House elves and some spoilers for Swordspoint WAS: realistic solutions

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 180998

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > The only kind of "will" that House-Elves seem to have is to serve
a master that they think is deserving, which is why Dobby and Kreacher
rebel in their respective ways. Dobby wants to be a "Free Elf"--free>
to serve Harry Potter 
> 
> a_svirn:
> If it were true, why didn't he offer his services to Harry? He spent
an entire year applying for various jobs and never once approached 
Harry. Besides, he wanted to be employed, not to be owned by a 
congenial master. 

Carol responds:
Even if it had occurred to him to do that, what do you think that
Harry would have said, considering that Dobby had nearly killed him
with his Bludger and gotten him in serious trouble with the pudding
and the blocked entrance to Platform 9 3/4? I suppose that Dobby
thought that "freedom" meant being paid. What it also meant was a year
of suffering as he searched for paid employment. But, pay or no pay,
he's till serving Wizards. That's what a House-Elf does. And he *did*
offer his services to Harry at the first opportunity (the gilly weed
solution). And he does it again in all the later books, voluntarily
serving Harry without pay, but nevertheless serving him because that's
what House-Elves do. 

And no other House-Elf wants to be paid or "employed." See my response
to Magpie in the previous post.
> 
Carol earlier:
> (and/or work for Dumbledore to earn just enough money to buy socks.
He doesn't want too much time off because he "likes work better"). 
> 
> a_svirn:
> So what if he is? Is it a justification for putting him under
magical and legal constraints? 

Carol responds:
You know, I'm really getting tired of having words put into my mouth
and ideas put into my mind. No, it's not a justification for putting
him under magical and legal constraint. I never said that it was.
Exactly which legal restraints you're referring to, I don't know, but
the magical constraints are pre-existing. No one is "putting him
under" them. He can't escape them even as a "Free Elf." He still
punishes himself when he disobeys Umbridge.

To make my point clearer, since you seem to have misunderstood it, I
am merely saying that Dobby is a typical House-Elf in one respect--his
love of work, specifically the desire to serve Wizards, which is more
important to him than money and time off, both of which are apparently
so scary to him that he "talked Dumbledore down" from his initial offer.
> 
Carol earlier:
> Kreacher, too, likes to work and does it voluntarily once he and his
new master come to a mutual understanding.
> 
a_svirn:
> I still don't get how liking to work and even wanting to serve 
translates into wanting to be someone's property. Much less anyone's 
property. 

Carol again:
House-Elves like to serve Wizards. Except for Dobby, they don't care
that they're owned. Again, see my response to Magpie as I don't want
to repeat myself. Can you show me an Elf, even Dobby, who objects
specifically to being someone's property? What Dobby objects to is
being the property of a family of "bad Dark wizards" who abuse them.
Had Dobby been a Hogwarts House-Elf, I doubt that he would have
developed his unique desire to be a "Free Elf."

Carol earlier:
> > Winky hates her "freedom," and uses it to become a miserable 
drunkard> because she wants to return to her beloved master.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Winky hates herself. She failed her beloved master and the whole 
family was endangered because of it. And came to an ignominious end. 

Carol:
Canon, please? Where does Winky say any such thing? All she wants is
to return to her beloved master who is "needing his Winky." She
considers herself disgraced because she received clothes, not because
she endangered the family (she certainly doesn't know that Barty Jr.
is going to murder his father and end up soul-sucked, nor can she be
blamed for unintended consequences of her actions any more than Harry
can be blamed because Wormtail resurrected Voldemort).
> 
Carol:
> > Where do we see a single House-Elf who wants what human beings
call freedom? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> And what do humans normally call freedom? Exemption from slavery?

Carol again:
I've defined freedom upthread. It's what you and I have in our daily
lives. As for "exemption from slavery," you're begging the question.
Again.

a_Svirn:
> Dobby certainly wanted that [exemption from slavery].

Carol:
No, he didn't. He wanted to escape from the abusive Malfoys, and who
can blame him? Once he's "freed," he has to fend for himself, seeking
paid employment. But there's no indication that he "wanted paying"
before Harry tricked Lucius into giving Dobby the sock, nor did Harry
have any idea that his kind gesture would send Dobby into a year of
homelessness and unemployment. No other House-Elf wants exemption from
what you're calling "slavery," period.

a_svirn:
> Liberation from an arbitrary and autocratic control? Both Dobby and
Kreacher wanted that.

Carol:
Sorry. I'm not following you. Dobby wanted freedom from *abuse.*
Kreacher wanted a master who understood and respected Black family
values (or, at least, understood and respected Regulus Black and
wanted to help carry out Regulus' last order, to destroy the locket).
The only "arbitrary and autocratic control" is the enchantment that
forces House-Elves to punish themselves, and that's outside the
control of Wizards as well as House-Elves (at least in the books as we
have them).

a_svirn:
>  Liberty of action? Again Dobby and Kreacher wanted that.

Carol:
Did they? If you mean that they wanted to escape the enchantment that
made them punish themselves if they disobeyed their masters, no doubt
they did. Unfortunately, being "freed" (which Kreacher doesn't want)
doesn't break that enchantment. And they certainly acted as they chose
to in spite of it. Or rather, Kreacher *didn't* act except to visit
Narcissa Malfoy and happily obey *her*. He never cleaned or cooked for
Sirius but voluntarily resumed those duties for Harry. And he followed
Draco, having no choice in the matter because of the enchantment, but
chose to report only unimportant and obvious details, at the same time
making his preference for Draco over Harry clear. And no doubt Harry
would have happily transferred ownership of Kreacher to Draco if
Kreacher hadn't been so dangerous.

a_svirn:
> Freedom of choice? Here we go again: Dobby and Kreacher wanted that.

Carol:
Here we go again, indeed. What "freedom of choice" are you talking
about? Freedom to choose which Wizard to serve? Certainly not freedom
from service to Wizards. I say again that Dobby wanted freedom from
abuse and Kreacher wanted to serve a master that he respected. And I
have already cited canon to back me up.

Can you support your generalizations with canon rather than taking
your points for granted, please?

a_svirn:
> Winky did not wanted all those things perhaps.

Carol:
Perhaps? 

a_svirn:
> But then she though herself a privileged servant entrusted as she
was with an important mission and dangerous secrets. She cherished her
privilege and grieved when she lost it. 

Carol:
Exactly. The last thing she wanted was to be "freed," deprived of that
privileged position.

a_svirn:
> But, then, you know, the same is true for real live slavery. Those 
slaves who have privileged positions hold onto them. <snip>

Carol:
But we're not talking about real slaves. We're talking about
House-Elves. And of all the Elves in canon, only one wanted to be
"free," and the other "free" Elf, Winky, was miserable.
> 
> > Carol:
> Do they want to vote? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Goodness, you almost sound like Hermione. And how do you know that
they don't want to vote? Then again, do I wonder, wizards want to
vote? It doesn't look like they have general elections. 

Carol:
Me sound like Hermione? Heaven forfend? I'm saying that they *don't*
want to vote. That's a human right or privilege (and an annoying one,
IMO, since we have to listen to boring campaign speeches and make an
informed decision and all that). Acually, I'm defining "freedom" and
saying that it isn't what House-Elves want. And while Wizards don't
have general elections, they do get involved in politics. (I can
imagine Dobby as a member of a committee on the rights of nonhuman
creatures, but I can't see House-Elves in general having any interest
in the matter.)
> 
Carol earlier:
> > All a House-Elf wants (and that includes the so-called Free Elf,
Dobby) is a Wizard master or mistress that he can respect and who
treats him well. *Why not listen to the House-Elves* and believe what
they say (or what their actions show)?
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, why not. Kreacher cried "I won't! I won't", and as Dumbledore
said, pointing out the obvious, he objected very much to pass into 
Harry's ownership.

Carol:
Until Harry changed *his* perception of both Kreacher and Kreacher's
hero, Regulus Black. And Harry is as reluctant to own Kreacher as
Kreacher is to be owned by him until they come to a mutual
understanding. Kreacher is not only no longer crying, "I won't!" he's
willingly serving Harry (and even giving a respectful nod to
Muggle-born Hermione). 

BTW, I am not denying that House-Elves are owned, only that they are
slaves in the human sense. Kreacher does not object to being owned per
se; he objects to being owned by HBP!Harry. (DH!Harry is another
matter altogether.)

a_svirn:
 As for Dobby, he wanted an employer, not master. He was careful to
make this distinction.

Carol:
Does he really make that distinction? Canon, please?

He "wanted paying," but not too much, but he still wants to work and
serve Wizards. And he's overwhelmed by DD's generosity in saying that
Dobby ccould call him a "barmy old codger" if he likes, but a kind
master might make the same sort of allowance. 

Mostly, Dobby, that eccentric little creature, wants to worship Harry
Potter and serve him whether Harry wants his service or not (CoS),
wants to wear socks and hats, and wants, like all House-Elves, to be
treated well. His eyes fill with tears when "Wheezy" gives him socks
and a sweater, for example. He's overwhelmed by "Sir's" small act of
kindness.

a_svirn:
>  Moreover even if he had wanted a kind master it would not have made
him a slave. 

Carol:
Sorry? I don't follow your logic. After all, I'm arguing that
House-Elf ownership *isn't* slavery, so naturally I agree with this
assertion. What I'm saying, to make it clear, is that Dobby's status,
unlike his appearance and the attitude toward him of his fellow Elves,
is not greatly changed when he works for Dumbledore. Nor have his
duties changed. He's serving two Wizard masters, one for pay and one
because he wants to do whatever he can for his hero. He has a good
job, just like the regular Hogwarts House-Elves. He cleans the common
room that they refuse to clean because, unlike him, they don't want to
be free and consider Hermione's gesture an insult. The only
difference, aside from having a few knuts to buy socks, is that he now
has a master who treats him well (until Umbridge comes along). 

But if you're saying that what Dobby wanted was a kind Wizard to
serve, master or employer, call him what you will, then I agree. But
how that could make him a slave escapes me.

a_svirn:
> I can wait on you, cook for you and clean for you, and even grovel
before you, but all this would not make me your slave as long as I am
free to disobey and to walk away from you whenever I choose. 

Carol:
Wait on me? Cook and clean for me? Yes, please! Grovel? No thank you.

Seriously, we're not talking about human slaves here. We're talking
about House-Elves, who are bound by magical enchantment to serve one
house or one family unless given clothes, which (unless they're
Dobby), they don't want, and bound by a separate enchantment (one that
does need to be lifted if possible) to punish themselves if they
disobey their masters (and that includes "employers," as we see with
Dobby and Umbridge).

So, I repeat. House-Elves in general are perfectly happy to be owned
and to serve Wizards. We never see them doing or wanting to do
anything else. Dobby wanted to escape the abusive Malfoys; the only
way to do so was to receive "clothes." What was regarded as a disgrace
by most House-Elves was Dobby's salvation. Nevertheless, he
immediately sought work serving a Wizarding family or institution
because he could not escape his nature. House-Elves like work,
specifically housework (they are *House"-Elves, after all), and they
work only for Wizards. Nor can he escape the self-punishment
enchantment altogether.

Abuse is not slavery. Harry was abused, but he was not a slave. Nor is
ownership necessarily abuse. The Hogwarts Elves are owned, but except
for Slughorn's using a House-Elf to test for poison, they are not abused.

House-Elves want to serve Wizards. They do not mind being owned. In
fact, they regard being "freed" as being fired. They like to work and
most don't want to be paid or wear clothes or have time off (except to
sleep). 

A freed human slave in the eighteenth or nineteenth would take on the
responsibilities of a free (human) citizen as best he could: finding
employment so that he can make money to pay his rent or buy a house,
paying taxes, voting, obeying the law, getting married, raising a
family. He also, if he had any money left over, would  spend it on
material goods or travel or education. Those are human needs and
desires. They are what we call freedom.

House-Elves, as far as I can see, have no desire for freedom. All they
want is to serve a Witch or Wizard, be treated well, and perhaps be
complimented for their "good service."

Carol, who thinks that House-Elf ownership is a fact of life in the WW
and that only the abuse of the system (and the House-Elves), not the
system itself, needs to be eliminated