Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 162068

Ceridwen then:
> > House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their
owners. Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want to
serve wizards and witches.

a_svirn:
> That's rather crucial distinction, though. If it is charmed, and we
know it is – we've been told so, the fist responsibility of a decent
wizard is to free them from those charms.

Ceridwen:
But Harry can't do that right now. Kreacher is too dangerous to be
tossed out.

a_svirn now:
I thought you were addressing the problem in general here. "House-
elves bring another level of responsibility etc". I answered in 
general too. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that Kreacher 
can't be freed just yet. 

a_svirn:
> So what? Human slaves are also known to fear freedom. That's what
slavery does to a person – cripple them mentally. Especially if the
said person was born in slavery and doesn't know the difference.

Ceridwen:
And tossing a mentally crippled person out to face their fear alone
is cruel. To be free from both slavery *and* fear, elves need to
know there is something out there for them, work to provide what was
once provided by their masters.

a_svirn now:
Much less cruel than keep them enslaved against their will though. 
But I agree that freeing slaves without offering them security and 
employment is irresponsible. 

Ceridwen then:
> > They wouldn't know how to manage for themselves, particularly
with some compelling force making them want to work, work, work.

a_svirn:
> Dobby can manage for himself. So does Kreacher. And I didn't notice
how Kreacher is being compelled to "work, work, work". Rather the
opposite. In fact, even Winky doesn't seem to be compelled to "work,
work, work".

Ceridwen:
Just a personal thing with me: just because Edmund Hillary climbed
Mt. Everest, and Lance Armstrong won bicycle races, that doesn't mean
that I can do either thing. Hillary and Armstrong are exceptional
people, and Dobby is an exceptional elf.

a_svirn now:
We have seen three elves at close quarters. Two of them rebelled 
against their masters. All things considered not a bad percentage. 
Better, in fact, than with human slaves. 

Ceridwen:
They are still responsible for the things their elves can't get on
their own. Not all elves in the WW can go work at Hogwarts if
they're tossed out. And, we don't know that WW owners sell and buy
slaves, or at least I can't remember a quote like that (I could be
wrong, though!). However the owners got the elves, through purchase
or through some sort of hereditary thing, they are still responsible
for the common form of payment.

a_svirn now:
What payment? Since when slaves are being paid? 

Ceridwen:
I don't think Jeeves and Wooster are a similar case. Jeeves can
leave when he likes, and he can find other employment of the same or
different variety.

a_svirn now:
It is a very dissimilar case, certainly, that's the point. I brought 
it up because I am honestly baffled by all this talk about 
elves' "nature".  The argument is than since they *want* or even 
*need* to serve, slavery is a natural state for them. Living aside 
the fact that not all of them *need* to serve, I don't see how 
slavery is the answer to this basic need. Jeeves needs and wants to 
serve too. He voluntary went into service. That doesn't make him a 
slave by nature however, nor does it make Wooster a *natural 
master*.  

a_svirn:
> Which means they have to set them free. How does one address fear
of freedom? The only way to fight fear, any fear is to offer
security. If wizards replaced the elves relocation office with the
elves social well-fair office, I think elves would fear freedom less.

Ceridwen:
I think if there were other employment options, elves would have
little if anything to fear that wasn't culturally induced, which of
course generations of slavery is. How noble of the WW to generously
provide elves with yet another slavery position! I think they ought
to get out of it and let the free market work.

a_svirn:
Erm.. I believe I did say that they have to set them free first. So 
where does that "yet another slavery position" comes from? To the 
best of my knowledge social welfare is not incompatible with free 
market. It is, however, incompatible with slavery. 

Carol:
That's the kind of responsibility I'm talking about. A parent, a pet
owner, an employer, anyone who's in a superior or supervisiory
position to another person or being has that obligation. Not to
exercise that responsibility is to abuse one's power, as the Malfoys
did, or to disregard the obligation to treat inferiors humanely, as
Sirius Black did.

a_svirn:
And all those similes but one are quite irrelevant. Parents and 
employers do not OWN their children and employees. Which is a crucial 
distinction. The only comparison that makes a horrid kind of sense is 
one with a pet owner. It is all too easy to liken a slave with a pet 
or with livestock: reducing a person to a status of animal is what 
slavery does. Moreover, it is exactly the kind of mental exercise 
than enables Harry to take his rights as a slave-holder for granted. 
The snag is that Kreacher is not an animal; he is as much of a person 
as Harry himself, and the only moral responsibility to another person 
would be to set them free, or failing that, treat them with respect 
until such time they *can* be set free. 

Betsy Hp:
I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave
owner. Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough? And a tiny
bit more noble?

a_svirn:
Exactly.