Comments | fare: The Democracies of the Ring

fare

The Democracies of the Ring

Apr 05, 2009 16:20

In this recently unearthed posthumous book by J.R.R. Tolkien, the fantasy world filled with dragons and magicians has evolved from warring medieval times to peaceful modernity; furthermore, in the second volume, it is resolutely entering post-modernity.
( Read more... )

reviews, books, socialism, economics, tolkien, en

Comments 5

outlawpoet April 5 2009, 23:18:04 UTC

ha. Reconciling Tolkienian mythology with modern liberalism wouldn't be a book, it would take a whole new series of books.

Democratic Era ext_180868 April 16 2009, 13:55:37 UTC

Every society is sum of forces acting on it, some coming from the past, other rising from the present and the rest expected in the near feature. Still I believe that modern society is better for the people, unless you are the king or queen. Those who control resources have always commanded those who have least of them. That's why state should keep its dirty hands from the economy. Just do the minimum necessary and don't try to improve anything. Because you can't do any good. The biggest problem with democracy and the free market work best only under perfect competition. I've just read Dip from Seth Godin and one thing that struck me most is about all those quitters who pay for the benefits of the few. Maybe on the elections we should have a choice to either give a vote for some politician you like or give negative vote to politicians you like least.

Re: Democratic Era fare April 24 2009, 00:30:23 UTC

Modern society is better indeed -- the kings and queens of the past were not consensually chosen by their subjects, but reigned out of conquest; only the initial gang of conquerors, thereafter known as "noblemen", may indeed have chosen the dynasty founder as their leader in subjecting others. And so what makes modern society better is precisely that the political destruction that is conquest has been by and large tamed ( ... )

Re: Democratic Era ext_180868 April 28 2009, 13:16:52 UTC

The free market does require strong competition and works best under perfect or near perfect competition. It doesn't have to be textbook competition of many small firms producing same products with many small buyers looking on the price, but there must be quality alternatives available for both producers and consumers of the goods and services. For example if I think its too expensive to go on vacation in hawai, I will build a hunting hut with vacation money. The problem is in the goods and services where the alternatives suck or are nonexisting. If they cut my water supply I can't dig a well on a 13th floor. If I can't get reasonably priced electricity, the solar panel would be unsatisfactory in cloudy days and home generators might too expensive. Or what about transportation network? You don't suggets that I should build a highway myself ( ... )

Re: Democratic Era fare April 28 2009, 18:03:51 UTC

Some people make mathematical models, have nice definitions of "perfection" in their model, and try to map that as an ethical norm in reality, but it's all pure bullshit.

Free competition is about the freedom to enter the market as a provider if you're not satisfied, without you being subject to harassment by goons with guns at the orders of racketeers and scammers -- even though they may be called "cops", "bureaucrats" and "politicians" because they are "legal". That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. We don't care about "perfect" results. Life is not perfect. We care about Freedom.