The One Ring

The-One-Ring2 POSSESSION IS NINE TENTHS OF THE LAW. 

And . . . er . . . what kind of possession are we talking about?

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

6 thoughts on “The One Ring”

  2. That article is made of WIN. A geek fest of the highest order.
    One could argue that, because Sauron wields the Ring rather as a weapon, though he would ordinarily maintain property rights, his abuse of the Ring’s powers and demonstrated intent cause him to lose right of ownership… e.g., a convicted felon may not possess a gun, though gun ownership rights are generally acknowledged in principle. A felon is allowed to own other kinds of property, but not a gun.
    Also, I believe that any jury not under the influence of Sauron’s mind control (which would be jury tampering, at any rate) would likely uphold a civil action against Sauron brought by Isildur and his heirs for just compensation.
    Isildur was certainly not the only one who could make such a valid civil claim, however. Sauron had many victims, and the just and equitable solution would seem to be a class action suit brought by “Victims of Sauron” and their heirs, with the Ring and other of Sauron’s possessions (excluding Barad-Dûr, as his primary residence) being divided according to the statutes of the proper jurisdiction.
    Another side note; the fair appraised market value of the One Ring is a hazy area. It has nearly limitless value for Sauron, but not to anyone else in the same way (any temporary gains – no matter how impressive – would always be lost to Sauron, in the end). If it were a paintbrush, for instance, it would be silly to establish its value based on what Rembrandt or Titian might have created with it. It must be valued according to its inherent and universal properties.
    It seems that the true market value of the Ring would have to exclude any temporary gains an owner might experience (conquering of Middle Earth, control of minions, etc…) and be based instead on the value of its component materials, combined with its more ordinary magical properties (invisibility), as well as perceived historical importance and aesthetic qualities. As a one-of-a-kind collectible, it would no doubt still be very highly valued.

  5. Since Sauron imparted much of his essence into the Ring, can it really be owned by others? Can anyone legally, in our current legal structure, own someone else (or technically) a great extent of the essence of the person? It would seem to me that Sauron’s person/essence was illegally withheld, against his wishes, without a jury trial. (This assumes the Trial by Combat was void under current legal standards.)
    Furthermore, can Isildur claim damages? It would seem to me that Sauron was merely trying to reclaim the lands (Middle Earth) that was his inheritance from when Morgoth was removed from the world and time.

Comments are closed.