On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 05:24:10PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Do you really think that is what he meant by " 'unconstitutional' > > Monarchy"? He specificially noted it was NOT a constitutional > > Monarchy, and you are talking about constitutional monarchies. > > I think I stand corrected. I brought this up at the tolkien > newsgroups, and the debate tends to indicate that you are correct. It > looks like he actually favors having "Charles in Charge."
Anyway, the more interesting part of the statement to me was about being an anarchist. That is the part that seems naive to me. I think that advocating anarchy is naive in much the same way that advocating communism is. While I'll admit to some yearnings of my own for the extreme freedom of anarchy, on my better days I'm realistic enough to realize that at our current level of technology, human nature isn't really compatible with anarchy. The problem, of course, is that in a power vacuum there will inevitably be a lot of fighting and backstabbing until a de facto leader emerges, with the power to exert his will over everyone else. Bye bye anarchy until the next fight for power. Then he talks about monarchs. Some sort of monarch or tyrant would be likely to spring up from the anarchy, but I'll bet nothing Tolkien would like to live under. That's another reason I thought his statement naive. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
