House elves WAS: realistic solutions

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 181004

> > a_svirn:
> > It can't be their *natural* anything because slavery is a 
> > *social* institution, not natural element. They may be naturally
> > predisposed to serve wizards, yes, but that does not what make
> > them slaves. 
> 
> 
> Mike:
> Wait, let me get this straight! I've said that house elf slavery is 
> different and the main reason was because of that whatever magical 
> thing that forces them to serve wizards. You've insisted that it 
> must still be called slavery and I've acquiesced to your term. Now, 
> because I've allowed your term, you want to negate my "natural 
state" 
> argument, because ownership and property are man-made concepts that 
> pertain to "slavery". So, I guess I'm being forced back to my 
> original position that It's. Not. Slavery.!! I'm not sure how that 
> got us anywhere.
>
a_svirn:
I didn't say concepts. Had I said that you would have been right to 
take me to task.  I said institutions. The established order of 
things in the Wizarding Society. Wizards many centuries ago (don't 
know exactly when, but at some point obviously) decided that they 
don't mind owning elves. If they had minded they would not have 
accommodated elvish natural urges to serve. (I hope we agree on that 
one? You don't think that they hate the very idea of owning slaves, 
but do so because they are magically compelled?) To that end they 
adjusted their laws – they made it legal to own elves. We don't know 
whether it is legal to trade them (though I don't see why not), but 
we know it is legal to bequeath them. We also know that in the WW 
laws are enforced by magic. 

> Mike:
> I will say that my concept of house elves'origins was explained 
very 
> nicely by Goddlefrood in his post #180948, up thread. I think the 
> compunction to serve humans was there in the beginning, nobody had 
to 
> enchant them, they were enchanted that way from their first breath. 

a_svirn:
Really? The enchantment involves human cloths. There is nothing 
organic about them, surely? The clothes cannot be a part of the 
organic make-up? Unless wizards come into this world wearing socks. I 
am sure Rowling never mentioned this quaint little detail. 

Also, the bond goes both ways. For me to be your slave, you have to 
be my owner. If the bond is "organic" it is as organic for you as it 
is for me. I must say I find the idea of natural owners every bit as 
disgusting as that of natural slaves, but I also don't see how it can 
be the case – after all, most wizards make do without elves and they 
don't pine away and drown themselves in a butt of butterbeer.

> Mike:
> *If* they were originally tied to the land, like hobs or brownies, 
> wizards changed that and tied them to wizarding families, which 
they 
> were probably serving exclusively anyway.

a_svirn:
There is no reason whatsoever to think that they were tied to the 
land. No were hobs or brownies tied to it for that matter. For one 
thing they weren't interested in the land at all – they were 
*household* spirits (or creatures), for another – and that is very 
important – THEY WERE NOT BOUND. They exchanged their services for 
certain payments or rewards. Or they made themselves nuisances, and 
had to be rid off. But they were never bound.  

> mike:
> My canon? Every elf, including the freed Dobby has the compunction 
to 
> serve wizards. 

a_svirn:
I don't dispute that. But I can have the compunction to serve you 
without being your slave. Because a) it is illegal to hold slaves in 
our world (though it is possible, I suppose, to hold them illegally), 
and b) as long as I am free to disobey and to walk away I am free 
period. It is only if you put me under legal and/or other external 
constraints I turn into a slave. 

> mike:
he <Dobby> could not serve Harry at #4 Privet Dr. 

a_svirn:
Yes, he could. They can be very unobtrusive. 

> mike:
He 
> could and did serve Harry as well as Hogwarts after he signed on at 
> Hogwarts. SERVED Harry, without pay).

a_svirn:
So what? Harry didn't own him, did he? If Dobby wanted to serve 
Harry,  he could serve Harry.  If he wanted to serve Abertforth he 
could  serve Aberforth.  He could do as he chose.  Because he was 
free-e. 

> mike:
> House elves are magically compelled to serve wizards. That doesn't 
> make them property, 

a_svirn:
Yes it does. Wizards own them because they are magically compelled to 
be owned. It was spelled out in HBP, when Kreacher didn't want to 
pass into Harry's ownership, but was nevertheless compelled to do 
just that. 

> mike:
that defines their existence. 

a_svirn:
Yes, being someone else's property rather tends to define one's 
existence. 

> mike:
When Sirius died, 
> Kreacher had no Black left to serve, so his service reverted to the 
> house, #12 GP.

a_svirn:
What do you mean by "reverted"? It was willed by Sirius. If the Black 
estate had "reverted" to anyone it would have been Bellatrix. 

> mike:
 When Harry inherited the house, he became Kreacher's 
> master. "You see, ... if you have indeed inherited the house, you 
> have also inherited --" [Kreacher] <HBP p.51, US> Wizarding law 
gave 
> Harry the house, house elf enchantment made Harry Kreacher's master 
> by virtue of his succession to the Black legacy, the house of a 
house 
> elf.

a_svirn:
Precisely my point. Wizarding law gave Kreacher to Harry. Thank you 
for providing the quotation. 

As for the idea that elves are bound to houses -- canon seems to 
contradict it. Kreacher is bound to Harry, Winky was bound to Crouch 
and Dobby was bound to Lucius. Harry sent Kreacher to live at 
Hogwarts and Kreacher lived at Hogwarts. If Harry told him to live on 
the Whooping Willow he would live there. The idea of being bound to 
some property is that you live on that same property and make use of 
it. That's what serfdom is about. You can't leave it – because you 
are bound to it  – but you live on it and use it.  
> 
> > > Mike:
> > > Now you seem to be saying that it's *canon* that they are 
> > > enslaved by wizard *law*. Are you saying there is canon that 
> > > says that house elves are slaves by virtue of legal constraints?
> > > Could you give me the canon that you're referencing?
> > 
> > a_svirn?
> > ?!! The fact that Sirius can bequeath Kreacher? Obviously by 
> > wizarding law it is a legal procedure. Obviously it is legal
> > to own  house-elves.  
> 
> Mike:
> I didn't ask that. I left my original question up there. I wanted 
to 
> know where in canon it said that house elves became slaves through 
a 
> wizarding law. Not that it's legal, I know it's legal.

a_svirn:
Then what are you trying to ask? If it is legal for wizards to own 
elves, then they own them through the wizarding law. 

> Mike:
> But never mind. I'm sure I know canon as well as anyone (except 
Carol 
> and Zanooda), and I know there is no point in canon where it says 
> elves were free until wizards passed some law that made them slaves.

a_svirn:
You mean that the law that regulates owning slaves is also *natural*? 
Part of the organic make-up of the WW? 

a_svirn