Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 176539

> > Alla:
> <SNIP> 
> > I think you nailed it though - Goblins wanting **both** money 
> > and property just seems so very **unfair** to me.<snip>
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> Is it odd for the Greeks to want the return of the Elgin 
> marbles, albeit they were obtained in possibly less than 
> legal circumstances?<SNIP>
>> There are many artifacts that change hands for money and later 
> still get returned to their so called rightful owners. It happens 
> in the Pacific quite regularly with Whale's teeth<snip>. Basically 
what happens is 
> that at one time or another, quite typically in a ceremony, a 
> whale's tooth (or tabua in Fiji), is handed over or bought by 
> a visitor in an untraditional manner. <snipped for details> 
> Anyway, once a tabua is discovered in the not right hands, 
> despite its often having been bought for cash or other exchange, 
> the original owners get right on to getting it back. There is in 
> the ownership of tabua no way for it to change *ever*, even when 
> traditionally exchanged, even then the tabua would be considered 
> to be only on loan until the donee died.
> 
> Often the tabua 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.<snip>

Alla:

Heeee, let me clarify I guess. First about Greeks - if they were 
obtained in perfectly legal circumstances, marbles I mean, then yeah 
I would find them wanting it back not exactly **odd**, but unfair in 
my POV you know?

It is not that I do not get that I have to respect Goblin's view of 
property, it is that I do not think that I have to **like** it you 
know?

Could you clarify about tabua, please? Do people who buy them 
**know** that they are doing the wrong thing? I got confused, sorry 
about that. Is it made clear that they are no supposed to get away 
from rightful owner? Are they allowed to be leased?

Because yeah, if people who buy them know that they are only getting 
them temporarily, or not supposed to get them at all - totally 
different story to me.

Again, this is not a question of respecting the customs foreign to 
me, it is a question of liking them, if that makes sense to me.

It is the fairness question. I cannot help but think that what 
Goblins did with that was shamelessly taking advantage of the 
wizards, if wizards had no clue that they are supposed to only be 
leasing the items.

NOW it is actually same with wands to me, but backwards. I think it 
is in no way, shape or form should be up to wizards to decide 
whether Goblins need wands. I think it should be up to Goblins to 
decide that and nobody else's.

Oh, and of course before I get that question, regardless what I 
think of Goblins' view on property, it was of course wrong and not 
fair of Harry trying to double cross Griphokk. Just wrong, IMO.

Does it make sense?

Alla.