Skip to comments.
Harry Potter and the realm of big government
NH Union Leader ^
| 8/17/05
| FERGUS CULLEN
Posted on 08/17/2005 1:10:26 PM PDT by T-Bird45
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 last
To: Lizavetta
I imagine she is using her money to avoid paying taxes
To: 50sDad
They can still use spells silently. That just means that it can't be defended against as well. If you speak it then it will be blocked. If they don't know what you're doing they can't block it. It is NOT disarming like the Nazis.
And for your info. a lot of those ministries are necessary. Underage magic could be dangerous. The animals are VERY dangerous. The sports games gather attention. Throughout the whole wizarding world they have to make sure no muggles find out about them.
42
posted on
08/17/2005 7:37:06 PM PDT
by
onja
("The government of England is a limited mockery." (France is a complete mockery.)
To: 50sDad
Let's not forget about Hermione's attempts to unionize the House Elves.
43
posted on
08/17/2005 7:53:18 PM PDT
by
pooh fan
("Strong, the pull of the Dark Side is". Yoda)
To: 50sDad
Let's not forget about Hermione's attempts to unionize the House Elves.
44
posted on
08/17/2005 8:00:02 PM PDT
by
pooh fan
("Strong, the pull of the Dark Side is". Yoda)
To: onja
I have to note that the 6th book is the first one to address silent spells, and it is clearly only a well-trained, advanced student that can pull it off, because it requires incredible effort to focus the spell without the verbal componant. Although we have seen low level spells go off quietly and/or with a mere wave of the hand (Snape closing curtains, that kind of thing) the students weren't taught until their sixth year HOW to do it...and it was in the all important 5th year that the Ministry started spoon feeding them the milk of theory over the meat of actual practice.
45
posted on
08/17/2005 8:05:29 PM PDT
by
50sDad
(Star Trek Tri-D Chess: http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes/tactical.htm)
To: discostu; MadIvan
people driving around with special antenaes looking for people watching TV who haven't paid the TV tax.what???
46
posted on
08/17/2005 10:55:09 PM PDT
by
King Prout
(and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
To: King Prout
people driving around with special antenaes looking for people watching TV who haven't paid the TV tax.
what???
Sounds like a Swedish pastime.
47
posted on
08/18/2005 3:41:00 AM PDT
by
schwing_wifey
(Coffee, Today's Toons, and Flaming Trolls - Yeeeaaaarrrgggggg PDT +9hours)
To: retrokitten
48
posted on
08/18/2005 4:07:18 AM PDT
by
saveliberty
(If all of the economists were to lie down head to toe, they would never reach a conclusion.)
To: King Prout
In Britain and much of Europe, you pay a TV tax to support the government broadcast system. They can determine if you have a TV in your home by checking for the local oscillator frequency that is given off by the TV, hence the "antenna van" prowling neighborhoods.
When I was in the US Army in W.Germany, a friend of mine, a civilian Army employee that lived on the German economy, was hit up by the Bundespost for the tax. He had to prove he was an American government employee that was not subject to the tax.
49
posted on
08/18/2005 4:39:52 AM PDT
by
T-Bird45
To: Lizavetta
Well, she HAS paid over $700,000,000 in taxes ---- I am absolutely serious about that number. (70% on a billion dollars of income).
I suppose that gives her more standing than most to say where her money is spent.
That said, if what you say is true, I would disagree with her.
To: AppyPappy
She has complained about taxes --- as most of her money is clearly-traceable INCOME and thus nailed by the brits.
Serious estimates are north of $700 million paid in taxes.
To: King Prout
There is a "TV" tax in england. You pay for each set.
They drive around with sensors to see if you are cheating.
To: T-Bird45
There are some mis-statements in the article, but on the whole it's pretty funny. What the author seems to miss, however, is how much Rowling seems to be ridiculing such large government most of the time. The Ministry is very inefficient, highly politicized, and especially in the 5th installment, worse than counter-productive, it's actually an enemy to Harry.
The two major factual errors in the article:
- rounding up citizens to appear before the Wizengot, where the accused are tried in a dungeon while bound to a chair - Only violent prisoner appear in chains; Harry was not chained during his trial in Book 5 (which was, however, an abuse of the system in and of itself) nor were certain defendents in the flashback scene in Book 4, like Ludo Bagman
- Children are taken away from their natural parents at age 11 and remanded to a government-run school, where they are required to wear uniforms and tuition is free - school uniforms are standard practice in the UK, and nowhere in the books does it say that tuition to Hogwarts is free or that attendance is a government requirement; I've always seen Hogwarts as being an invitiation-only school, and assumed tuition is required (heavily implied in Book 1 when Harry worries about not having the money to go before Hagrid tells him of his parents' fortune) and Book 5, it is implied that Tom Riddle was admitted for free as a hardship/scholarship case.
53
posted on
08/18/2005 7:37:26 AM PDT
by
kevkrom
(WARNING: If you're not sure whether or not it's sarcasm, it probably is.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson