Is the state The One Ring?
I know that Tolkien has been quoted describing himself as an anarchist, he has also stated that he despises allegory in all its forms. It is plain to see that the ring is evil. Some would attempt to use it for good but their efforts would be corrupted by the power of the ring and evil would be wrought, just as all functions of government result in the exact opposite of the stated purpose. Is is possible that Tolkien may have intended allegory while stating very strongly that he was doing no such thing? As a child I was told that Watership Down was an allegory, but Richard Adams also denies that. I know that "Artists use lies to tell the truth" and as a reader I also play a part as I filter anything I read through my own world view, so I will lay out my assertions.
The One Ring represents a tempting tool to oppose enemies, government is a tempting tool to use (TSA gropers, ATF selling guns to Mexican cartels with hope of serving some greater purpose, presidents having the infernal revenue service audit political opponents). So you have power today so you try to gather as much power unto yourself as you are able to get away with gathering. Then you leave power, and are succeeded by someone who may not like the same things you do. You still leave him with all the power your predecessor left you along with all the new power you were able to gather. He will now use that power and continue to gather more for himself and the cycle continues. So suppose there is a conscientious Mr Smith going to Mordor on the Potomac, when he arrives with his scruples fully intact and well exercised he means well and wishes to do only good. So a when he finds himself in a situation akin to Not Yours To Give what will he do? It is clearly good to give money to the widow of a man who spent so many years in the service of his government, but where does the money come from? It is taken from people who earned it under threat of force, or through inflation which dispenses with the threat of violence and merely uses fraud. If he goes one way he maintains his character and he will be reviled for it. If he goes the other way he will be praised for doing a good deed for someone in need and he starts down the dark path of corruption.
Evil cannot be bent to the service of good, the ring is evil and government is evil.
The One Ring represents a tempting tool to oppose enemies, government is a tempting tool to use (TSA gropers, ATF selling guns to Mexican cartels with hope of serving some greater purpose, presidents having the infernal revenue service audit political opponents). So you have power today so you try to gather as much power unto yourself as you are able to get away with gathering. Then you leave power, and are succeeded by someone who may not like the same things you do. You still leave him with all the power your predecessor left you along with all the new power you were able to gather. He will now use that power and continue to gather more for himself and the cycle continues. So suppose there is a conscientious Mr Smith going to Mordor on the Potomac, when he arrives with his scruples fully intact and well exercised he means well and wishes to do only good. So a when he finds himself in a situation akin to Not Yours To Give what will he do? It is clearly good to give money to the widow of a man who spent so many years in the service of his government, but where does the money come from? It is taken from people who earned it under threat of force, or through inflation which dispenses with the threat of violence and merely uses fraud. If he goes one way he maintains his character and he will be reviled for it. If he goes the other way he will be praised for doing a good deed for someone in need and he starts down the dark path of corruption.
Evil cannot be bent to the service of good, the ring is evil and government is evil.