Goblin's view on property

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 176522

> > Goddlefrood (further snipped):
> > Often the tabua (whale's tooth) will be recovered by the 
> > original owners and there is certainly no question of any 
> > money that was ever paid being refunded.
 
> > Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I 
> > believe you may agree.

> Steve/bboyminn:
<SNIP>
> That is not what happened with the Sword. The creator
> sold it to the 'patron', and the Sword is still, to
> a reasonable extent, in the control of the patron's
> ancestors. Though after a thousand years, it has become
> more of a public historical artifact. Which is why
> Scrimgeour doesn't want to hand it over. 

Goddlefrood:

Largely agreed, although as will hopefully become clear 
shortly on the matter of whale's teeth there is a little 
clarification I offer below.

Steve/bboyminn:
> It is one thing to purchase a historical carved Whale's
> tooth from the pillager of tombs, which is what you are 
> suggesting; but it is quite another thing to purchase
> a carved whale's tooth from the sculptor who actually
> carved it, which is closer to what happened with the
> Sword.

Goddlefrood:

A tabua would never be buried with anyone, it would either 
rot or it would be passed down through the generations of 
the original owner's family. It actuially is the tooth of 
a whale, not some carved or manufactured item. They have 
a very high value for the indigenous peoples of the Pacific 
and old ones are particularly highly valued.

Of course I recognise that this is quite different from the 
matter under consideration, viz Gryffindor's Sword. Gryffindor 
did buy it, there's little doubt of that, however, the basic 
analogy is a good one. Once a tabua has been sold, and they 
can be, the person buying has no right of transfer upon death 
according to the traditional or original owner. There's the 
way in which the goblins, in my reading, consider the item, 
specifically the sword, but also Aunt Muriel's tiara, to always 
belong to them notwithstanding who currently holds it. Perhaps 
a form of trust, to give it a legal construct, would be another 
way of considering the goblin attitude. They are effectively 
saying: "I'll sell it to you, but you hold it on trust for me 
to be returned". The problem, naturally, being that they do *not* 
make this clear to their customer, and they certainly should 
rather than brood over something that they have little right 
to brood over precisely because they have probably not made 
it clear when selling such items outside their race that this 
is their attitude. It wouldn't be too good for business either 
I would think if the goblins' attitude to ownership became known 
to the human wizards with whom they dealt.

> Steve/bboyminn:

> Do you see my point here?

Goddlefrood:

I certainly do and I hope mine is now a little clearer too.