[Previous entry: "A not entirely satisfactory pledge"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Odd searches II"]

14 July 2003: "Sci-fi/fantasy and libertarianism"

Continuing on the topic of underming the trias politica, I finished Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix last night. I've been noticing assertions in various blogs that the book has libertarian overtones, or refuting same. Having read it, I have to say I can see why one might see libertarian tendencies, but I don't agree that this is the case.
(No spoilers, I promise.)

The assertions are, or so I assume, based on the behaviour in the book of various officials of the Ministry of Magic, and the fact that the Ministry is not accountable to anyone in the magical community. Rowling writes that at one point the minister, Cornelius Fudge, reports to "the muggle prime minister," i.e. the prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, while the PM is answerable to Parliament, it seems fair to assume that very few MPs indeed will be aware of the existence of the Ministry, or its purpose. And indeed, the Minister of Magic only seems to report to the PM in the most extreme of circumstances; the rest of the time, he rules by decree, unchecked in any way (except by bullying on Dumbledore's part).

Ergo, Rowling has created a situation in which the British magical community is controlled by a single unelected governmental body which wields legislative, executive and judicial powers. It goes without saying that this is a recipe for disaster, but it hardly takes a libertarian to point this out. Anyone with an affinity for democratic government will see the potential for abuse of power inherent in this situation. I find it a disturbing development that basic principles of democracy are being attributed to the realm of libertarian thought alone. And it's not as if there aren't enough sci-fi and fantasy novels which espouse libertarian theory already. Hell, they've even got their own literary prize, the Prometheus Award.

Mind you, one of the things which never fail to annoy the smeg out of me is when a sci-fi writer showcases how correct his political convictions are by creating a world which operates on his model of choice, and which is absolutely perfect. Examples which spring to mind are the Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, or F. Paul Wilson's LaNague Chronicles. Neither bothers to explore the potential downsides to their respective political models, but goes on about how well the economy is running and how the crime rate is close to zero with no recidivism. Yeah, great. I'm sure I could write a sci-fi novel in which communism works. Actually, I think Peter F. Hamilton did, in the Night's Dawn trilogy; Mars, to be exact. But he attached a whole bunch of conditions, the foremost being that it was populated only by people who wanted to make communism work, allowed dissidents (and in the book, these certainly existed) the right of exit, and did not subscribe to the idea of "exporting the revolution." Benign government is a lot easier to achieve when nobody needs to be coerced.

Ultimately, the operative term here remains the word "fiction."

au currant
Black Decaf
The Illiterati
Cointelpro Tool
Norman Geras
A Fistful of Euros
Harry's Place
Plastic Gangster
Blogfonte
Tim Newman
€urosavant
Crooked Timber
Gallowglass
Mr. McGillicuddy
eameljenet
Civax
101-280
Colby Cosh
Peaktalk
Mick Hartley
Oliver Kamm

Miscellanea:

Care to contribute
to the coffee fund?