Wizards are all a bunch of lawyers!!

[woop]

is it just me, or does it sound like the whole magical world was created by a bunch of magical lawyers that made up all these ridiculous rules and laws that cannot be broken. and i'm not talking about umbridge's stupid decrees, or things like the decree against the use of underaged magic. i'm talking about other stuff like the house elf's bonds, how voldy can't hurt harry at the dursley's, etc. where do they come up with this stuff!?!? can you get sued if you break the rules?? what happens to voldy if he does hurt harry at the dursleys? does he get sanctioned and thrown into azkaban? can petunia sue him for a hundred billion pounds?

[Dumblebee]

haha! As a law student i take great offence at that (joking!) I agree the wizarding world is full of regulations and stuff... and the MoM seems to have parliamentary supremacy over all the decision which is very undemocratic, although im sure the politics behind the whole thing have been discuss elsewhere so ill shut up now!

[Kneazle_Herder]

The enslavement of house elves doesn't sound to me as if it was a rule made up by wizards. It sounds more like a rule made up by the house elves, or maybe (for some bizarre reason) they evolved that way. Also, the reason Voldemort can't hurt Harry at the Dursleys isn't because he's not allowed. It's because he is physically unable to harm Harry at the Dursleys due to the charm which protects him.

[Jenn_]

Well i guess Lawyers aren't the only morally ambiguous crowd these days. Though i bet Wizards could do a lot worse then litigation to you.

Honestly though....at the end of the day arent we all just a bunch of lawyers?

[AlbusDumbled0re]

It's in the nature of a house elf to look after wizards. I don't know why. Harry is safe at Privet Drive because of a charm DD cast to protect him.

[Credo Buffa]

Yeah, I think most of the "rules" you're referring to here aren't the kind that are decided in committees or written in books. They're things far beyond the control of the MoM or any other lawmakers. . . They're just unwritten truths of the wizarding world. To say that these are "rules" created by the wizarding government would be like saying that there needs to be some written law somewhere stating that it's not possible to eat soup with a fork--No one decided that's the way it was going to be, it's just the way it is. It's natural law, not political law.

[woop]

Yeah, I think most of the "rules" you're referring to here aren't the kind that are decided in committees or written in books. They're things far beyond the control of the MoM or any other lawmakers. . . They're just unwritten truths of the wizarding world. To say that these are "rules" created by the wizarding government would be like saying that there needs to be some written law somewhere stating that it's not possible to eat soup with a fork--No one decided that's the way it was going to be, it's just the way it is. It's natural law, not political law.

no, i'm not talking about the mom. i'm talking about the wizards that first came up with all of those ridiculous charms and spells and whatever. they're nothing more than rules at the end of the day. it's like they're forcing a contract down your throat. and as for all this stuff being written down first, remember that they all learned their spells and charms (or *rules* or *laws*) by reading them in a book. nothing in the wizarding world is an unwritten truth. just ask hermione.

[atherella]

Well, as a *coughlawyercough* myself, I find that rules and laws are absolutely necessary for a society to run in an organized, safe, manner. Sure, in any society there are laws that seem absolutely foolish, and even downright ridiculous, but at the end of the day, without rules and laws, imagine the chaos.

JKR said that before she even started the actual writing of the books, the first thing she did was decide on what was and what was not possible -- ie - the rules. It's just a necessary evil, IMHO. :)

[Kneazle_Herder]

Ok, let's take your analogy: According to your statement, casting a charm is just like creating a new rule. Since I can't perform magic, I'll use building a brick wall as an example. If I construct said wall in the middle of the 100m course at the olympic games, you can say that I have created a new rule which states that you can't run straight to the finish line. According to your first post in this thread, there should also be some comittee which makes it hurt if you try and run through the wall anyway. It doesn't work that way. Casting a charm is just taking advantage of a natural phenomenon. It is not the same as arbitrarily making up a new "rule".

[woop]

Ok, let's take your analogy: According to your statement, casting a charm is just like creating a new rule. Since I can't perform magic, I'll use building a brick wall as an example. If I construct said wall in the middle of the 100m course at the olympic games, you can say that I have created a new rule which states that you can't run straight to the finish line. According to your first post in this thread, there should also be some comittee which makes it hurt if you try and run through the wall anyway. It doesn't work that way. Casting a charm is just taking advantage of a natural phenomenon. It is not the same as arbitrarily making up a new "rule".

yes it is because you're changing the rules. now the runners have to jump over the brick wall. i didn't say there should be some committe, all i did was ask if there should be one. so what happens if you bust through the wall instead of go over it.

all i'm saying is that jk's world is incredibly structured. everybody is bound by this or that (kreacher to the blacks or wormtail indebted to harry), and there doesn't seem to be anything they can do about it.

[Mundungus Fletc]

atherella - I see your location is brutally honest ;)

The decree restricting underage magic seems entirely reasonable to me. Can you imagine what adolescent wizards would get up to otherise - It'd be chaos

[Kneazle_Herder]

yes it is because you're changing the rules. now the runners have to jump over the brick wall. i didn't say there should be some committe, all i did was ask if there should be one. so what happens if you bust through the wall instead of go over it.

all i'm saying is that jk's world is incredibly structured. everybody is bound by this or that (kreacher to the blacks or wormtail indebted to harry), and there doesn't seem to be anything they can do about it.

I haven't changed the rules. There is no new rule stating that you are required to jump over the wall. I have simply imposed an obstacle, which is the same thing Dumbledore did when he cast the charm which protects Harry while he is at the Dursleys.

[woop]

yeah, an obstacle that you learned from a spellbook that somebody wrote some time ago. it is changing the rules. besides. why shouldn't kreacher be able to totally betray sirius. because he can't. and why can't he? because "kreacher is bound by the enchantments of his kind." these are rules that somebody created. somebody created those enchantments.

[Kneazle_Herder]

One might just as well say that humans can't fly because we are bound by the limitations of our kind. Is this a rule or a fact?

[woop]

One might just as well say that humans can't fly because we are bound by the limitations of our kind. Is this a rule or a fact?

that's a fact becuase it's totally dependent on the laws of physics. all science in the world makes sense. we can't fly because the earth's gravitational pull makes us too heavy to fly. that makes sense. but there's something preventing kreacher from totally spilling the beans that has nothing to do with physics or science or anything. he's just not allowed to do it by some rule, some enchantment, that somebody's placed on house elves.

[house elf 13]

Leaving aside physicas and inevitability for a moment--I don't think the wizarding rules are any more ridiculous than US law. Here are a few examples:

1. I could drive over 25 miles per hour in my neighborhood, but it's illegal. The roadway would certainly support it, and I am in a hurry. However, the rule is that all residential areas have a 25 mile per hour speed limit. Was this limit scientifically determined? No, it just seemed about right.

2. My mother can bring nylon knitting needles on an airplane, but I can't bring nail clippers. I could show you at least 10 ways to harm someone with a nylon knitting needle, but it's okay. Because you can harm someone more with nail clippers? No, it's arbitrary and probably based on the idea that any metal object is more intrinsically dangerous than any nylon object.

3. Where I grew up, liquor is sold in separate stores. Where I went to college, no liquor was sold. Where I live now, beer and wine are sold in the grocery, but "hard" liquor is sold in a separate store. I can buy beer and wine at the grocery on Sunday, but the hard liquor stores are closed by law on Sundays.

4. If I lived one state over, I'd have to have my car emissions checked regularly, but because I'm across a fictional line, I don't.

5. If I'm 20 years, 364 days old, it's illegal for me to drink a beer, but the next day it's legal.

How are these less arbitrary than the wizarding laws you mentioned?

[Fool]

It's more like politicians (takin 500 pages to explain overtime in the work place, honestly). Every law should fit on a single sided sheed of 8.5x11" paper, 12pt font.

[Kneazle_Herder]

that's a fact becuase it's totally dependent on the laws of physics. all science in the world makes sense. we can't fly because the earth's gravitational pull makes us too heavy to fly. that makes sense. but there's something preventing kreacher from totally spilling the beans that has nothing to do with physics or science or anything. he's just not allowed to do it by some rule, some enchantment, that somebody's placed on house elves.

But in the Harry Potter universe, magic is a part of the natural world, governed by the same types of laws that tell us humans can't fly.

[woop]

sorry kneazle, i don't think that's accurate. the wizards live in the muggle world and they need all sorts of spells to hide what they do from the muggles. it's all these enchantments, and spells, and charms that set them apart. look there's nothing to prevent dobby from betraying the malfoys except that he just cant do it. what magic occurred when harry tricked lucius into giving him a sock? nothing. it's just that it was a rule. give him clothes and it's over. that's not magic at all.

[Kneazle_Herder]

Point 1, since no scientist has yet been able to determine exactly how gravity works, how do you know that gravity itself is not the result of some long ago magic spell?

Point 2, house elves are magical creatures. Maybe one day, a wizard decided he needed some household help and created a servant whose only desire was to serve and be useful. Being a clever wizard, and wanting a loophole in case said servant became an annoyance, the enchantment used to create the servant also included a way to dismiss the servant. Initialy an arbitrary decision, but also an inherent quality of the new species. Is this now a rule or a fact of life?

[woop]

Point 1, since no scientist has yet been able to determine exactly how gravity works, how do you know that gravity itself is not the result of some long ago magic spell?

Point 2, house elves are magical creatures. Maybe one day, a wizard decided he needed some household help and created a servant whose only desire was to serve and be useful. Being a clever wizard, and wanting a loophole in case said servant became an annoyance, the enchantment used to create the servant also included a way to dismiss the servant. Initialy an arbitrary decision, but also an inherent quality of the new species. Is this now a rule or a fact of life?

1. newton figured it out. it's really not that complicated.

2. his initial decision wasn't arbitrary. there was a purpose behind it, which was to be able to dismiss the elf. house elves are enslaved. that's what s.p.e.w. is all about.

[Danluver182]

I think the underage magic thing is kinda stupid. So that means if you have to do chores and stuff you can't use magic? the trio used a Lumos charm (I think it was Hermione) at the Quidditch world cup but she ddin't get in trouble. But harry got in trouble for using Lumos in privet drive. it doesn't make sense.

[tantrix]

Leaving aside physicas and inevitability for a moment--I don't think the wizarding rules are any more ridiculous than US law. Here are a few examples:

1. I could drive over 25 miles per hour in my neighborhood, but it's illegal. The roadway would certainly support it, and I am in a hurry. However, the rule is that all residential areas have a 25 mile per hour speed limit. Was this limit scientifically determined? No, it just seemed about right.

2. My mother can bring nylon knitting needles on an airplane, but I can't bring nail clippers. I could show you at least 10 ways to harm someone with a nylon knitting needle, but it's okay. Because you can harm someone more with nail clippers? No, it's arbitrary and probably based on the idea that any metal object is more intrinsically dangerous than any nylon object.

3. Where I grew up, liquor is sold in separate stores. Where I went to college, no liquor was sold. Where I live now, beer and wine are sold in the grocery, but "hard" liquor is sold in a separate store. I can buy beer and wine at the grocery on Sunday, but the hard liquor stores are closed by law on Sundays.

4. If I lived one state over, I'd have to have my car emissions checked regularly, but because I'm across a fictional line, I don't.

5. If I'm 20 years, 364 days old, it's illegal for me to drink a beer, but the next day it's legal.

How are these less arbitrary than the wizarding laws you mentioned?

Very true.. same are the rules with a driving license and other everyday stuff..

But I think that the rules in the wizarding world are created by the same randomness which is representative of humans.. for example if harry was a wizard and he was underage before he went to hogwarts, why was he not accounted for the times when he would do random magical things...

The fact that Voldy couldn't touch Harry and couldn't hurt him at Dursleys is a part of ancient magic.. you can say it creates a force field... and we saw the consequence of trying to break it in SS.. Quirrel died..

[Kneazle_Herder]

1. newton figured it out. it's really not that complicated.

2. his initial decision wasn't arbitrary. there was a purpose behind it, which was to be able to dismiss the elf. house elves are enslaved. that's what s.p.e.w. is all about.

Newton figured out the effects of gravity, not why it works.

His decision to dismiss the elf by giving it clothes was arbitrary. Now house elves as a species can only be dismissed by giving them clothes. Is it now an arbitrary rule being applied to them by a wizard or a fundamental characteristic of their existence?

[woop]

There are two forces in nature that we experience every day: gravity and magnetism. You may have magnets on your refrigerator, and you know that a magnet will attract a refrigerator with a certain amount of force. The force depends on the strength of the magnet and the distance between the magnet and the metal. You also know that magnets have two poles -- north and south. Either pole will attract iron or steel equally well, north will attract south, and like poles will repel one another.

Gravity is the other common force. Newton was the first person to study it seriously, and he came up with the law of universal gravitation:

Each particle of matter attracts every other particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
The standard formula for gravity is:

Gravitational force = (G * m1 * m2) / (d2)
where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects for which you are calculating the force, and d is the distance between the centers of gravity of the two masses.

G has the value of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne * cm2/gm2. That means that if you put two 1-gram objects 1 centimeter apart from one another, they will attract each other with the force of 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne. A dyne is equal to about 0.001 gram weight, meaning that if you have a dyne of force available, it can lift 0.001 grams in Earth's gravitational field. So 6.67 x 10E-8 dyne is a miniscule force. When you deal with massive bodies like the Earth, however, which has a mass of 6E+24 kilograms (see this Question of the Day), it adds up to a rather powerful force. It is also interesting to think about the fact that every atom attracts every other atom in the universe in some small way!

Einstein later came along and redefined gravity, so there are now two models -- Newtonian and Einsteinian. Einsteinian gravitational theory has features that allow it to predict the motion of light around very massive objects and several other interesting phenomena. According to Encyclopedia Britannica:

The general theory of relativity addresses the problem of gravity and that of nonuniform, or accelerated, motion. In one of his famous thought-experiments, Einstein showed that it is not possible to distinguish between an inertial frame of reference in a gravitational field and an accelerated frame of reference. That is, an observer in a closed space capsule who found himself pressing down on his seat could not tell whether he and the capsule were at rest in a gravitational field, or whether he and the capsule were undergoing acceleration. From this principle of equivalence, Einstein moved to a geometric interpretation of gravitation. The presence of mass or concentrated energy causes a local curvature in the space-time continuum. This curvature is such that the inertial paths of bodies are no longer straight lines but some form of curved (orbital) path, and this acceleration is what is called gravitation.
If certain assumptions and simplifications are made, Einstein's equations handle Newtonian gravity as a subset.
The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory. (Check out this page on quantum gravity string theory.)


from http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm

don't know if it's right though.



...

His decision to dismiss the elf by giving it clothes was arbitrary. Now house elves as a species can only be dismissed by giving them clothes. Is it now an arbitrary rule being applied to them by a wizard or a fundamental characteristic of their existence?


that doesnt make sense based on your original argument that he created the elf and a way to get rid of him. something that's arbitrary is something that is based on a whim. he may have chosen the act of giving clothes on a whim (he could have, for example, just chosen to tell him "to get out"), but the actual creation of a way to get rid of him was not arbitrary at all.

[Nickel]

Even though I'm breaking the flow of the thread, I just needed to point this out:

is it just me, or does it sound like the whole magical world was created by a bunch of magical lawyers that made up all these ridiculous rules and laws that cannot be broken. and i'm not talking about umbridge's stupid decrees, or things like the decree against the use of underaged magic. i'm talking about other stuff like the house elf's bonds, how voldy can't hurt harry at the dursley's, etc. where do they come up with this stuff!?!? can you get sued if you break the rules?? what happens to voldy if he does hurt harry at the dursleys? does he get sanctioned and thrown into azkaban? can petunia sue him for a hundred billion pounds?

If it was just a rule that Voldemort can't hurt Harry at the Dursleys, do you think he would actually care about breaking it?? It would be kind of silly to say that Voldemort wants to kill Harry, but since he's afraid of breaking that rule, he'll have to try another way.

[woop]

Even though I'm breaking the flow of the thread, I just needed to point this out:



If it was just a rule that Voldemort can't hurt Harry at the Dursleys, do you think he would actually care about breaking it?? It would be kind of silly to say that Voldemort wants to kill Harry, but since he's afraid of breaking that rule, he'll have to try another way.

the thing is that there is a rule. what would happen to voldy if he tried to hurt harry at the dursley's? he is in fact afraid of breaking the rule. he can't do it.

many laws are silly. in philadelphia, if a man is walking on the sidewalk with a woman and she's walking on the outside of the sidewalk, a cop can give him a ticket. you will have good manners in philly!!!

[tantrix]

I don't think it's physically possible for Voldy to kill Harry at Dursleys...

[Nickel]

the thing is that there is a rule. what would happen to voldy if he tried to hurt harry at the dursley's? he is in fact afraid of breaking the rule. he can't do it.

many laws are silly. in philadelphia, if a man is walking on the sidewalk with a woman and she's walking on the outside of the sidewalk, a cop can give him a ticket. you will have good manners in philly!!!


It's not really a rule though. Voldemort physically can't get to Harry at the Dursleys, it's impossible. A rule is in place to keep people from doing something that they are physically able to do.

[house elf 13]

Is it a rule or a spell that keeps Harry safe at the Dursleys? I'm inclined to believe that it's either a spell or the logical effects of some aspect of wizarding physics--something like "cursing Harry --> rebound due to unknown factor therefore Voldemort + Voldemort's spells repelled from Dursleys."

[MonicaG]

This is a little off the flow, but the reason harry had to compete in the tri-wizard tournament was because having the name come out of the goblet was a binding magical contract- but we never hear what happens if Harry broke the contract. And, it said he had to compete, but couldn;t the teachers have said "yes Harry is technically a contestant, but the way he will compete is by sitting in the stands, and getting zero points" It is almost as if the contract was once your name came out (even if you did not consent to it going in) it meant you had to try as hard as you could- or else you'd be breaking a magical contract, and we still don't know what the repricussions for that are.

Anyway, just another example that hasn't come up.

[quaffle_waffle]

"yes Harry is technically a contestant, but the way he will compete is by sitting in the stands, and getting zero points" <MonicaG

ha ha ha...funniest mental picture! :rotfl: :lol:

that would have made the 4th book so interesting! lol just kiddin

you do make a good point tho... :tu: :agree:

[Credo Buffa]

I think we need to define what a "rule" is. In our world, there are all sorts of things that can be defined as "rules" in one way or another, but there has to be a distinction between those things we can control and those things we can't. Speed limits are one "rule." These are created by people for some ultimate purpose, in this case to keep people from driving at a dangerous speed. Gravity is another "rule" mentioned on this thread. . . But this is definitely one that all of us would have to agree has nothing to do with what humanity has decided. Gravity was a force that existed before life itself, therefore it cannot be decided in any way by any person. It can be understood in a more complete way, but it cannot be changed in its fundamentals.

I think magic "rules" happen in the same way as gravity or other natural phenomena. It's not that all these new spells or charms didn't exist before. . . it's just that no one knew how to achieve them yet. To say that wizards create new "rules" like lawmakers put new speed limits on roads would be like saying that when people first concluded that the world was round, it suddenly went from being flat to being spherical. It's not that it wasn't always round. . . it's just that human understanding of its shape changed.

Just because wizards hide magic from the muggle world doesn't mean that it doesn't exist all around muggles, it's just that they don't realize it. It's like the age-old question: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Wizards may simply be no more than muggles with this ability to tap into a different plane of the natural world. Yes, wizards and muggles live in different versions of reality, but that doesn't mean that the other doesn't exist. When we bring in this whole debate of "rules," it makes it sound like someone decided one day that certain people should be able to say some words in Latin and make some extraordinary things happen, and other people shouldn't be able to at all. It doesn't logically make sense. Newton didn't just decide one day that, gee, when I drop something, it should fall to the ground by some strange natural force instead of float around in midair. Gravity was something that always existed. . . He just learned how to explain it. I think magic always existed as well. People just needed to understand how to harness it.

What I don't understand about your argument, woop, is exactly what you mean by Voldemort being afraid to break the "rule" and attack Harry at the Dursleys. You seem to be arguing that the laws of the wizarding world are nothing more than a bunch of "speed limits" rather than "gravitational theories". . . Meaning that someone once upon a time decided that a person like Voldemort shouldn't be able to attack someone under the protection of an ancient, blood magic connected to a mother's love for her son. Signed, stamped, on the books so that Voldemort can read it and say, "Drat, can't do that or they'll throw me in Azkaban!" Honestly, if it were as simple as that, do you think he would stay away? People don't decide that jumping off buildings is a bad idea because someone wrote "From henceforth, all people who jump off buildings will suffer serious injury and likely death." They don't jump off buildings because it's a stupid thing to do. It's NATURE, not GOVERNMENT. Voldemort doesn't attack Harry at the Dursleys because he knows it's a bad idea, not because someone told him that he couldn't.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Perhaps these threads will enlighten?

How was magic discovered? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=8057)
Is there a limit on magic? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=27446)
The Science of Harry Potter:How magic works (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=26507)
What is Magical Power in the HP Universe? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=27066)

[Magi]

I don't understand you, Woop.

You seem to refer to the laws governing the workings of magic, as if they are rules codified in books and nothing more. It is not a big streatch of imagination to see that magic is bound by its own limitations and rules, as is physics. Inventions utilising physical laws (such as a compass, for example) work because they harness the workings of physical sciences, along with the limitations posed by physics itself. Likewise, it is not difficult to imagine magic has limitations and set rules which dictate how it works, much like the laws (and theories) of physics. Hence, a magical inventions harness magic, along with the limitations posed by magic itself.

For example, a correctly-working compass points toward magnetic north, because of the alignment of dipoles within the metal that makes up the compass needle, makes it behave that way. The workings of the dipoles in the compass needle, and its interaction with the earth's magnetic field, are not something that we can ignore. We can force the needle to point south, but unless the needle can be de-magnetised, it will point toward magnetic north naturally when released.
Likewise, Harry's protection at the Dursleys is caused by some interactions between the "laws" of magic, which we do not yet understand (nor do we need to understand). Presumably, if Voldemort tried to hurt Harry at the Dursleys, either nothing will happen, or whatever Voldemort tries will backfire (even back unto himself, like last time). These "laws" of magic, cannot be broken, just as the laws of physics cannot be broken. Same with how spells work, or the enchantment of House Elves. Their limitations and workings are dictated by the very nature of magic itself.

As for the Tri-wizard tournament example mentioned earlier, Harry MUST compete in the Tri-wizard, because that what the "binding magical contract" does to a person. He cannot break that contract, even if he wanted to. Presumably, the magic involved influences his will directly, so that even if he doesn't want to compete, the magic somehow bends his will so he ultimately competes anyway.

[ComicBookWorm]

The only rule I have seen here that is really a rule is the rule against underage magic. And it is just like the lower speed limit in school zones. It is designed with safety in mind.

Everything else, including Voldemort not attacking at Privet Drive and the elves are magical laws just like laws of nature. Physics and other forces that we muggles do not understand are at work here.

I don't think that when someone discovered a spell or a potion that they were creating a rule. They discovered something worked to accomplish something else. A little like figuring out that bread mold could cure infections.

I suspect that the words invoked to make a spell work are just a way of focusing the mental energies for a particular piece of magic. Also, that particular invocation may have been more effective than others tried.

[filius]

is it just me, or does it sound like the whole magical world was created by a bunch of magical lawyers that made up all these ridiculous rules and laws that cannot be broken. and i'm not talking about umbridge's stupid decrees, or things like the decree against the use of underaged magic. i'm talking about other stuff like the house elf's bonds, how voldy can't hurt harry at the dursley's, etc. where do they come up with this stuff!?!? can you get sued if you break the rules?? what happens to voldy if he does hurt harry at the dursleys? does he get sanctioned and thrown into azkaban? can petunia sue him for a hundred billion pounds?
The rules are there to make the wizarding world managable. It would be in ruins without these rules. Wizards don't want muggles to know about them because they will overeact. Rules aren't just made for the fun of it.

[Rhoryn]

How about the enchanting of muggle artifacts, how come that is illegal? I know there is the story about the enchanted teaset, but that is not a really strong reason to stop doing things like enchanting a the car, or even some household type stuff.
Also the ban on flying carpets, why?

[filius]

The muggle artefacts have a very good chance of getting back into the hands of muggles which will risk the secrecy of the wizarding world. Carpets are very visible, the car was illegal as well. Not like it was allowed in the first place.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Here are all the threads I've found relating to laws in the Wizarding World.

Inconsistencies With the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Wizardry (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=18384)
Wizarding Child Protection Laws? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=13507)
Are there Wizarding Lawyers? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=16430)
Educational Decree 24 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=21920)
Hermione fixed Harry’s glasses in Diagon Alley – illegal, right/ (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=8317)
Justice NOT served (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=20182)
What were the first 21 Educational Decrees? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=30525)
Child Abuse (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=12169)


I do agree with most people here in that you seem to confuse natural laws with legal statutes and decrees.

[Drusilla]

Hey, I take exception to the title of this thread, seeing as I'm a lawyer myself (or I will be in five years, anyway :lol: ). The rules, silly as they may seem sometimes, were set in place for the protection of the wizarding world, probably after the Middle Ages and the Spanish Inquisition-even if no actual wizards got hurt in that time, it probably led to a lot of people becoming hostile towards, and suspicious of, Muggles, which in its turn led to the whole pureblood ideology. The made-up rules, like not doing magic in front of Muggles, probably had their origins in these events, even if they weren't actually made into laws till the 18th century.

[Pilum]

As regards the GoF 'contract', it's similar to the 'evil customs' in Arthurian legend, or many of the ways to resolve the curse in fairy tales. The only way to break the custom/curse is to play along and fulfill it - regardless of how onerous or illogical it may be. For example, (this will be hazy!) I think Galahad (or another) was travelling with a maiden and there was an 'evil custom' at the castle they arrived at that everyone had to give a (quantity) of blood for whatever reason. Instead of instantly saying (as most of the D&D'ers in here probably would :D) "Hell no!! I waste the king (with my +12 HackMaster)!", Galahad and the girl actually go through with it but the girl gives Galahad's portion as well and dies. However the custom is fulfilled, and Galahad later goes postal and offs the castle's owner.

Not exactly Malory's prose ;) but gets the gist across I hope. Consider also the tale of the wyrm in the well, where the son had to kill the first thing he sees after the fight...

As to what might happen, traditionally the curse rebounds on the violator in some form - he turns into the beast, or becomes increasingly unlucky and dangerous to all those around him, as he has upset the laws of nature.

[Rhoryn]

were set in place for the protection of the wizarding world, probably after the Middle Ages and the Spanish Inquisition-even if no actual wizards got hurt in that time, it probably led to a lot of people becoming hostile towards, and suspicious of, Muggles, which in its turn led to the whole pureblood ideology
The pureblood idealogy was around at the founding of hogwarts, remeber Slytherin, and I doubt the wizarding world needs much protection from muggles, even now. About the best reason for them is to hide from muggles, so they don't have to help those less fortunate than them in the regard of magic.

[Drusilla]

Yeah, but didn't Binns say that at the time that Hogwarts was first set up, wizards were feared and persecuted, and that was why they hid the school? The "not using magic as a solution to all problems" factor played a part, too, but that must've been at least part of it.

[silver ink pot]

Woop: You seem to be saying - correct me if I'm wrong - that there should be more 'freedom' in magic, and fewer rules and laws. That it would be more fun if there weren't restrictions on what a witch or wizard could do.
I see it a little differently. In the history of Magic, someone with powers must have stumbled across some of these spells, evoking certain words to do certain things, and then teaching the spells to others. Whatever worked, that is what they were taught. And that, perhaps, is why different spells are used in different countries, and the language of Magic is a hodge-podge.

Doesn't that make sense? It was based on whatever worked.

In other words, going back in time, some witch or wizard who did the first spells must have put limits and consequences on them, and what you could use certain spells for.

But let's take a useful spell, for instance "Scourgify." Hermione teaches Neville to use it to get frog guts out from under his fingernails. So it is useful for cleanliness. But then we saw James washing Snape's mouth out with it in the Pensieve scene, basically torturing him with the same useful spell. Shouldn't there be laws or rules governing when certain spells can be used?

And it is obvious why Imperio is an unforgivable spell. Yes, you could "make" a politician pass wonderful legislation that would make everyone equal, share the wealth, and change the world. Or, you could make someone a slave. You could make a bad man reform overnight with the Imperious Curse, or you could turn an innocent, good person into a criminal.

You mentioned Philadelphia. It's like Rocky says: "If you wanna dance, you gotta pay the band."

If you want to be a witch or wizard, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, there is chaos, people get hurt, and things fall apart.

[LostWoodman]

When Hermione used the lumos charm, she was at the Quiddich World Cup, surrounded by all of the wizarding community of several countries that could get there. When Harry used the lumos charm in Privet Drive, he was surrounded by houses full of muggles who would have to realize magic is real if people were allowed to do it in front of them.

[woop]

Woop: You seem to be saying - correct me if I'm wrong - that there should be more 'freedom' in magic, and fewer rules and laws. That it would be more fun if there weren't restrictions on what a witch or wizard could do.
I see it a little differently. In the history of Magic, someone with powers must have stumbled across some of these spells, evoking certain words to do certain things, and then teaching the spells to others. Whatever worked, that is what they were taught. And that, perhaps, is why different spells are used in different countries, and the language of Magic is a hodge-podge.

Doesn't that make sense? It was based on whatever worked.

In other words, going back in time, some witch or wizard who did the first spells must have put limits and consequences on them, and what you could use certain spells for.

But let's take a useful spell, for instance "Scourgify." Hermione teaches Neville to use it to get frog guts out from under his fingernails. So it is useful for cleanliness. But then we saw James washing Snape's mouth out with it in the Pensieve scene, basically torturing him with the same useful spell. Shouldn't there be laws or rules governing when certain spells can be used?

And it is obvious why Imperio is an unforgivable spell. Yes, you could "make" a politician pass wonderful legislation that would make everyone equal, share the wealth, and change the world. Or, you could make someone a slave. You could make a bad man reform overnight with the Imperious Curse, or you could turn an innocent, good person into a criminal.

You mentioned Philadelphia. It's like Rocky says: "If you wanna dance, you gotta pay the band."

If you want to be a witch or wizard, you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, there is chaos, people get hurt, and things fall apart.

look man, the thing is that if you are able to create a spell or charm that beats another spell or charm, you win. if i use a spell to turn you into a rubber duck, you or somebody else will have to find another spell that turns you back into whatever you were. in other words, you found the rule that trumps the first rule.

[Rapunzel]

Voldemort not being able to hurt Harry when he's at Privit drive isn't a law. It's something that is impossible for him to do because of powerful magical protection. No matter what kind of a spell you cast, Pi can't equal 5. Some things are the way they are and there's nothing anyone can do about it, magic or not.

(And, just for your information, in the U.S at least, the laws are made by legislators, not lawyers.)

[woop]

Voldemort not being able to hurt Harry when he's at Privit drive isn't a law. It's something that is impossible for him to do because of powerful magical protection. No matter what kind of a spell you cast, Pi can't equal 5. Some things are the way they are and there's nothing anyone can do about it, magic or not.

(And, just for your information, in the U.S at least, the laws are made by legislators, not lawyers.)i don't agree with you. eventually, voldy may be able to find a spell to defeat the protection harry has. that it's the greatest possible protection he's got is fine, but hey, if the red sox can win the world series, anything is possible. what spell did think of to break that curse?

also, while it's true that legislators enact laws, and may even be involved in the drafting of stautes, the laws are almost always written entirely by lawyers. plus, many of those legislators ARE lawyers.

[Rapunzel]

i don't agree with you. eventually, voldy may be able to find a spell to defeat the protection harry has. that it's the greatest possible protection he's got is fine, but hey, if the red sox can win the world series, anything is possible. what spell did think of to break that curse?

also, while it's true that legislators enact laws, and may even be involved in the drafting of stautes, the laws are almost always written entirely by lawyers. plus, many of those legislators ARE lawyers.

So you're saying that you don't agree that there is such a thing as a protection so powerful that it's simply impossible to break it? I have to say that in the HP universe created by JKR, I think you're wrong about that. (Merely my opinion, of course.)

Back to lawyers, if you don't like a law you'll blame the attorney who wrote the bill, not the legislator who requested him/her to write it, and sponsored it, and got it passed? How many legislators do you know? I would say there are some lawyers who run for office, but I wouldn't say that "many" legislators are lawyers.

PS: I'm not a lawyer! ;)

[Barbara Kennedy]

It has been stated in canon that there are some things magic cannot do. You cannot argue with that. There are limits on magic.

I think I posted it here before, but these threads discuss that very thing.

Is there a limit on magic? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=27446)
The Science of Harry Potter: How magic works (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=26507)

[Bertha Blotts]

i don't agree with you. eventually, voldy may be able to find a spell to defeat the protection harry has. that it's the greatest possible protection he's got is fine, but hey, if the red sox can win the world series, anything is possible. what spell did think of to break that curse?

also, while it's true that legislators enact laws, and may even be involved in the drafting of stautes, the laws are almost always written entirely by lawyers. plus, many of those legislators ARE lawyers.


Yes, Voldy might be able to get around that protection spell someday, but I still agree that in the JKR universe the protection spell is more like a law of nature, not a legal decree of the wizarding community. Nobody can break the law of gravity in our universe, but you can work around it by applying a counterforce (lift). Voldy just might find a magical counterforce to the protection spell as well.


On the legislation point, yes, you are right, most statutes are written by lawyers or people who at least went to law school. And a lot of law in the U.S. and England is created by judges in case law, so obviously its legally trained people making the law there. Good thing, too, or laws would be so vaguely written that none of them would be workable. Loads of them are badly written anyway, but at least this way things kinda sorta work.

[woop]

So you're saying that you don't agree that there is such a thing as a protection so powerful that it's simply impossible to break it? I have to say that in the HP universe created by JKR, I think you're wrong about that. (Merely my opinion, of course.)

Back to lawyers, if you don't like a law you'll blame the attorney who wrote the bill, not the legislator who requested him/her to write it, and sponsored it, and got it passed? How many legislators do you know? I would say there are some lawyers who run for office, but I wouldn't say that "many" legislators are lawyers.

PS: I'm not a lawyer! ;)i wouldn't blame the lawyers, i'd blame the legislators. they're the ones that approved the language and made it law.

also, you'd be surprised how many lawyers there are in congress! according to www.yourcongress.com (http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=1671)

There are 158 (36%) Lawyers who are Members of the House and
53 (53%) Lawyers who are Members of the Senate.

That's a lot of lawyers!

and no, i don't have a problem with lawyers, i've never had a problem with a lawyer, never been sued, nothing.

[silvery orb]

Well...isn't Jk's sister a lawyer? You can't blame her for creating a lot of bizarre "rules" - it runs in the family! ;)

Back on topic - As long as human nature includes greed, selfishness and power grabbing - every society needs laws to keep our baser nature in line. ESPECIALLY wizards who defy so many laws of "science" and could easily run amuck.

[Shandelier]

I think that the whole wiarding community can sometimes sound like a communisim, ill bet they have rules that say you cant air you laundry on Tuesdays or somesuch(just kidding) but they are very wierd about some things, like the decee for underage magic, even if you do it in your own bedroom with no one around you are threatened with expulsion (which Harry did in the movie, with no consequences sorry, off topic) But the MoM has so much power, did it not occur to everyone that if youhave a job in the wiarding world it is most likely in the MoM? I dont hear them saying anything about wiards who are Janitors or anything like that. oh, im not making any sense, ill shut up now.

[Bertha Blotts]

This is a little off the flow, but the reason harry had to compete in the tri-wizard tournament was because having the name come out of the goblet was a binding magical contract- but we never hear what happens if Harry broke the contract. And, it said he had to compete, but couldn;t the teachers have said "yes Harry is technically a contestant, but the way he will compete is by sitting in the stands, and getting zero points" It is almost as if the contract was once your name came out (even if you did not consent to it going in) it meant you had to try as hard as you could- or else you'd be breaking a magical contract, and we still don't know what the repricussions for that are.

Anyway, just another example that hasn't come up.


This is a good example, and it bothered me a LOT in the book. It certainly seems more like a human legal law than like a natural law of gravity, but all of the professors just shrug their shoulders and agree that nothing can be done about it, there is no way out.

If wizards are lawyers they are quite unjust lawyers, for creating a device that can bind someone to a life-imperiling series of tasks entirely without their consent.

You'd think they could create magical forged signature detectors, if they can create age lines and veratiserum, wouldn't you? Any goblet of fire worth its salt ought to have known (and cared) that Harry didn't submit that slip of paper.

[silvery orb]

Honestly though....at the end of the day arent we all just a bunch of lawyers?

I'll second that! and not just because, like Dumbledee and Artherella, I'm also an evil law student!

[Shandelier]

Evil law students... haha

[silvery orb]

If wizards are lawyers they are quite unjust lawyers, for creating a device that can bind someone to a life-imperiling series of tasks entirely without their consent.

Hmm...this bothered me in the books too. But in DD's defense - nothing like this had ever happened before. They really had no choice that would be fair except to follow the rules (and the age requirement was being used for the first time).

In the "real legal" world (talk about oxymoron), once something irregular and bad happened, the law would be amended for next time this situation came up. Too bad for Harry but a good thing for any wizard whose name is chosen without his consent in the future...

[woop]

there's nothing wrong with being an evil law studen. the thing about law school is that before you become a lawyer, everyone is excited for you because you're going to be a lawyer, but once you become one, you're the scum of the earth!

[silvery orb]

Evil law students... haha

I know, right? Some of us are trying to make the world a better place I swear.

[Shandelier]

I know, right? Some of us are trying to make the world a better place I swear.
As long as you dont get sucked into the whole, "im the king of the world and can get people to do what i want" vibe its cool with me, you gotta do something with your life!

[woop]

I think that the whole wiarding community can sometimes sound like a communisimi totally agree with you. the mom is like one humongous pinko liberal big government beureaucracy!!! you're so totally right!

[Bertha Blotts]

Hmm...this bothered me in the books too. But in DD's defense - nothing like this had ever happened before. They really had no choice that would be fair except to follow the rules (and the age requirement was being used for the first time).

In the "real legal" world (talk about oxymoron), once something irregular and bad happened, the law would be amended for next time this situation came up. Too bad for Harry but a good thing for any wizard whose name is chosen without his consent in the future...


In the "real legal world" (I agree, what a fun oxymoron) they could have hauled in a judge, argued exceptional circumstances, and maybe gotten the judge to find an "implied right of consent" or something like that in the common law of magic that overrode the goblet's rules. Unless the goblet's rules specifically say "you have to compete even if you didn't put your own name in," there is plenty of room to argue that the rules don't mean that at all.

i totally agree with you. the mom is like one humongous pinko liberal big government beureaucracy!!! you're so totally right!


Beureaucracy and communism (and certainly liberalism) aren't the same things. If the wizarding world was communist you wouldn't have very rich families living alongside very poor ones, and you certainly wouldn't see Fred and George Weasley starting up a nice enterprising business.

[Kneazle_Herder]

Actually, based on historical precedent, if the wizarding world was actually communist you pould probably have very poor families living beside other very poor families with a few fat cats on top claiming that they deserve better than everyone else because they make sure the system runs smoothly. :p

[Shandelier]

But you do see poor on the bottom and Rich at the top,
Lucious Malfoy can (could) get almost anyting he wanted form the MoM, while Weasly Sr. was at the bottom of the Ministry.


Beureaucracy and communism (and certainly liberalism) aren't the same things. If the wizarding world was communist you wouldn't have very rich families living alongside very poor ones, and you certainly wouldn't see Fred and George Weasley starting up a nice enterprising business.
And Fred and George are probably not getting business from the families in the wiarding world, their business is mostly from students who know them.

Actually, based on historical precedent, if the wizarding world was actually communist you pould probably have very poor families living beside other very poor families with a few fat cats on top claiming that they deserve better than everyone else because they make sure the system runs smoothly. :p

Isnt that what some of the higher working officials in the Mom are doing when they think they dont need to be searched or raided?
Lucious Malfoy certainly thinks that everyone should bow down to him...