The Libertarian Harry Potter
Not only does is the right to bear arms (ie wands) hold in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books (albeit only for those deemed competent - Hagrid is not so should not have his wand), but Marginal Revolution points out that compulsory education is not part of the Wizarding world, until Voldemort gets into power that is:
‘Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard,’ he replied. ‘That was announced yesterday. It’s a change because it was never obligatory before. Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated at Hogwarts, but their parents had the right teach them at home or send them abroad if they preferred. This way, Voldemort will have the whole wizarding population under his eye from a young age.’
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Of course, Rowlings’ universe is also a world where privilege is entrenched - no magic for those hoi polloi muggles. The wizards behave like an occupying colonial power who don’t even contemplate sharing their skills with non-wizards. Sure, they have condescending debates about the need to ‘tolerate’ muggles, but it isn’t exactly an egalitarian paradise.
Of course, for a lot of libertarians, that is exactly the sort of world they want. One where they flatter themselves about meritocracy while blithely ignoring the fact that the policies they support are all about keeping an underclass in its place.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Those debates allow the expression of the liberal/libertarian view of equality under the law - the muggles should be treated equally. They also however show the way in which humans have treated the ‘other’ as bad - wizards took the decision to hide from muggles to protect themselves.
As for your slur upon libertarians - the libertarian rejects egalitarianism (as does the liberal). Equality of outcome cannot be achieved and the only way to come close to achieving it is to coerce and use force.
Libertarianism also rejects the claim that only state intervention can result in improving the life of the poor. Libertarians tend to point out that the state usually entrenches the privilege of certain groups against others.
I don’t see how the policies of libertarianism are about keeping an underclass in its place. Unless by libertarianism you mean some sort of Tory corporatism in which case you are not talking about libertarianism.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Very simply, wealth has an uncanny ability to create wealth - especially specific kinds of wealth such as land. If the economic system allows this to go unchallenged then the wealthy will simply pull the ladder up from the poor.
If, as a libertarian, you accept that some forms of wealth are not created by the individual and are created from the wider community - and as such belongs to the wider community - then great. But in my experience a lot of libertarians wouldn’t agree with you.
December 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Charlie Brown…
Charlie Brown Says Thank You….