Activism Discussion: Harry Potter's Hidden Libertarian Message

Harry Potter's Hidden Libertarian Message
Posts: 20

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2007-07-10 15:22:03 EST
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

http://tinyurl.com/25rdte
FOR IMMEDIATE USE
July 9, 2007
Law Professor: Harry Potter Has Hidden Message

KNOXVILLE -- "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and
final book in the series, will be published on July 21, and University
of Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton will be standing in line to
get it.

A big fan of Harry Potter, Barton has become a true student of the
series, and he says he's found some politically charged lessons written
between the lines.

"I really love the books. I've read them all," said Barton, who teaches
advocacy clinic and torts. "They're just wonderful, rich books, and J.K.
Rowling is a master storyteller."

Barton has written and lectured about how Rowling depicts the government
and law in the Harry Potter books.

"When I read the fifth and sixth books, I noticed a real Libertarian
bent. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting for children's literature,'"
Barton said.

Barton said he went back and read the first four books again, "and I saw
the same messages were woven all the way through the series."

Barton wrote a paper entitled "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed
Bureaucracy" that was published in the Michigan Law Review in May 2006.
The paper is being reprinted as a chapter in the book, "Harry Potter and
the Law" (Carolina Press), due out this summer. He also has lectured on
the topic at a "Power of Stories" seminar in Gloucester, England, in
July 2005.

In "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy," Barton details the
political messages he's discovered in the Potter books:

"What would you think of a government that engaged in this list of
tyrannical activities: tortured children for lying; designed its prison
specifically to suck all life and hope out of the inmates; placed
citizens in that prison without a hearing; ordered the death penalty
without a trial; allowed the powerful, rich or famous to control policy;
selectively prosecuted crimes (the powerful go unpunished and the
unpopular face trumped-up charges); conducted criminal trials without
defense counsel; used truth serum to force confessions; maintained
constant surveillance over all citizens; offered no elections and no
democratic lawmaking process; and controlled the press?

"You might assume that the above list is the work of some despotic
central African nation, but it is actually the product of the Ministry
of Magic, the magician's government in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series."

Barton said he thinks the anti-government thread that runs through the
Potter novels is significant because the books have great potential to
sway public opinion.

"It would be difficult to overstate the influence and market penetration
of the Harry Potter series," Barton contends. "Somewhere over the last
few years the Harry Potter novels passed from a children's literature
sensation to a bona fide international happening."

Barton also speculates why Rowling writes about the government, and the
press, with such disdain.

"Anyone familiar with Rowling's personal story will know that when she
started the Harry Potter series, she spent a period of time unemployed
and on public assistance in Edinborough, divorced with a young child.

"Rowling's personal story provides two insights into her feelings toward
government," Barton wrote.

"First, in both England and the U.S. there is no quicker route to hating
the government than dealing with the various bureaucracies that handle
public assistance.

"Second, Rowling's story smacks of success through self-reliance and
sheer force of will. The Harry Potter novels likewise show a strong
strain of self-reliance and stubborn independence, and Rowling came upon
these themes the hard way. Anyone who has pulled herself out of poverty
as Rowling has is likely to believe that self-reliance and hard work are
the keys to success, and to be conversely wary of government intervention."

As for how the anti-government theme might play out in the final book,
Barton speculates it could go two ways: "The government could either
come back to useful life or the characters will have to rely on rugged
individualism to overcome the obstacles posed by the dysfunctional
government."

Contacts:
Amy Blakely, (865) 974-5034, amy.blakely@tennessee.edu

http://www.utk.edu/news/article.php?id=4155

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra






















Topaz
2007-07-10 16:43:10 EST
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:22:03 -0700, Dan Clore
<*e@columbia-center.org> wrote:


>
>"When I read the fifth and sixth books, I noticed a real Libertarian
>bent. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting for children's literature,'"
>Barton said.
>

This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.

Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.

The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.

Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.

The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.


The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute
2007-07-10 18:44:54 EST
In message news:oor793hch2moh7h0cqob5gaaa6t1krm1fb@4ax.com, Topaz sprach
forth the following:

> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals

Heil Hitler, asshole.

Topaz
2007-07-10 19:21:39 EST

By Dr. William Pierce
http://www.natvan.com

"The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World War.
They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in banking, in
advertising and merchandising, in show business, in organized vice, in
publishing and other media. They were trying hard to change the spirit
of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art, music, and literature.
They were pushing for "diversity" and "tolerance." They were
ridiculing German tradition and culture and morality and the German
sense of personal honor, trying hard to make young Germans believe
that it was "cool" to be rootless and cosmopolitan. They were
promoting the same culture of lies that they have been promoting here.

That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First
World War some important government business, including the
ratification of a new German constitution, took place in the city of
Weimar. The Jews loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the
most degenerate period in Germany's history. The Jews, of course,
didn't think of it as
degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and "progressive" and
"cool." Really, it was a very Jewish period, where lying was
considered a virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books have been
written by Jews in America about Weimar Germany, all praising it to
the skies and looking back on it with nostalgia. Even without the
so-called
"Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis for bringing an end to
the Weimar period.

There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar
Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It
depicted Berlin night life, with all its degeneracy, including the
flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the
communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the
one
hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of
course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the
Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews
outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from
their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles
under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the
Jews apparently didn't stop to think -- or didn't care -- that a
normal, healthy White person would view things differently. Check it
out for yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.

The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World
War, the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to
America after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the
healthiest elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as
many Americans have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany
the Jews were a bit premature. Although they had much of the media
under their control,
they didn't control all of the media. They tried to move too fast. The
healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.

In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control
before they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully.
In America they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in
America. It's still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to
be a lot tougher this time. We'd better get started. The first step is
to regain at least partial control of our media, so that we can begin
contradicting the lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a
part of that first step."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

Mr.Know
2007-07-10 21:30:56 EST

"Topaz" <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oor793hch2moh7h0cqob5gaaa6t1krm1fb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:22:03 -0700, Dan Clore
> <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >"When I read the fifth and sixth books, I noticed a real Libertarian
> >bent. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting for children's literature,'"
> >Barton said.
> >
>
> This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
> "right" in the modern economic sense.
> http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
>
> The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
> original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
> perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The original meaning of "right" [conservative] seems to not have changed
much since the Civil War and the 1860's in the 39th through later years in
the 42d Congress. They still insist on making decisions not based on law,
but based on religions and moral beliefs and lawlessly (at the federal
level) imposing those views on the rest of the member States -- through
simple majority votes -- instead of restricting such religious and moral
beliefs to their own States where it belongs. The conservative voice against
slavery was based solely on these religious moralities and beliefs, which
was made clear in the Congressional records of the time. Even though
unconstitutional and not within the jurisdiction or being a proper object of
the Federal Government, they involved themselves in the moral behaviors of
the States anyway. This is also what the Democrats in the 39th Congress
(called progressives even back then,) argued against and later revolted
against by killing and beating blacks and republicans -- to overthrow the
lawless republican party and gain control of the federal government using
whatever means they could.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=100/llcg100.db&recNum=623

In convention, this was discussed, and agreed upon, that it is the
prerogative of the States, only, to dictate *directly* to their own people
and citizenry, what is or is not moral; and, it is *not* the business or
purpose of the federal government. This is one reason, for example, why the
Congress was denied the power to make sumptuary laws, and was left with ONLY
*indirect* (NOT *direct*) regulatory authority over the objects *OF*
commerce and the behaviors of the people, to wit, through the imposition of
(indirect taxes) excises, duties, tariffs and taxes, in general, on
consumption (trade.)

Back in 1865 the democrats (who actually called themselves PROGRESSIVES back
then, the same as they do today,) were adamant about adhering to the *true*
and *ORIGINAL* INTENT of all parties [States] that agreed to, and ratified,
the Constitution as was expressed by *Democratic* Senator, Willard
Saulsbury, Sr., from Delaware (December 21, 1865,)

"I call it an unconstitutional pretended constitutional amendment, I
will say that I do not believe the Congress of the United States had a right
to pass it. Three fourths of the States have NO RIGHT to say whether slavery
shall exist in my State or not. It is a matter FOREIGN to the objects of the
Government WHEN formed, a matter NEVER INTENDED by the parties to the
compact, as there are a hundred other things which were NEVER INTENDED TO BE
ENTRUSTED TO THE DECISION OF THREE FOURTHS OF THE STATES. It was no more
intended by them than it was intended that three fourths of the States
should decide whether there should be slavery in Massachusetts or not."

Interestingly, this is the same kind of rhetoric used today when arguing
against our union getting involved in *foreign* matters and against it
interfering in the affairs of States that are *not* members of our union --
a position that was equally taken in 1865 concerning the distaste for the
Federal government involving itself in the affairs of our own *member*
States and encroaching upon their rights with corresponding intrusive
"CONSERVATIVE" legislation, as also express by *Democratic* Senator, Willard
Saulsbury, Sr., before the Senate,

"Mr. President, let me say to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts
that however offensive the word "CONSERVATIVE" may be to him, if this work
of amending the FUNDAMENTAL LAW of the land is to be proceeded with so
rapidly and is to continue, I apprehend that the number of the Democratic
host will swell, and that there will be more conservative men who,
VENERATING THE WORK OF THEIR FATHERS, will solemnly protest against the
inconsiderate and hasty legislation of the present times."

This 1865 rhetoric by the Progressive Party, wanting nothing but an abeyance
to the *intent* of the framers and of the parties [States] that ratified the
Constitution, is in complete opposition with that of today's Progressive
Party rhetoric -- instead, today, doing not only that which was
objectionable then, but encouraging and demanding that such be done to, and
against, our own members; and, any concern for once *constitutional* and
*lawful* progressivism, being cast aside and buried. So, it would seem,
then, that they have somehow succumbed to the Dark Side.

> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
> corrupt the culture of the nation.

The power to making such laws to this effect was considered, and rejected,
such as this one, in convention, Tuesday, July 17, 1787:

"to make laws binding on the people of the United States in all cases which
may concern the COMMON INTERESTS OF THE UNION;... and wherein the GENERAL
WELFARE of the U. STATES IS NOT CONCERNED."

A re-wording of this was then proposed, to wit,

"Mr. BEDFORD moved that the 2d member of Resolution 6. be so altered as
to read "and moreover to legislate in all cases for the general interests of
the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately
*incompetent*," or in which the harmony of the U. States may be interrupted
by the exercise of individual Legislation."

Mr. RANDOLPH then responded, with,

"This is a formidable idea indeed. It involves the power of VIOLATING
ALL THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF THE STATES, AND OF *INTERMEDDLING* WITH
THEIR POLICE. The last member of the sentence is also superfluous, being
included in the first.

After several more gyrations, the entire thing was eventually thrown out,
and so, these *intrusive* powers are nowhere to be found in the Constitution
today.

As before mentioned, another example is the power to make sumptuary laws,
which, on *two* separate occasions, was proposed and rejected. That is why
the "power to make sumptuary laws" is *not* found in any of the enumerated
powers of Congress, thus also further substantiating the *fact* that the
Federal government is of *limited* and *enumerated* powers, only; and every
power exercised that is not *expressly* enumerated must be in the pursuit of
carrying, into effect, *only* those powers enumerated in the Constitution,
and which must also be both *necessary* and *proper* WITHOUT encroaching
upon, or harming, the rights of the States. This is made crystal clear in
the Journals, the federalist papers and the 1st Congress congressional
records.

> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
> harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
> perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.

These kinds of things are left with the States, and the Federal government
has NO constitutional authority to legislate in such matters -- i.e. the
concerns as to the morality of the people, being left with the States.

> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
> about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
> the nation better.

All such things are only a matter of perspective. In any case, the Federal
government is restricted to *only* those objects to which the States
entrusted it -- nothing else.

> There are beaches where normal families will not go
> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
> When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
> are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
> want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
> talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
> want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
> would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
> lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
> store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
> would result in chaos and degeneracy.

Again, these are matters that are properly (and are rightfully and
constitutionally must be) left to the States and has no business being
debated at the federal level. As one legislator in the 1st Congress said
concerning the *denied* constitutional right to instruct our
representatives, when considering the Bill of Rights amendments, "change
that [amend the Constitution] and we will discuss it!" Until then, it is
*improper* (unconstitutional) to even discuss and further consider that
which Congress has no power to do.

Today, we have a lawless unconstitutional Federal government that does
nothing *but* that which they have absolutely NO right and NO constitutional
power to do.

> Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
> Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
> as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
> that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
> laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
> that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
> want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
> but good laws would make a nation good.

Sounds like the want for sumptuary laws, which were denied Congress. Either
we are a nation of laws, or a nation of men. You seem to advocate the
latter -- as does Bush when he signed a bill to prohibit internet gambling,
which is a sumptuary law. One important thing to keep in perspective and in
mind if you want to be lawful and not lawless: Congress was given the power
of *direct* regulation of the commerce that objects CREATE ---- *not* the
objects *OF* commerce. As to the objects OF commerce, Congress has only
*indirect* regulatory powers -- through the imposition of excise (indirect)
taxes: imposes, duties, etc. and general taxes on consumption (trade.)

Another interesting tidbit of information is that Liberals, it seems, are
for *oppressive* taxation -- something that the 1st Congress was strenuously
against and cautious of avoiding, because to do such a thing, they said, was
*contrary* to the *purpose* of the Federal government and the *intent* of
the taxing powers given to them; and, imposing such an unjustified
imposition on the citizenry CANNOT by any means be a *necessary* and
*proper* law, and is also CONTRARY TO THE OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT TO FACILITATE
AND PROMOTE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, FREE AND OPEN MARKETS, MANUFACTURES AND
COMMERCE and leaving to the States their RIGHT TO REGULATE THOSE OBJECTS, TO
WHOM SUCH POWERS WERE LEFT AND PROPERLY BELONG.

Surprise! The power to regulate commerce is a CONCURRENT power!; and, the
Congress properly (according to the intent of said power,) is to get
involved WHEN a State's regulations *interferes* with another State, or
States, to wit, in a nutshell, in Convention, Saturday, September 15, 1787,

"Mr. SHERMAN. The power of the U. States to regulate trade being
supreme can controul interferences of the State regulations *WHEN* such
interferences happen; so that there is no danger to be apprehended from a
*CONCURRENT* jurisdiction.

Today, the power is exercised willy-nilly in a tyrannical unconstitutional
non-necessary and non-proper manner; with the Congress unconstitutionally
claiming exclusive jurisdiction; and the unconstitutionally negative'ing
*constitutional* State laws and fabricating a lawless and unconstitutional
"negative commerce" doctrine.

> The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
> freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
> the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
> Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
> that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
> Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
>
>
> The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
> present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
> Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
> interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
> freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
> of society
> libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
> snuff part, but
> other than that it shows liberalism in action.
>
> http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
>
> http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
>
> http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html



Dan Clore
2007-07-10 22:02:56 EST
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
> In message news:oor793hch2moh7h0cqob5gaaa6t1krm1fb@4ax.com, Topaz sprach
> forth the following:
>
>> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
>> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
>> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals
>
> Heil Hitler, asshole.

Don't get too upset: as a Nazi, Topaz shares your position on abortion
(as he in fact states above).

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute
2007-07-10 22:32:50 EST
In message news:5fis3lF3bbaoqU2@mid.individual.net, Dan Clore sprach forth
the following:

> Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
>> In message news:oor793hch2moh7h0cqob5gaaa6t1krm1fb@4ax.com, Topaz sprach
>> forth the following:
>>
>>> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
>>> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
>>> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals
>>
>> Heil Hitler, asshole.
>
> Don't get too upset: as a Nazi, Topaz shares your position on abortion
> (as he in fact states above).
>

Abortion has killed more than Hitler. And you are proud to support the
former? You need to die. Soon. Violently. And with much fanfare as a
warning to others. It will come to pass.

P*@gmail.com
2007-07-10 23:57:33 EST
On Jul 11, 3:22 am, Dan Clore <c...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tinyurl.com/25rdte
> FOR IMMEDIATE USE
> July 9, 2007
> Law Professor: Harry Potter Has Hidden Message
>
> KNOXVILLE -- "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and
> final book in the series, will be published on July 21, and University
> of Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton will be standing in line to
> get it.
>
> A big fan of Harry Potter, Barton has become a true student of the
> series, and he says he's found some politically charged lessons written
> between the lines.
>
> "I really love the books. I've read them all," said Barton, who teaches
> advocacy clinic and torts. "They're just wonderful, rich books, and J.K.
> Rowling is a master storyteller."
>
> Barton has written and lectured about how Rowling depicts the government
> and law in the Harry Potter books.
>
> "When I read the fifth and sixth books, I noticed a real Libertarian
> bent. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting for children's literature,'"
> Barton said.
>
> Barton said he went back and read the first four books again, "and I saw
> the same messages were woven all the way through the series."
>
> Barton wrote a paper entitled "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed
> Bureaucracy" that was published in the Michigan Law Review in May 2006.
> The paper is being reprinted as a chapter in the book, "Harry Potter and
> the Law" (Carolina Press), due out this summer. He also has lectured on
> the topic at a "Power of Stories" seminar in Gloucester, England, in
> July 2005.
>
> In "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy," Barton details the
> political messages he's discovered in the Potter books:
>
> "What would you think of a government that engaged in this list of
> tyrannical activities: tortured children for lying; designed its prison
> specifically to suck all life and hope out of the inmates; placed
> citizens in that prison without a hearing; ordered the death penalty
> without a trial; allowed the powerful, rich or famous to control policy;
> selectively prosecuted crimes (the powerful go unpunished and the
> unpopular face trumped-up charges); conducted criminal trials without
> defense counsel; used truth serum to force confessions; maintained
> constant surveillance over all citizens; offered no elections and no
> democratic lawmaking process; and controlled the press?
>
> "You might assume that the above list is the work of some despotic
> central African nation, but it is actually the product of the Ministry
> of Magic, the magician's government in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series."
>
> Barton said he thinks the anti-government thread that runs through the
> Potter novels is significant because the books have great potential to
> sway public opinion.
>
> "It would be difficult to overstate the influence and market penetration
> of the Harry Potter series," Barton contends. "Somewhere over the last
> few years the Harry Potter novels passed from a children's literature
> sensation to a bona fide international happening."
>
> Barton also speculates why Rowling writes about the government, and the
> press, with such disdain.
>
> "Anyone familiar with Rowling's personal story will know that when she
> started the Harry Potter series, she spent a period of time unemployed
> and on public assistance in Edinborough, divorced with a young child.
>
> "Rowling's personal story provides two insights into her feelings toward
> government," Barton wrote.
>
> "First, in both England and the U.S. there is no quicker route to hating
> the government than dealing with the various bureaucracies that handle
> public assistance.
>
> "Second, Rowling's story smacks of success through self-reliance and
> sheer force of will. The Harry Potter novels likewise show a strong
> strain of self-reliance and stubborn independence, and Rowling came upon
> these themes the hard way. Anyone who has pulled herself out of poverty
> as Rowling has is likely to believe that self-reliance and hard work are
> the keys to success, and to be conversely wary of government intervention."
>
> As for how the anti-government theme might play out in the final book,
> Barton speculates it could go two ways: "The government could either
> come back to useful life or the characters will have to rely on rugged
> individualism to overcome the obstacles posed by the dysfunctional
> government."
>
> Contacts:
> Amy Blakely, (865) 974-5034, amy.blak...@tennessee.edu
>
> http://www.utk.edu/news/article.php?id=4155
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> "Don't just question authority,
> Don't forget to question me."
> -- Jello Biafra

Absolutely! Harry Potter pays no taxes!

On the other hand, in most of the books Harry himself is very much in
favor of this despotic government and his greatest ambition is to be
an enforcer for it.

And since the Ministry of Magic levies no taxes and appears to be
formed by some unnamed process of popular acclaimation it is about as
libertarian as can be imagined. So if Law Professor is correct in
saying that the books are anti-Ministry, then the books are anti-
libertarian.

So Mr. Smarty Pants, what do YOU think the Ministry Of Magic should do
about You-Know-Who?



Brique
2007-07-11 00:14:57 EST

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute <nospam@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9969E559E8D56FredGarvin@66.250.146.128...
> In message news:5fis3lF3bbaoqU2@mid.individual.net, Dan Clore sprach forth
> the following:
>
> > Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
> >> In message news:oor793hch2moh7h0cqob5gaaa6t1krm1fb@4ax.com, Topaz
sprach
> >> forth the following:
> >>
> >>> The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
> >>> prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
> >>> good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals
> >>
> >> Heil Hitler, asshole.
> >
> > Don't get too upset: as a Nazi, Topaz shares your position on abortion
> > (as he in fact states above).
> >
>
> Abortion has killed more than Hitler. And you are proud to support the
> former? You need to die. Soon. Violently. And with much fanfare as a
> warning to others. It will come to pass.

Fascinating, argue with a pro-lifer and it ends up with them wanting a
death to occur.....



P*@gmail.com
2007-07-11 07:31:29 EST
On Jul 11, 3:22 am, Dan Clore <c...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smy=
go
>
> http://tinyurl.com/25rdte
> FOR IMMEDIATE USE
> July 9, 2007
> Law Professor: Harry Potter Has Hidden Message
>
> KNOXVILLE -- "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and
> final book in the series, will be published on July 21, and University
> of Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton will be standing in line to
> get it.
>
> A big fan of Harry Potter, Barton has become a true student of the
> series, and he says he's found some politically charged lessons written
> between the lines.
>
> "I really love the books. I've read them all," said Barton, who teaches
> advocacy clinic and torts. "They're just wonderful, rich books, and J.K.
> Rowling is a master storyteller."
>
> Barton has written and lectured about how Rowling depicts the government
> and law in the Harry Potter books.
>
> "When I read the fifth and sixth books, I noticed a real Libertarian
> bent. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting for children's literature,'"
> Barton said.
>
> Barton said he went back and read the first four books again, "and I saw
> the same messages were woven all the way through the series."
>
> Barton wrote a paper entitled "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed
> Bureaucracy" that was published in the Michigan Law Review in May 2006.
> The paper is being reprinted as a chapter in the book, "Harry Potter and
> the Law" (Carolina Press), due out this summer. He also has lectured on
> the topic at a "Power of Stories" seminar in Gloucester, England, in
> July 2005.
>
> In "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy," Barton details the
> political messages he's discovered in the Potter books:
>
> "What would you think of a government that engaged in this list of
> tyrannical activities: tortured children for lying; designed its prison
> specifically to suck all life and hope out of the inmates; placed
> citizens in that prison without a hearing; ordered the death penalty
> without a trial; allowed the powerful, rich or famous to control policy;
> selectively prosecuted crimes (the powerful go unpunished and the
> unpopular face trumped-up charges); conducted criminal trials without
> defense counsel; used truth serum to force confessions; maintained
> constant surveillance over all citizens; offered no elections and no
> democratic lawmaking process; and controlled the press?
>
> "You might assume that the above list is the work of some despotic
> central African nation, but it is actually the product of the Ministry
> of Magic, the magician's government in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series=
."
>
> Barton said he thinks the anti-government thread that runs through the
> Potter novels is significant because the books have great potential to
> sway public opinion.
>
> "It would be difficult to overstate the influence and market penetration
> of the Harry Potter series," Barton contends. "Somewhere over the last
> few years the Harry Potter novels passed from a children's literature
> sensation to a bona fide international happening."
>
> Barton also speculates why Rowling writes about the government, and the
> press, with such disdain.
>
> "Anyone familiar with Rowling's personal story will know that when she
> started the Harry Potter series, she spent a period of time unemployed
> and on public assistance in Edinborough, divorced with a young child.
>
> "Rowling's personal story provides two insights into her feelings toward
> government," Barton wrote.
>
> "First, in both England and the U.S. there is no quicker route to hating
> the government than dealing with the various bureaucracies that handle
> public assistance.
>
> "Second, Rowling's story smacks of success through self-reliance and
> sheer force of will. The Harry Potter novels likewise show a strong
> strain of self-reliance and stubborn independence, and Rowling came upon
> these themes the hard way. Anyone who has pulled herself out of poverty
> as Rowling has is likely to believe that self-reliance and hard work are
> the keys to success, and to be conversely wary of government intervention=
."
>
> As for how the anti-government theme might play out in the final book,
> Barton speculates it could go two ways: "The government could either
> come back to useful life or the characters will have to rely on rugged
> individualism to overcome the obstacles posed by the dysfunctional
> government."
>
> Contacts:
> Amy Blakely, (865) 974-5034, amy.blak...@tennessee.edu
>
> http://www.utk.edu/news/article.php?id=3D4155
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_http://amazon.com/o/ASI=
N/1587154838/ref=3Dnosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord We=FFrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://www.geocities.com/clorebeas=
t/
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smy=
go
>
> "Don't just question authority,
> Don't forget to question me."
> -- Jello Biafra


Thought you Potter fans might be amused by this.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron