There is some kind of collective governance, since there are references to a "Shiremoot" which is suggestive of some kind of governance structure, like the Witengamot which chose the kings of Anglo-Saxon England.

What have you done to my brain?

I think we might be talking past each other a little bit. I am just taking some issue with your suggestion that Tolkien couldn't see "any" principle but hereditary monarchy. An aristocratic oligarchy is different in important ways, even if still hereditary and non-egalitarian.

Oh, absolutely. Not suggesting it was any kind of Monty Python-style anarcho-syndicalist commune or something, just pointing out that the post-Arnor/Arthedain Shire is governed on a different principle than hereditary divine kingship.

"Imagine there's no countries" ... an odd choice for an expressly country-based competition.

That there is a government in the Shire, it is in the hands of the elected Mayor. This very limited government is in keeping with what we know, from the Letters, of Tolkien's expressly stated political philosophy. 2/2

So, returning to this. An interesting point for consideration is the Shire. It has a very limited government and while there is a hereditary leader (the Thane), Tolkien more or less says that the Thane's only job is to lead the hobbitry-in-arms (which is a great phrase). Otherwise, to the extent 1/2

I'm going to have to take a pause and get back to you after I've had coffee. I dove into this too early in the morning.

To be clear, I don't assert Tolkien was a Marxist or anything like that. He was certainly a monarchist, and believed in a divinely ordained bloodline. But I don't think it's fair to say that he couldn't see "any principle", unless you specifically mean just in the social distribution of power.

Boromir didn't die for Aragorn. He died trying to save Merry and Pippin. Also worth examining why he said "Gondor needs no king." He said it because the return of the king would result in a personal loss of power and prestige for himself, not out of principle.

Maybe the Venus de Milo? Not a portrait of a man, obviously. Like the Mona Lisa it's a work even people who know nothing about art might recognize.

Wait, how have you not seen All Good Things before 2026?

Micah, no.

I also have a close friend I've known since I was 3. It fucking rocks.

Oh interesting! Thank you.

I'm not American, and it doesn't seem at first blush like what you are saying here fits my understanding of judicial review (in the Canadian context). Any chance I could ask you to fill me in a little bit on what it means in the American political context?