Move over Ayn Rand there's a new libertarian author in town

And it's J.K. Rowling?

Incidentally, this is part of the reason why I liked the Harry Potter series, having jumped in late with Order of the Pheonix: It was fucking dark and bleak with a nice twinge of dystopia in our midsts.

I honestly am not sure if I would have liked the series as much if I had started from the beginning, though Harry's wangsting through Pheonix did stand out a bit much at times (even though it was quite a good take on your average adolescent).

I'll wait for Rowling herself to comment, thankyouverymuch.

Hmm, I don't recall Harry charging for his Voldemort killing services, or strutting with pride, whilst proclaiming that humility is for the insecure....

No value in reading her seven books yourself and drawing your own conclusion, huh?

From the few conclusions garamet's had the temerity to actually voice here, I would have to agree with her as regards their lack of value.

Wasn't talking about the books. Was talking about the self-appointed "expert" in the article.

I wouldn't say he's "self-appointed", exactly...

Sounds more like a damning indictment of what lies behind government as opposed to government itself.

Whitehall's mandarins very much like to try and be a law unto themselves, to the point of actively frustrating MPs, hiding behind all manner of legal panjandrums and essentially regarding the democratically elected as inconveniences to be circumvented.

You see it all aspects of the Public Sector, including - most odiously - the NHS where anyone going against the grain is attacked in manner that would have Joe McCarthy weeping with joy, no matter how many patients die, and they'll even ignore legal directives and fritter away millions of taxpayer money protecting themselves with injunctions.

A law degree doth not a literary critic make.

As for critics, those who can, write. Those who can't...

Or are you always 100% satisfied with what some random stranger says about your work?

The Ministry of Magic is presumably either entirely the executive branch or part of the executive branch, assuming the Wizarding World has a corresponding division of executive/judicial/legislative branches.

To respond to various other points raised by the abstract:

1. I think it is overstating things to say that because we don't see them there are no elections in the Wizarding World. I always took it for granted the Ministers were elected. The notion that Cornelius Fudge was chased from office in response to the revelation that Voldemort was alive suggests there is some sort of mechanism to get rid of and replace ministers. Similarly, I think some of the stuff attributed to government might be overstated. I don't remember the death penalty being imposed by government, for example.

2. While obviously government is painted poorly in HP, I think it should be pointed out that no institutions (schools, banks, for instance), and precious few adults are portrayed well. Even the undeniable adult heroes like the Order of the Phoenix (besides Dumbledore) do not do anything that we know about until Voldemort has been reborn. And Dumbledore himself is often cryptic and limited in the amount he is willing to help our heroes. Whether it is Rowling trying to make some larger point or simply as a function of the need to make Harry and his friends stand out, they are left largely on their own.

3. I would say it's just as easy and valid to read Harry Potter as a critique of libertarianism. The qualities that are generally most admired by libertarians -- individualism, self-interest and ambition -- are all associated most strongly with Voldemort, Death Eaters, and Slytherin House, the clear villains in the piece. They want to establish an order where there's a meritocracy, where wizards are not bound to respect the rights of anyone they see as inferior, be they Muggles or house elves. By contrast, the qualities of altruism and self-sacrifice, anti-libertarian traits, are all associated most strongly with the heroes of the piece, Harry, Hermione, Ron and Dumbledore. One could probably come up with an equivalent list of horrible activities by private individuals, from goblin slavery to terrorism of normal humans, that the Rowling vision of libertarianism inflicts.

4. Re: Goofy names for government agencies/policies, just about everything in the HP universe has goofy names, from the people to the spells to the magical devices and potions. I wouldn't read too much into that.

5. With regard to the civic-mindedness of the bureaucrats in HP, I would say it ranges with regard to the bureaucrat and the issue. For instance, I would say that Hogwarts is clearly not an entirely private entity, but part of the Wizarding World governmental structure. If my assessment is correct, Dumbledore is a government bureaucrat. The facial reason Fudge and others give for pretending Voldemort is no threat is because they don't want to cause a panic. We as readers know that there's plenty of reason for a panic to be caused, but arguably that makes some sense. As does sheer denial.

6. With regard to the Weasleys, I feel like the book makes it clear that Arthur just likes to look into Muggle life. It's not that he is punished because of his being a good guy. It's that he has deliberately chosen a specialized interest that has little influence within the Ministry. There is definitely residual feeling that wizards are superior to Muggles, so for someone to choose to study Muggles, it shouldn't be sruprising that he doesn't have much clout. One of the other Weasley kids studied dragons and such and was reasonably well-respected as far as we saw.

7. I doubt that HP will have any greater influence on making people libertarian than any other work of popular fiction has had on changing political views on any number of issues. It's not as though we are less racist because of "Let that be your last battlefield" or less willing to build expensive military hardware because the Death Star got blown up.

8. If this had been a piece by an academic finding liberal themes in a work of fiction, I'm sure that there would be any number of posters here who would be talking about how professors have their heads up their butts, how it's typical liberal dogma and a waste of ink, etc.

By this logic Joss Whedon cemented his place among the libertarian ubermensch years ago. As long as you look past his being a liberal...

The likelihood of the satire being deliberate is directly proportional to how effectively it is conveyed.

I'd say Rowling's portrayal of the bureaucratic state is pretty damn scathing. It's telling that, though her stories take place in a mostly-obscured-from-normal-people magical world, the bureaucracies are soooooo similar to those of the real world.

And, yes, I think Dolores Umbridge is a perfect poster child for the nanny state.

Soooo... everyone who's ever written a fictional work about a bad government must therefore believe all governments are bad?

Something about the eye of the beholder springs to mind here...

Equivocating on the word "bad" a little bit. To govern badly may mean ineptly and ineffectively, or it may mean to govern with evil intent. It's clear the Ministry of Magic in Rowling's world does the former.

True, and Rosebud may just be the name of Charles Kane's fondly-remembered childhood sled. It's the nature of symbolism that it relies on the reader to be actively prepared to receive it.

But let's reflect about the Ministry of Magic for a bit.

(1) They fail to recognize a gathering threat that, based on recent history, they should really be more prepared for;

(2) As evidence for the threat mounts, they deny, deny, deny, and even actively denounce those telling of the threat as fear-mongerers;

(3) There is not a competent, courageous, or noble character among ANY of the Ministry's top leadership (certainly not Fudge or Umbridge!)...you have to get down to Mr. Weasley's level to find decent folk. Heck, even officious wanker Percy Weasley ("Let me through! I'm head boy!") has a high position in their ranks;

(4) They wrongly imprison Sirius Black;

(5) They employ Dementors as jailers and peacekeepers;

(6) It's only when Voldemort is seen INSIDE THE MINISTRY OF MAGIC itself that they take the problem seriously, and, even at that, they are ineffective.

I'm sure people who've read all the books could go on and on (I've seen the movies and read a couple of the books).

Certainly, the state in Rowling's world--so carefully tailored to look like its counterpart in the Muggle world--ranges from inept to odious. There isn't a shining light anywhere in it.

Is it reading too much into Rowling's work to suggest that some of her own opinion informs this view? Maybe, but if she doesn't hold this view, she sure understands it well enough to drive it home in her work.

Not necessarily. As I understand it Rowling is a big time lefty. Yet as the author points out her take on the "Ministry" whether intentional or unintentional vividly illustrates and advances the arguments made by Public Choice Theory.

A powerful Ministry of Magic that did everything right and helped Harry throughout all seven books would make for some pretty boring plots, wouldn't it?

True, but the story could still have been written that way. Voldemort would've needed to subvert the Ministry sooner, that's all.

But look at characters like Dolores Umbridge--she's not just not part of the solution, she's a big and immediate part of the problem!

We are talking about a fictional world here. Rowling did create a Ministry of Magic and did portray it in the way described in the article despotic, dictatorial, cruel, and corrupt. Was that really necessary?

Would SW be the same if Darth Vader were the Dalai Lama?

Res ipsa loquitur.

Just because a concept is useful for telling a story doesn't mean that the author is using it to send a message about that concept.

So if an entity that is "despotic, dictatorial, cruel, and corrupt," is not villainous, what is?

Lord Valdemort.

Doesn't the Minister of Magic report to the Muggle Prime Minister?

So "despotic, dictatorial, cruel, and corrupt" are good traits?

And it's "Voldemort."

Wikipedia, of course, has the answer.

Connection to "Muggle" world

Each new Muggle Prime Minister receives a visit from the Minister for Magic, who informs him or her that the wizarding world exists. He explains that he will contact the Prime Minister only in circumstances in which the events of the wizard world may affect Muggles. For example, the Minister has to inform the Prime Minister if dangerous magical artefacts or animals are to be brought into Britain.[1]

The Ministry keeps in touch with the British Prime Minister via a wizard's portrait in the Prime Minister's office at 10 Downing Street. The portrait, which cannot be removed from the wall (because of a Permanent Sticking Charm in place), notifies the Prime Minister of the Minister for Magic's arrival.[HP6] The Ministers for Magic who appear in the Harry Potter series, such as Cornelius Fudge and Rufus Scrimgeour, tend to act in a somewhat patronising manner towards the Muggle Prime Minister.

The Ministry government succeeded the earlier "Wizards' Council," the earliest-known form of government for the wizarding world of Harry Potter.​