Comments | pompe: Your New-Caught Sullen Peoples, Half-devil And Half-child

pompe

Your New-Caught Sullen Peoples, Half-devil And Half-child

Mar 24, 2009 19:03

From james_nicoll's journal I note that the Libertarians are out finding targets for the Hall of Fame award.

http://www.lfs.org/2009HoFFinalists.html

This year, both Kipling and Tolkien are in. (It's the Libertarian Futurist Society, to be specific. Tolkien and Kipling!You vaguely feel ( Read more... )

Comments 8

(The comment has been removed)

dewline March 25 2009, 00:13:20 UTC

I have one called Ukraine: A Historical Atlas.

ISBN - 10:0802034292
ISBN - 13:9780802034298

ashnistrike March 24 2009, 20:25:13 UTC

"Easy as A.B.C." is focused on privacy rights. Government-protected privacy rights, but you can't have everything. And it takes place in 2000, which is almost the future. Lord of the Rings is about the divine right of kings--it's for it. Not sure how that counts as libertarian.

Personally, I hope they go for Falling Free. It's legitimately libertarian, of the kind that admits that corporate authority can be just as nasty as government authority, yet still has the amusement factor of being by a definitively non-libertarian author.

pompe March 25 2009, 04:45:57 UTC

To me, "Libertarian" isn't a legitimate label when it is used in "critical of some authority" way, I think, because if we use so loose definitions of what "libertarian" means it becomes pointless. Martin Luther was critical of the Catholic Church, that doesn't make him a libertarian. At least not to me. A libertarian should be critical of organized authority _in general_.

mindstalk March 25 2009, 00:13:41 UTC

Your snark outruns itself. "The Prometheus Hall of Fame Award is designed to honor classic libertarian fiction." So emphasizing "Futurist" seems misplaced. And have you read the Kipling? I have, it's in a collection of Kipling's science fiction. The story is both very libertarian and pretty good science fiction, if not entirely believable as sociology; Kipling foresaw a need for air traffic control, and wrote two stories about a global agency which had taken over -- or been handed -- global not-governance.

Lord of the Rings is odder, though defensible, both on anti-domination grounds (the fight against Sauron, and being 'slaves') and on the Shire, a bucolic nigh-anarchy with little government. The Once And Future King seems as odd, with "Might For Right" and good government as a major theme, though maybe there were others. Falling Free or the Kipling would be better "libertarian" SF picks.

pompe March 25 2009, 04:40:36 UTC

They're the Freaking Libertarian Futurist Society! If it was the Anarchist Christian Society selecting Classic Literature for their Hall of Fame Award, wouldn't you expect some Christianity to be involved ( ... )

mindstalk March 25 2009, 04:56:31 UTC

And Kipling's story was about the future.
The ABC's governance was minarchist shading on anarchist (outside the domain of air traffic control), and was presented quite positively.

I agree the Tolkien is weak. OTOH, the Shire is pretty minarchist -- and isn't socialist or welfare-stateish. It's very private property, no intrusive government, people mind their own business. And what government there is, is democratic.

As for the divine right of kings -- yes, that seems showcased in the novel, but if you geek out, even to the extent of reading the Appendices, or other material, the message can get problematic. The old line of kings mostly failed on their own, after all, and while Aragorn is awesome, posthumously published material suggests things tarnish fairly rapidly after that.

(This ambiguity also applies to the inherent racism/colorcoding of the world. Elves and elf blood vs. orcs, yes... but the Pureblood Gondorians did themselves no favors, and the Silmarilion shows murderous asshole elves.)

pompe March 25 2009, 05:58:43 UTC

Come on. The Shire is watched over by an outside agency - Rangers - they can't affect or even be a part of. They don't even know it exists. You could use the Shire analogy to defend some sort of benevolent surveillance system with a "Protecting a Naive Populace Against Things They'd Better Not Know About" - logic. The utopia of the Shire depends on outside protection and ignorance and a good deal of social control about what to do and not do (witness how the Baggins and Tooks and Winebucks are slightly suspicious simply because they travel or have some sort of drive). It's as libertarian as a gated society where no one knows what security corp actually monitors the gates ( ... )

Thread 5