Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5435188" data-attributes="member: 151">Yes, but one is a laborer while the other is a craftsman.&nbsp; The miner retrieves the materials, but are his materials somehow transformed from the action of retrieving them?&nbsp; Are they indistinguishable from other raw materials of the same kind mined by another miner?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; The miner has not transformed the material in any meaningful way, other than having removed it from the earth and possibly cleaned it off.But there is only one Sword of Godric Gryyfndor, forged by a specific goblin artisan.&nbsp; There is only one Sistine Chapel.&nbsp; The Sistine Chapel may belong to the Vatican, but one only thinks of Michaelangelo, Raphael or Botticelli as it's creators.&nbsp; I doubt most people could even name the Pope who commissioned it.&nbsp; The theory for the goblins in Harry Potter works on a variation of the smae principle.&nbsp; The Goblin King made the sword and sold it to Gryfyndor.&nbsp; When Gryfnndor died, he expected it back....but instead, it was passed to Gryffndor's heirs, which angered the Goblins and apparently led to a rebellion against the Wizarding state.In the eyes of the goblins, Ragnuk created the thing and ultimately ownership of it belonged to him.&nbsp; He sold it to Gryffndor for life....and expected it back when the one he'd sold it to had died.&nbsp; The goblins didn't believe in transitive property rights.&nbsp; They expected that if the heirs were to take it, they would get recompense...essentially as if it had been sold anew.&nbsp; Given the intimation that the goblins (like Rowling's elves) are second-class citizens with unequal rights, it's not surprising they seem resentful of a practice that rewards the wizards and penalizes them.&nbsp; From their perspective, it's just one more way that the wizards mistreat them (along with denying them wandcraft).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 5435188, member: 151"] Yes, but one is a laborer while the other is a craftsman. The miner retrieves the materials, but are his materials somehow transformed from the action of retrieving them? Are they indistinguishable from other raw materials of the same kind mined by another miner? No. The miner has not transformed the material in any meaningful way, other than having removed it from the earth and possibly cleaned it off. But there is only one Sword of Godric Gryyfndor, forged by a specific goblin artisan. There is only one Sistine Chapel. The Sistine Chapel may belong to the Vatican, but one only thinks of Michaelangelo, Raphael or Botticelli as it's creators. I doubt most people could even name the Pope who commissioned it. The theory for the goblins in Harry Potter works on a variation of the smae principle. The Goblin King made the sword and sold it to Gryfyndor. When Gryfnndor died, he expected it back....but instead, it was passed to Gryffndor's heirs, which angered the Goblins and apparently led to a rebellion against the Wizarding state. In the eyes of the goblins, Ragnuk created the thing and ultimately ownership of it belonged to him. He sold it to Gryffndor for life....and expected it back when the one he'd sold it to had died. The goblins didn't believe in transitive property rights. They expected that if the heirs were to take it, they would get recompense...essentially as if it had been sold anew. Given the intimation that the goblins (like Rowling's elves) are second-class citizens with unequal rights, it's not surprising they seem resentful of a practice that rewards the wizards and penalizes them. From their perspective, it's just one more way that the wizards mistreat them (along with denying them wandcraft). [/QUOTE]

Verification