A Little Hasty?
In the interest of keeping my own self accountable and honest, I was compelled to revisit the Texas Polygamy case and my quick-draw post on the matter prior to taking in anything but the initial report.
Billy points to three posts by Wendy McElroy here, here, and here. It’s the latter of those three he’s referencing. I think she’s dead on about the women from the perspective of 3rd party intervention. There’s no plausible way they couldn’t leave or explicitly call for help if they wanted.
Having read over what I posted, I still think my general point is valid, which is that rational men, unbound by "The People" fallacy, might have taken care of that mess long ago. Of course, they would have been totally accountable for whatever actions they took, and had they found it necessary to dispatch the rapists and those giving aid and comfort to the rapists (the adult wives), then they would have also been responsible for the well being of all the children as far into the future as it takes. Not saying that’s what should have happened at all; just what if.
Ghastly? Perhaps, but the prospect strikes me as less arbitrary and less risky than the current situation. In the former, you have people sincerely acting upon conviction and principle to protect innocent people they have strong reason to believe are being abused against their will, and/or have been fraudulently denied a normal human will. In the latter, you have state and law enforcement authorities primarily out for headlines, camera face time whilst all dressed G.I. Joe, promotion files, commendations, and so on and so forth. Add to that, as Waco and Ruby Ridge proved: there’s no real accountability for their actions when they become the predators.
I believe there are young girls there, lots of them, who though perhaps not being physically forced into sex with far older men (beyond the natural force that partly defines the act), are nonetheless indoctrinated into believing they have no choice. In my book, that’s just a rape packaged in a fraud, both of which a rational libertarian ought to condemn. The reason these people put themselves and children into compounds is in part to grease the wheels of indoctrination, such that children literally have no concrete concepts of what is right and wrong stemming from their own perceptual integration. What does that mean? That means that if you, as a parent, shield your children from what the real stakes are in the real world so that they may grow to understand and act rationally within it, then you are neglecting your children. And if you then use their ignorance to take an advantage you otherwise would not be able to take, then you are being abusive.
So I find myself in an odd attitude about it. I loath the state. I loath those people. I think it’s anyone’s business to reasonably assure that defenseless kids aren’t being sexually abused when there’s a very bright suspicion they are.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
11 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
400 kids going into some kind of foster care. Wanna take a guess on how many of them will be *really* abused or worse, and compare the number and severity of that to what they experienced in the compound?
I can't guess either, but there's a lot of reason to believe many, if not most, of their lives, while previously not anything we would call a 'good life', will now be destroyed, by any rational standard.
"400 kids going into some kind of foster care. Wanna take a guess on how many of them will be *really* abused or worse, and compare the number and severity of that to what they experienced in the compound?"
Yep, and that's what makes it shitty all around. It's one more reason why private prosecution with full accountability all down the chain of responsibility is the only moral way.
I harbor no illusions: the state, and most of the people running that operation likely have little genuine concern for the well-being of those kids.
Yep, you're right, Doug.
Far more serious nit picking going on at the comments on my other post.
Rich,
A minor nit to pick:
> In my book, that's just a rape packaged
> in a fraud, both of which a rational
> libertarian ought to condemn.
That should read: "both of which a rational *person* ought to condemn."
Thanks for all of the food for thought!
— DW
"You could say the same thing about voters, that they're indoctrinated into believing they have no choice, but aren't voters still responsible for their actions?"
I don't follow. In the latter case, we're talking about — or I am, anyway — young girls prevented from being exposed to the full human experience, where their absolute right to not to consent to sexual relations with far older authority figures is absolute. In fact, they are indoctrinated in such a way as to long for it, much as young Muslim girls in some parts of the world are twisted into wanting their genitals mutilated. In the latter, we're talking about young adults doing something that while ethically questionable, certainly doesn't rise to the level of systematic indoctrination of a single individual to deprive them of of of a human being's most fundamental and private rights.
Look: I don't mind the relations between older men and girls weeks past puberty nearly so much as I mind the fact that the girls are raised in compounds expressly for the purpose of shielding them from knowledge of a different set of opportunities and options they ought to have a right to choose instead. I think it's difficult to achieve real fully informed consent with a 13 year old. Maybe a 15 year old. If they can truly achieve such consent in an objective and rational manner, my problems melt completely away. They can be as kooky as they all want.
The 24 year old? Tougher, because at some point a person truly does have to take responsibility and circumstances of upbringing melt away. Still, as sheltered as they are, with no TV, radio, newspapers, access to internet, or contact with outsiders, one could at least argue that you're dealing with a 24 year old in physical age only. Still, not an easy call.
"The reason these people put themselves and children into compounds is…"
…to avoid arrest and imprisonment by the state?
Yes. Because they are a religious organizations with so-called constitutional protections giving them special privileges individuals and companies do not enjoy.
None of them claims to have been raped.
I'm shocked.
Do keep in mind that I'm counting a fraud by someone in authority that induces a young girl to have sexual relations as a rape. It's the same reason that a "breach of contract" is really theft, when fraud has been involved.
Are you saying you think it's okay to take people's children from them on the basis of your "bright suspicion"?
I'm saying that morally, any person who undertook such a thing better have a really strong suspicion based on evidence, approach the situation carefully, and be fully prepared to suffer all consequences if wrong. See my link to Kyle's piece in para three of the post. That lays it out perfectly.
They can go to jail for plural marriage, which is illegal for no moral reason. They can have their children taken from them for plural marriage. That's why they retreat into private communities.
True too. And I agree that neither of those are alone valid reasons for removing children.
The answers to your other comment would be implied in the answer to much the same question over on the other comment thread.
"I believe there are young girls there, lots of them, who though perhaps not being physically forced into sex with far older men (beyond the natural force that partly defines the act), are nonetheless indoctrinated into believing they have no choice."
You could say the same thing about voters, that they're indoctrinated into believing they have no choice, but aren't voters still responsible for their actions?
Consider a 24 year old FLDS woman. Is any sex she has to be considered rape because she's "indoctrinated"?
It's only rape if the women are forced or if they are incompetent to consent. Do you have any evidence that any woman in this case was forced or is incompetent?
"The reason these people put themselves and children into compounds is…"
…to avoid arrest and imprisonment by the state?
They found five pregnant women in that compound under the age of 18. I don't know that any of them were raped in any real sense and neither do you. None of them claims to have been raped.
"I think it's anyone's business to reasonably assure that defenseless kids aren't being sexually abused when there's a very bright suspicion they are."
Are you saying you think it's okay to take people's children from them on the basis of your "bright suspicion"? If not, just how would you assure yourself that children are safe from their parents?
"Yes. Because they are a religious organizations with so-called constitutional protections giving them special privileges individuals and companies do not enjoy."
They can go to jail for plural marriage, which is illegal for no moral reason. They can have their children taken from them for plural marriage. That's why they retreat into private communities.
"I think it's difficult to achieve real fully informed consent with a 13 year old."
Difficult implies possible, so you'd really have to observe the individual in question, wouldn't you?
And there may well be 40 year old women in the sect who are not "fully informed" in the sense you'd like. Are they being raped?
Must not the same standard apply to the 13 year old and the 40 year old?