scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/3de851.md

## [D] The Masquerade (HP)

* Author: u/KZLightning *
* URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3de851/d_the_masquerade_hp/
* Score: 10

* Created: 2015-07-15T16:09:44

### Post:

Consider the canonical world of Harry Potter. Healing potions and spells work on muggles, wizards are very rare and magical cores do NOT exist. Basically consider the world of Harry Potter with the magic exactly as it is in the books.

I have two questions. First, would there historically be any reasons to separate from muggles and promote any kind of masquerade at all? Second, assuming that there was such a masquerade, how would it be accomplished? Assume that the majority (90%) of muggles and wizards are rational most (90%) of the time.

### Comments:

> **u/None** [+17]  (2 hours later)
> 
> One explanation: The "modern" magical community contains state-sponsored education, so every modern witch and wizard knows enough to defend themselves from an angry mob of Muggles. This, however, was not always the case: For a long time, magic was something you figured out on your own or from a single knowledgable master. Because HP magic is basically "know a word", most people would live and die with just enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not enough to evade a clever, focused organization of Muggles. In that case, it's in everyone's best interests to maintain a masquerade and collect knowledge. Over the timescales involved, this becomes tradition, and precisely *because* of the force a magical authority can bring to bear, violating said tradition is much more costly than just going with it.
> 
> Not rational, but humans really aren't at times.

>> **u/KZLightning** [+2]  (21 hours later)
>> 
>> That seems like a plausible explanation. Much of the witch hunting in history was done by local mobs after all.

> **u/alexanderwales** [+6]  *Time flies like an arrow* (53 minutes later)
> 
> Reasons to keep separate ... there aren't many. A muggle isn't a threat to a wizard of any skill, given the spells they have available. My normal assumption with the Masquerade is that it's defensive in nature, but in the Harry Potter world, that's just not the case. They're no risk of a muggle sneaking into a wizard's house at night and killing them. Wizards don't have to worry about muggles using poisons either. Wizards can literally make a charm so that muggles don't notice them, never mind having to have defensive measures. Wizards can just teleport away if there's any threat, or destroy the muggle in any number of ways (including assuming direct control, modifying their memories, etc.).
> 
> So to make it work, we need to assume that wizards aren't spending that much in the way of keeping the Masquerade going. That means that they can have more marginal reasons for the separation. Maybe wizards just don't have any use for muggles; muggles can't really do anything that magic can't do better, cheaper, and faster. Walling off the magical world from the mundane one is just the most efficient way of not having to deal with muggles.
> 
> As for how they'd do it, the muggles are going to do most of the work for them. If a muggle sees a man running through the streets with a sword, the first thought is something along the lines of cosplay, prank, etc. If a muggle sees a man disappear into thin air, they're usually going to think it was a trick of the light, and most of them aren't going to *tell* anyone (and if they do, the person they tell isn't going to believe them). So conformity and biases do 90% of the work. Anti-muggle fields cover another 5%. Wizards don't often interact with muggle society anyway, so there's not that much to cover up. But when there *is* something to cover up, that's where the Ministry sends someone in to modify some memories.

>> **u/totorox92** [+6]  *Because I want to Know* (an hour later)
>> 
>> The explanation I am most familiar with, is that while a Trained wizard is immune to muggle violence, children are not. Consider a muggle born magical child in 14th century England. Accidental magic is viewed as consorting with demons, and the child is burned at the stake before they are old enough to get their Hogwarts letter. By convincing the muggles that magic does not exist, the accidental magic is written off as weird coincidences and largely ignored.

>>> **u/Jello_Raptor** [+1]  *The Last Tool User* (2 hours later)
>>> 
>>> That's a very anti blood-purist statement for the time period you're attributing it to.

>>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (21 hours later)
>>> 
>>> That actually would be fairly rare. Historically speaking, accidental magic might be viewed as demonic possession. But the solution was not death. It was an exorcism. (Which was done by the church, not local mobs.)
>>> 
>>> Most of the time, witch hunting was done by locals to attack those they suspected to be using black magic. (Everyone at the time practiced magical rituals, but black magic was the attempt to harm others and was therefore worthy of death.) There are some historians who think that this was done to target non-conforming members of the community. Others believe that it was used to settle grudges.

> **u/jgf1123** [+3]  (4 hours later)
> 
> Canon HP notes that witch burning was ineffective since the magic user would cast a flamefreezing charm then pretend to burn.  Secrecy is held in place largely through memory charms and faking explanations for things too big to cover up (for example, dragons eating wilderness hikers or Pettigrew blowing a dozen people by puncturing a gas pipe).
> 
> HPMoR gives plenty of reasons why a fully developed wizard should not be afraid of muggles as they should be of other wizards, namely the ability to apparate out of danger and Avada Kadavra if necessary.  However, muggles do have threats that should make wizards wary, such as sniper rifles and explosions, i.e. anything that does not allow the wizard time to react to the threat.
> 
> So a rational magical community would have probably been working on protection from firearms for the past 400 years.  I would imagine shields a la *Dune* stopping any projectiles at lethal speeds.  Fred and George made shield hats in book 6, so it's possible to enchant clothing and other wearable objects with some (semi-)permanent protective charm.
> 
> So I would say given mostly rational actors, it's really up to the wizards whether or not implement the statute of secrecy.  And if they do choose to create a masquerade, it's not for their own safety.  The reason Hagrid advances (in book 1) is that muggles would hassle wizards to help them, but that doesn't hold water as there are magical spells designed to distract muggles or hide wizards from interference.
> 
> I believe the reason JKR gives for the statute of secrecy is that the wizarding world didn't want wizards interfering with muggles, treating them as subhuman (subwizard?) or animals.  The backstory is that the Malfoys made their fortune pre-statute through mutually beneficial arrangements with royalty and nobles of the time.  Then after statute, they switched to advocating pureblood ideology (which is supposed to preserve their advantages of wealth and power for reasons I have forgotten), looking down at interactions with muggles or at most using them as an exploitable resource.

>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (21 hours later)
>> 
>> You have a point with your objection to Hagrid's reason. Your suggested reason though may make wizards a little too benevolent. They are supposed to be mostly rational, not saints. I suppose that the invention of most the various distraction charms could be done after the Statute of Secrecy so that the original reason was sound, but is not any longer.

>>> **u/jgf1123** [+1]  (22 hours later)
>>> 
>>> Hmmm, I just looked it up in various Harry Potter wikis.  It's not said in the books, but other material written by JKR says that the statute was implemented to protect wizards and not to protect muggles from wizards.

> **u/MugaSofer** [+3]  (5 hours later)
> 
> I think the canon HP explanation is that Muggles have nothing to *offer* wizards - well, they didn't; there are one or two bits of modern technology that are mildly interesting. On the other hand, wizards have a ton to offer Muggles; so they'd be constantly *trying* to trade, or take help by force, which is fairly annoying.
> 
> The analogy of the Third World comes to mind, I guess, or maybe vagrancy laws. People begging for help all the time, when we don't want to provide it, just *get in the way*.
> 
> (And, from a slightly altruistic perspective, the inexplicable inequality *was* messing up Muggle society.)

>> **u/DCarrier** [+1]  (7 hours later)
>> 
>> But we do trade with third world countries. We may be better than them at everything, but not by the same amount. So we sell the stuff we're much better at making and buy the stuff we're slightly better at making. You'd expect wizards to do the same.

>>> **u/ThatDamnSJW** [+2]  (13 hours later)
>>> 
>>> The thing is, wizards are *much* better at making things, and need a smaller amount of things.

>>>> **u/DCarrier** [+2]  (14 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> Needing a smaller amount of things is pointless unless they actually use a smaller amount of things. There were characters that were portrayed as wealthy, and characters that were portrayed as poor. This would be impossible in a post-scarcity society.
>>>> 
>>>> As for how much better at making things they are, that's completely irrelevant. [Comparative advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) is everything. How much bigger is the word economy than what you personally produce? Yet you trade with them constantly.
>>>> 
>>>> For a concrete example, there are 17 Sickles in a Galleon, but muggles currently value gold about 76 times as much as silver. You could make a lot of money by trading silver to wizards for gold and trading the gold to muggles back for silver.

>>>>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (21 hours later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is a really good answer. It is hard to deny that muggles could be used by wizards - for ideas if nothing else. Of course, this means that original statute cannot be based on a pure consideration of economics.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That particular example is probably not the best. Money often has a value unconnected with the value of the materials used to make it - even when it uses precious metals. It is likely that the money is both relatively difficult to melt or damage and it is illegal to melt it.

> **u/embrodski** [+3]  (a day later)
> 
> It seems that for most of human history, wizards did not maintain a separation or a masquerade. We have innumerable historical accounts of magicians, witches, holy men, etc doing magical things. It's only been in the past 100-200 years that these have disappeared. So the real question is: What Changed Recently?
> 
> An important clue: high-tech stuff doesn't work around wizards. Harry had to rely on a fancy mechanical watch. It seems like most things that involve electricity, and certainly anything that involves circuitry, just shuts down entirely. How much of our world nowadays depends on high-tech gadgets? People with pacemakers depend on them for life. Everyone I know carries around a supercomputer in their pocket. The entire modern economy would grind to a halt without modern computers. I recall hearing a tech expert at a convention relating how in the late 70s (early 80s?) he was arguing Moore's Law with someone and he said "That's all well and good, but what the hell would anyone do with computer chips that small and cheap? Put them in our door knobs?" He then pulled out the keycard to his hotel room and said "Turns out, we did just that."
> 
> Wizards may have removed themselves from society as technology got going as a *favor* to the muggles, so they could continue to progress and raise themselves higher. Perhaps even at the request of, or in cooperation with, the muggle authorities. Much like The Matrix, The Masquerade may be a fundamentally Friendly action.

>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (a day later)
>> 
>> Oddly enough, there is no particular explanation given for why electronics do not work in high magic areas. (Note that mere magic is not enough, high magic areas are required.) My speculation is that the problem with electronics is not a necessary consequence of high magic use, but an unintended consequence of the particular spells used in "high magic areas".

>>> **u/daydev** [+2]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Of course, there's no explanation, it's a typical [plot device](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicVersusScience), so the author can have fun with magic without those boringly practical unromantic technologies. Or in this particular case, cherry pick technologies that are deemed sufficiently romantic, such as b/w photography, radio (stations only, no effective peer-to-peer wireless communication, Merlin forbid), an "old-school" steam engine, newspapers.

>>>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with your analysis. But your response is speaking from the point of view of the author, and I was speaking from the work instead. (I also find authors that do this to be unimaginative. Any technology is "romantic" if placed in the right setting or used in the right way.)

>>>>> **u/chaosattractor** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well, you could see "magic" as a sort of wave/energy similar to nuclear energy, which interferes with/cancels out much of the electromagnetic spectrum. So yeah, the more delicate electronics and appliances would be left completely out of whack if introduced into a magical field. I mean, you don't even need energy on the scale of an atomic bomb/nuclear power plant (though in magical terms Hogwarts may actually generate that much) - strong AC magnetic fields are enough to completely wipe a hard drive, and a mere power surge can leave many devices unusable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In that context, those "cherry-picked" technologies make quite a lot of sense. Traditional steam locomotives have very few parts heavily reliant on a carefully-controlled stream of electrical energy, and so are safer for a train that runs between places with high concentrations of magic (and likely has several powerful spells placed on it, to escape Muggle notice). In addition, magic itself can substitute for those parts that would have to go. I think the same is true of Wizarding radio - it probably doesn't use radio waves but rather transmits information via some point on the magical energy spectrum (Harry and co. don't pick up any Muggle stations with the wizarding wireless set, and if their radio stations used the radio spectrum Muggle equipment would have picked them up at some point, what with satellites and all). 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I really don't see the problem with having newspapers (movable-type printing has been around since the eleventh century, and printing presses since the 15th - neither have anything to do with electronics). Black and white photography is similarly a non-issue, since visible light is more or less immune to everything else on the electromagnetic spectrum and passive magical fields have no demonstrated effect on vision. All photography really does is "trap" or record the reflected light from an object - something a dark box with a pinhole can do, so there's nothing particularly fancy about it. Given that the photographs and portraits literally move around and have personalities, I think it's safe to say that like their radios, magical cameras have very little to do with cameras as we know them anyway.

>>>>>> **u/daydev** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > In addition, magic itself can substitute for those parts that would have to go. I think the same is true of Wizarding radio - it probably doesn't use radio waves but rather transmits information via some point on the magical energy spectrum
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's the whole point. Magic can emulate or adapt electronics or other technologies, but only in those specific places where the author wants it. So you can have wizarding wireless stations, but no wizarding walkie talkies, for example (Sirius has that mirror, but it's treated as an unique artifact, and even it is shoved aside as to not interfere with the plot). And no wizarding bugging devices (if I remember correctly, this whole point about magic as EMP was brought up to remove electronic bugs from the consideration). Photography, newspapers? Sure, no electronics in those. Pens, pencils, paper? Nope, too boring (although the author treats parchment as if it was paper, I've read that parchment is supposed to be different, e.g. you can't easily tear or crumble it).

>>>>>>> **u/chaosattractor** [+3]  (a day later)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> See, the problem is that you're expecting magical versions of tech to be 1-to-1 the same as their Muggle counterparts. Technology doesn't develop in a vacuum; it develops according to need.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So yes, you can have wizarding wireless stations because much like our radio, it's a low-cost highly effective way of disseminating information to a large group at once. But why would walkie-talkies *specifically* be developed when Protean Charms and the like have existed for centuries? Also why do you think the mirror is treated as a unique artifact? Sirius most certainly didn't create it and Aberforth knew at once what it was. All this is leaving out the fact that our protagonist is in school and knows nothing about 95% of the wizarding world, and we only see what he sees.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And what do you mean, wizards don't have bugging devices? Did you miss the part where Voldemort was able to place a Taboo on his name throughout Britain, and Harry and co. could be located within seconds of saying it? Oh I see, you're expecting a physical device. Which brings me back to the point about technology and need - why would a society that can eavesdrop, track, etc with a wave of a wand develop bugging devices that can malfunction/be found/be destroyed? Never mind the fact that Rita Skeeter *was* bugging her, in a manner of speaking.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And ballpoint/fountain pens were developed because quills were just not efficient (for Muggles, that is). Again, why would a society that has voice-to-text and autocorrecting quills need to update to anything else? And for the record, there are many types of parchment. Paper parchment is, well, paper. It's made of wood pulp, just like regular paper. Even animal parchment will tear and crease and revert to just skin if you don't handle it properly (and I can't recall any instances of parchment not behaving like parchment in the books, do you have any specific instances?). Though magic would likely bypass said flaws, again eliminating the need to develop paper.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It's important to bear in mind that the wizarding world completely withdrew from the Muggle at the tail end of the seventeenth century, so you need to actively justify the presence of anything developed after that time. Take the pen/quill point for instance - quills were still in popular use well into the eighteenth and possibly early nineteenth centuries (the U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed with quills, for instance), so why would the pen as we know it have crossed over into a society that had even better quills than we did?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now Rowling necessarily thought of all of this in these terms when she sat down to write Philosopher's Stone. But it does fit into the narrative she created, so there *is* a possibility that she did. Beyond that, at the very least the books can be fitted around a more or less sound logical frame, technology-wise.

>>>>>>>> **u/daydev** [+1]  (a day later)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > Also why do you think the mirror is treated as a unique artifact? Sirius most certainly didn't create it and Aberforth knew at once what it was.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Because Sirus talks about it like it was a one-of thing the Marauders had, like the map? And because we don't see others like that? HPMOR addresses this, but we're talking about canon.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > And what do you mean, wizards don't have bugging devices? Did you miss the part where Voldemort was able to place a Taboo on his name throughout Britain, and Harry and co. could be located within seconds of saying it?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Okay, you have a point here, the Ministry seems to have a means of magical surveillance that would've made NSA proud. There's no mention of more targeted surveillance (except Harry's visions), but I suppose you can cover it with our heroes' ignorance. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> > And ballpoint/fountain pens were developed because quills were just not efficient (for Muggles, that is). Again, why would a society that has voice-to-text and autocorrecting quills need to update to anything else?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sure, they have enchanted quills that are better than ordinary pens, but students and professors mostly scribble with ordinary quills. Enchanted quills appear as rare novelties, and the first time it's treated in a malevolent light (Rita's "slander" quill). I would have no problem with this if at least self-inking enchantment was shown to be standard, than you can say that it's just an elaborate form-factor for a fountain pen, and it's okay. But as it's stands it's just stupidity for the sake of "atmosphere".  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Anyway, my point is this. Sure, you can cover absence of any specific technology with "we have a spell for that" with varying degrees of stretching. But why is that they "have a spell for that" for one thing, but mimic Muggle technology (at least on the surface) for another closely related thing? That's what I call cherry picking. You take tech that you like and put it into your story. Why not other tech? Oh, it's magic, it interferes with technology. Why not with this technology, then? Oh, it's magical analogs. Why not magical analogs for other things, then? Oh, they have spells for that.

> **u/chaosattractor** [+3]  (a day later)
> 
> Yes, there are historical reasons. 
> 
> One, not every witch or wizard attends Hogwarts even in the present day. So not everyone knows the spells and charms we take for granted in canon, even now. I imagine this would be even worse in a time with a high illiteracy rate; at least homeschooled magical folk today can buy the books and study them.
> 
> Two, not every witch or wizard is as powerful as the ones we're used to. Harry has almost prodigious levels of raw talent/power - he can cast a fully corporeal Patronus capable of driving off almost a hundred Dementors at thirteen. The staff at Hogwarts can be assumed to be at the very top of their field, with evidence - Snape was inventing spells and improving potions while still a teenager himself, McGonagall has performed some incredible transfigurations and is an Animagus, Dumbledore is Dumbledore, etc. Hermione studies everything within reach. And so on, and so forth - but there are weaker, stupider, less talented people around. Just look at Crabbe and Goyle. Or even Harry's constant struggle with Transfiguration.
> 
> Three, magical folk depend heavily on their wands and there has only recently been reform in wand production (by the current Ollivander). Prior to his strict adherence to dragon heartstring, phoenix feather and unicorn hair, people used whatever magical item they could come across. Those items made for weaker wands. Also, Ollivander is the one who went all anal-retentive on their asses about the wand choosing the wizard; even in the present day some families still pass on wands to children that may not be suited for them (see Ron getting Charlie's wand, for instance). Speaking of Ron, wands themselves are quite fragile. They're, well, sticks. And they can be snapped. As has been shown, a broken wand is potentially disastrous for its owner. The long and short of it is that witches and wizards have been walking around with weak, temperamental wands for centuries (it's also worth noting that wands aren't suited to every kind of spellwork).
> 
> Four, some magic is just not accessible to everyone. Not everyone can Apparate without splinching. Not everyone has the focus and intent to successfully cast an Unforgivable. Not everyone can master nonverbal and/or wandless magic, or even learn enough of it to be significantly useful in a fight. Speaking of fights, not everyone has the physical reflexes to duel successfully - some people just have slow reaction times. Et cetera.
> 
> In conclusion, while the characters we see in the books would likely be able to get themselves out of any Muggle-related scrape, there is a [significant] portion of the wizarding population that's still very vulnerable to Muggle attack. In fact, most characters in the books would be helpless (magically-wise) if they were by chance caught without their wands, and as a Muggle myself I daresay we're intelligent enough to figure out that we do *not* go for the magic guys when they have their super sticks in hand. Also there's the fact that betrayal does not always come in the hands of a raging lynch mob.
> 
> There is also the fact that wizarding society simply might not want to involve itself with Muggle politics, which would contribute to the sustenance of the masquerade. I mean, if they broke the International Statute of Secrecy now and came out like "Hi guys, we exist" they wouldn't run into serious persecution since we're mostly so chill about that sort of thing now. But holy cow would militaries everywhere bust a collective nut at the thought of that kind of power. They'd be forced to cooperate (and likely be dissected, experimented on and more or less treated like lab rats) or enter into a war they can't sustain. Never mind the inexorable shifting of the power balance: four hundred years ago magical folk might have been in the top class of society when it came to knowledge and effective influence, but man have those tables turned.

>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (a day later)
>> 
>> A minor point here. According to canon, almost everyone did attend Hogwarts. So although there were some homeschoolers, they were very rare. (I think Rowling did this to mirror the muggle situation in Britain.)
>> 
>> I think that your other points are worth noting though. You also provide a good reason for the magical world to remain secret.

>>> **u/chaosattractor** [+1]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Well I sort of based my thought on the decree Voldemort got passed in Deathly Hallows, making attendance compulsory for everyone that was eligible. Why would he bother passing that if only a few people didn't attend normally?
>>> 
>>> Also I was thinking more along the lines of Muggleborns - I mean, *I* wouldn't be in a hurry to send my kid off to a school I can't even see. Plus even among purebloods it's not really taken for granted that one would receive a Hogwarts letter - my memory is fuzzy but I think Neville was rather relieved when he got his.

>>>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (3 days later)
>>>> 
>>>> He probably did it because of the small size of the wizarding world in Britain. Assuming that about 300 people attend Hogwarts, the total population is between 3000-6000 depending on other factors. Just a few families would be enough to be a serious challenge to him.
>>>> 
>>>> Neville was relieved to show accidental magic. He was under the impression that he was a squib, and the accidental magic proved that he was not. Getting his letter proved to others that he was not a squib either.
>>>> 
>>>> As for muggleborns, we are never shown what happens when they refuse a Hogwarts letter. There are some fanfictions in which "magic is bound" but canonically speaking this is impossible. So there are three options: some other kind of school, memory erasure or being legally forced to attend Hogwarts.

>>>>> **u/chaosattractor** [+2]  (3 days later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, it's squibs I was thinking of. Squib seems to be a highly relative term, just like special needs children fall in a vast spectrum. Filch for instance seems capable of *some* magic to be able to see/work in Hogwarts. And apart from Nagini, the basilisk and maybe Fawkes, Mrs Norris is the only creature in the series I'd refer to as a *familiar*. But I doubt Filch got a letter...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Plus there are children like Ariana, whom I doubt would ever have gotten a Hogwarts letter though she clearly was capable of magic. Or even Lupin (and by extension the other kids Fenrir Greyback must have Turned, and possibly even Greyback himself) - it's heavily implied that Dumbledore accepting Lupin was an unprecedented thing. The risks of having a lycanthrope at a school can possibly be extended to kids with other highly contagious/transmittable magical diseases, and that's not counting the fact that some parents would prefer to keep a sickly child close rather than send them away for ten months of the year.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, so many parents keep threatening to pull their kids out of Hogwarts, and there's no indication the other schools would just randomly accept a influx of non-first year students. Even Molly threatens Ron with withdrawal at one point (though she *was* angry as all hell) and the Weasleys definitely can't afford to send a kid overseas for school. Plus there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. the return of the paranoid,. histrionic psychopath of doom) but several kids actually leave Hogwarts in the latter books when their parents/family are killed. There's also the famous and mysterious disappearance of Sally-Anne Perks. So it doesn't seem that attendance at Hogwarts is compulsory even after enrolling.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which brings us to Muggleborns and Voldemort's decree. I personally think he had it issued to make sure the Death Eaters could snap up *all* the young Muggleborns (Harry even reflects on the poor eleven-year-olds heading to torture and death instead of the magical education they were promised). But having the decree issued and presumably magically enforced is only logical if there are enough normally non-attending Muggleborns that it would be easier to gather them in one place than to pick them off in their homes at leisure. And the very fact that a decree had to be issued indicates that yes, canonically you [normally] can't force anyone to attend. Even memory erasure doesn't remove the Muggleborn's magic, which would presumably continue to act up like Harry's did until they met with a lynch mob, a fanatical sect, or, worst of all - the YouTube comment section.

>>>>>> **u/KZLightning** [+1]  (3 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Canonically, there is an innate power difference between various wizards - some wizards are stronger than others. But when it comes to squibs, it seems that there is not:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "...Incidentally, can Squibs see dementors?” he [Minister Fudge] added, looking left and right along the bench where he sat.
>>>>>> “Yes, we can!” said Mrs. Figg indignantly. (from Book 5, The Hearing)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From this piece of evidence, it seems that squibs are not the same as muggles. They are simply those who can see and hear magical things but are incapable of actually doing any magic. So there is no reason to expect that there are degrees of squibs. It would appear from the text elsewhere that there is a significant difference between the weakest wizard and a squib. (I admit that such seemings are not explicitly stated, but the issue itself is not directly addressed anyway.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ariana and werewolf children are good examples of kids with magic that do not attend Hogwarts. But I would expect that the number of such children in a population of 3000-6000 is quite low.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is possible, of course, that there are large populations of muggleborns that do not attend Hogwarts. But since wizardry is genetically inherited, that seems unlikely. I will admit that it is possible though.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your argument against compulsory schooling seems compelling. The point against memory erasure seems good as well. (Remember that Tom Riddle was able to control his "accidental" magic. So even if their memory were erased, they might be able to demonstrate it later and break the statute of secrecy.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The final possibility, that Hogwarts letters appear only to some, seems to have problems though. If I have actual accidental magic, but receive no Hogwarts letter, then why wouldn't I try to use the magic I have in the muggle world. If the statute is such a problem, then I would probably arrange to permanently break it. (That is completely truthful too, if I had magical powers and the locals refused to teach me, then I would break whatever prevented that.)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All of that said, I do not think that Hogwarts actually excludes anyone (canonically). Not only did Rowling say that they gave letters to all magicals within their territory, but the books imply that as well. The problems with muggleborn parents are both a separate issue and an unaddressed issue.

> **u/PeridexisErrant** [+7]  *put aside fear for courage, and death for life* (15 hours later)
> 
> >Consider the world of Harry Potter exactly as it is in the books. 
> 
> >Assume that 90% of people are rational 90% of the time.
> 
> Hmmm....

> **u/ancientcampus** [+1]  *juggling kittens* (22 hours later)
> 
> I think it is rational to be cautious of angry mobs, given human nature. Also, I think the human nature to form angry mobs is, on some level, adaptive for one's selfish gain, though usually not moral nor optimal.
> 
> Take a small village, populated by mostly rational, mostly selfish people. One of them has magic, and hence has more power than the rest. Given said magician is a selfish human, all the others have reason to fear him. Thus, the mob activity can often be "rational".

> **u/chaosmosis** [+0]  *and with strange aeons, even death may die* (a day later)
> 
> > Assume that the majority (90%) of muggles and wizards are rational most (90%) of the time.
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

---