Simplest; The goblins, and wizard society just do not approve of outright theft, even from muggles, and there are magics that will reliably mark stolen goods.
That is the first suggestion that would actually work. It’s just that I can’t believe that the average wizard thinks of muggles as persons (or humans) that can be stolen from. It’s less plausible than that they would care about the stability of the economy.
Besides, what magic can create, magic can destroy. People would invest serious effort in developing magic that would erase the “magical signature” of stolen gold if it would help them become billionaires.
More amusingly: I am not at all sure competent wizards have much need to care about coin at all.
The reason bribing people with money works in the first place, is that most people don’t have as much money as they would like. If wizards didn’t really need money, as you suggest, then they wouldn’t care about it and couldn’t be bribed.
Since money translates into power over others, Lucius too would always want more money.
It’s just that I can’t believe that the average wizard thinks of muggles as persons (or humans) that can be stolen from.
I don’t know. They have a fairly insular view of the world, but putting them on a par with animals seems to be a fringe notion, albeit one popular with those in power (ie purebloods.)
The reason bribing people with money works in the first place, is that most people don’t have as much money as they would like. If wizards didn’t really need money, as you suggest, then they wouldn’t care about it and couldn’t be bribed.
Magical goods can be sold for money, and therefore are. You want a new broomstick? Pay up, bucko.
(Also, food is hard to create magically, according to canon, although God only knows how that works.)
“Right? You’re Muggles,” said the boy. He smiled twistedly. “You have as much standing in the magical British legal system as mice. No wizard is going to care about any arguments you make about rights, about fairness, they won’t even take the time to listen. You don’t have any power, see, so they don’t have to bother.”
Admittedly he was overstating it to make a point, but it’s still mostly true.
Perhaps wizards are superstitious and believe that stolen gold is cursed (or perhaps it actually is.) It’s a bit of a ridiculous explanation, but it’s not implausible that wizards would be easily susceptible to superstition or weird curses. And there are plenty of benefits of either spreading the rumor or creating actual curses, since they don’t like theft either. That it benefits muggles is just an accident, not their intention.
Are there notable instances of wizards stealing gold (or other precious objects) from other wizards and/or muggles? If there are, are any of them every cursed due to the inherent act of theft?
Nothing for gold that I recall, but Mundungus Fletcher stole a bunch of heirloom silverware and other such valuable things from Grimmauld place after Sirius died, and possibly even while he was alive, and didn’t seem to be particularly cursed, just throttled by Harry for disrespect to Sirius’s memory.
On the other hand with Sirius’s attitude towards his relatives he could easily have made a statement declaring his disinterest in his heritage that intentionally or unintentionally revoked his ownership over such items.
Fletcher is portrayed as a sketchy thief/fence pretty much from book 1, IIRC. It’s hard to imagine that so many people could have intentionally or not abandoned their magical ownership as to make such a career feasible.
He refers to cauldrons that “fell off the back of a broomstick”. Perhaps he meant it literally?
But no, he tells an amusing story about stealing toads from a fellow thief and selling them back to him. It’s clear that their relationship is built on selling each other things they “nicked”.
That is the first suggestion that would actually work. It’s just that I can’t believe that the average wizard thinks of muggles as persons (or humans) that can be stolen from. It’s less plausible than that they would care about the stability of the economy.
Besides, what magic can create, magic can destroy. People would invest serious effort in developing magic that would erase the “magical signature” of stolen gold if it would help them become billionaires.
The reason bribing people with money works in the first place, is that most people don’t have as much money as they would like. If wizards didn’t really need money, as you suggest, then they wouldn’t care about it and couldn’t be bribed.
Since money translates into power over others, Lucius too would always want more money.
I don’t know. They have a fairly insular view of the world, but putting them on a par with animals seems to be a fringe notion, albeit one popular with those in power (ie purebloods.)
Magical goods can be sold for money, and therefore are. You want a new broomstick? Pay up, bucko.
(Also, food is hard to create magically, according to canon, although God only knows how that works.)
Admittedly he was overstating it to make a point, but it’s still mostly true.
Perhaps wizards are superstitious and believe that stolen gold is cursed (or perhaps it actually is.) It’s a bit of a ridiculous explanation, but it’s not implausible that wizards would be easily susceptible to superstition or weird curses. And there are plenty of benefits of either spreading the rumor or creating actual curses, since they don’t like theft either. That it benefits muggles is just an accident, not their intention.
Are there notable instances of wizards stealing gold (or other precious objects) from other wizards and/or muggles? If there are, are any of them every cursed due to the inherent act of theft?
Nothing for gold that I recall, but Mundungus Fletcher stole a bunch of heirloom silverware and other such valuable things from Grimmauld place after Sirius died, and possibly even while he was alive, and didn’t seem to be particularly cursed, just throttled by Harry for disrespect to Sirius’s memory.
On the other hand with Sirius’s attitude towards his relatives he could easily have made a statement declaring his disinterest in his heritage that intentionally or unintentionally revoked his ownership over such items.
Fletcher is portrayed as a sketchy thief/fence pretty much from book 1, IIRC. It’s hard to imagine that so many people could have intentionally or not abandoned their magical ownership as to make such a career feasible.
He refers to cauldrons that “fell off the back of a broomstick”. Perhaps he meant it literally?
But no, he tells an amusing story about stealing toads from a fellow thief and selling them back to him. It’s clear that their relationship is built on selling each other things they “nicked”.
You mean, aside from Bacon’s diary?