in the ear of the king," as he puts it?

There are arguments to be made for political educational, and cultural strategies. The late Murray Rothbard certainly advocated a multi-pronged approach. But given recent attacks on the Koch brothers as the source of all evil on campuses, and even against the soft sell of "classical liberalism," it's time to consider what exactly is advanced by steering libertarianism away from a rigorous opposition to state power. 

 

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Judge Napolitano's Commencement Address at Faulkner University

Allen Mendenhall, Associate Dean at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and Executive Director of the Blackstone & Burke Center for Law & Liberty, introduces Judge Andrew Napolitano, Senior Legal Analyst at Fox News, who delivers the commencement address to the 2017 graduating class of Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and receives an honorary doctorate for his distinguished career. Recorded May 13, 2017.

Judge Andrew Napolitano Commencement Address (May 13, 2017)

Facebook icon
LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here
Shield icon power-market-v2