Realistic Ootcomes

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 180757

> Da Jones:
> 
> One explanation Mike is that magic is simply a talent and a skill
> and just like in real life not everyone is equally skilled.
> Most witches and wizards simply do not seem to have ths skill to
> make a stand even if they wanted too. And the leaders of
> departments are generally the most skilled at magic. Most likely
> JKR would say  that Umbridge is an extremly poweful witch and that
> her staff had no possibility of overpowering here even combinded. 

Mike:
Oh yeah DJ, I definitely ascribe to the differing degrees of power, 
that you're describing here. Sirius' whole "powerfully magical" 
speech he gave in GoF. More on Umbridge v the staff later.


> Da Jones:
> 
> Imagine a world for instance in which govenmental power was 
determined solely by the ability to play Basketball. There's no 
guarantee that playing Basketball equates to good governing skills
or even a wish to govern fairly or even for the common good. A 
world that is governed by an arbitary skill is more [likely] to 
have leaders like Isiah (spelling) Thomas then Bill Bradleys, or
even forgive me Shaq. <snip>

Mike:
I like the analogy. I can very much believe that the MoM is 
poopulated with powerfully magical wizards that are equally inept in 
proper governance.  (And you spelled Zeke's first name correctly. 
Take it from a Piston's fan. <g>)


> Da Jones:
> 
> Even within the DA we see a vast difference in power. Harry is not 
able to teach everyone the Patronus it appears and there are several 
scenes that indicate that although equally brave, Lavender is no 
match for her friend Parvati in the power department. <snip>

Mike:
Well, let's take a look at just Harry's Hogwarts class. It seems that 
other than Lavender, the rest seem reasonable adept at magic. Most  
of them demonstrate an ability to fight competently, if not 
extravagently well. This includes the Huffs, Claws and Slyths, 
regardless of which side they're on. And these are all still 
students. I'm sure one-on-one they're not all, or even most, going
to win a fight, but two or three on one, I'd bet on them. Plus, look 
who they're fighting against in the BoH.

And let's not forget Molly v. Bella. Did you ever get the impression 
that Molly was powerfully magical before this? I know I didn't.

What I'm saying is that I think you may be selling the common wizard 
short. Sure, individually they may not be that powerful, but team 
them up or give them overwhelming numbers and I think only a wizard 
of Dumbledore's or Voldemort's ability could withstand their 
onslaught. Just look what happened when the reinforcements, common 
wizarding folk, came storming over the walls and rained down on 
Voldemort and his DEs.


> Da Jones:
> <snip>
> 
> I think many people know what is happening, it is just literally
> they do not have the ability or the need to resist. 

Mike:
It's not that I don't believe a coup could happen quickly, nor that 
people might then take their time to size up the situation to assess 
their odds and discover who's with them. It's just that with such a 
small populace, I, like you, think the people *were* aware what was 
going on around them. 

And they've been through a similar situation not that long ago, with 
the same enemy. How can they not recognize the same symptoms 
(Imperiused people) or realize who the obvious turncoats (Umbridge) 
and infiltrators (Runcorn & Yaxley) are? I don't buy them not having 
the "need" to resist, especially not for people like Reg Cattermole.


> Da Jones:
> 
> <snipping the part I agree with>
> This is also in my humble opinion why Democracy never really seems 
to work well in really poor places. There is no compromise possible 
over bread, if shifting it your electorial enemy means you yourself 
will starve.  If you're needy you are also greedy and voting only 
works with wants. And when people have little want they have little 
need for governance (the richest places have the worst voter turnout 
in general).

Mike:
OK, first of all, I'm not sure how this applies to our Potterverse. 
There doesn't seem to be a lot of starving wizards when Voldemort 
takes over.

Secondly, I'm not following your last two sentences. You seem to be 
saying that starving people don't have any use for governmental 
interplay. But then you say that rich people don't bother to vote 
either. Since that's clearly contradictory, I must not be getting 
your point.


> Da Jones: 
> So its realisitc that Voldemort was able to take and hold power for 
a time at least, he satisfied the peoples basic needs. And the only 
want they had was freedom, and tyranny without starvation is not 
enough <snip>

Mike:
Except their basic needs and more were satisfied before Voldemort's 
coup. I also don't believe that starvation of the populace is a 
necessary ingredient for the overthrow of a dictatorship. If that 
were the case, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China would have rose up 
many times during those failed 5-year plans. Instead, communism was 
overthrown in Russia in the early 90s. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I 
never had the impression that the Russian people were starving then, 
at least not as greatly as in other times. There is also your 
following example.


> Da Jones: 
(for example the British blockaded the ports and refused trade with 
America during its revolution, which means that in many places in 
those more primitive times if bad weather occured hunger was a real 
threat) so the British were their own worst enemy. Had they simply 
restored trade and cut some disagreeable taxes, Americans would all 
be bowing to the Queen even now.        

Mike:
But of course the American revolution began in a time of plenty. It 
was the King trying to reduce their wealth that set it off. (Not 
unfairly, imo, but definitely imprudently). And once started, it was 
too late to reverse. (Sorry, you can keep your Queen. In fact, you're 
one of the few countries left that still does keep a Queen.)


> Da Jones: 
> 
> The poor may be able to defeat city hall but I just don't beleive 
they can beat Exxon or BP for that matter. In my opinion it was a 
fairly realistic and consistent depiction of a coup given the 
dynamics of the world she presented.

Mike:
Again, how does this relate to the Potterverse? Who are these poor? 
And who was Exxon and BP? Money may matter in politics, but it has no 
affect on magic.