BWF89:So if it wasn't for the forced income redistribution this group ...would not be able to operate
That's a good point. And if it were not for the threat of prosecution they probably wouldn't be so secretive and secluded. Then there might be more defections.
BWF89: I was listening to Free Talk Live and aparently the only way the people in that community are able to sustain their way of life is by applying for welfare. So if it wasn't for the forced income redistribution this group which nobody myself included seems to agree with their practices would not be able to operate.
I was listening to Free Talk Live and aparently the only way the people in that community are able to sustain their way of life is by applying for welfare. So if it wasn't for the forced income redistribution this group which nobody myself included seems to agree with their practices would not be able to operate.
Interesting. I had not heard that. That is definelty good to know.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
BWF89: I was listening to Free Talk Live and aparently the only way the people in that community are able to sustain their way of life is by applying for welfare.
I was listening to Free Talk Live and aparently the only way the people in that community are able to sustain their way of life is by applying for welfare.
CNN reported that the leaders of the FLDS church own companies that the Department of Defense has been hiring. The government has paid over $1.7M to these companies -- that would help sustain a group with a primitive lifestyle.
And being a ranch, they probably grow much of their own food. I heard a report that some of the children have been sick in state custody partly because of the change of diet - i.e., refined food (white bread ...). They had apparently been eating a diet of organic food -- much healthier than what the state is giving them.
I haven't heard of any confirmation that they are on welfare.
mr_anonymous:The state is now conducting coercive DNA test on everybody who was in the sect.
This is what makes this whole situation so abysmal. It is one thing to conduct an investigation of child abuse occuring in a single home (even if it is based on tenuous evidence), but hundreds of people being considered guilty until proven innocent based on the testimony of a non-witness is an instance of collectivism at its worst.
BTW ColumbusGA, until recently (last century or so) teen marriage was and had almost always been a virtually universal phenomenon; (and indeed, those who concern over the sexual mores of today's youth would do well to reintroduce it. Frankly the degree of hostility people have toward something their distant ancestors, whom they ironically might deride as puritanical, did is emblematic of how prudish moderns are).
I HATE PAPER
Mark B.:Most of these women literally had no concept at all of the world outside the cult's compound. Most of them were heavily brainwashed zombies.
Solomon: ...until recently (last century or so) teen marriage was and had almost always been a virtually universal phenomenon; (and indeed, those who concern over the sexual mores of today's youth would do well to reintroduce it. Frankly the degree of hostility people have toward something their distant ancestors, whom they ironically might deride as puritanical, did is emblematic of how prudish moderns are).
...until recently (last century or so) teen marriage was and had almost always been a virtually universal phenomenon; (and indeed, those who concern over the sexual mores of today's youth would do well to reintroduce it. Frankly the degree of hostility people have toward something their distant ancestors, whom they ironically might deride as puritanical, did is emblematic of how prudish moderns are).
Exactly. My wife's grandmother was married at age 15 (probably 60 years ago). They are still married, and she would never consider that she was raped (i.e., statutory rape). From the early part of the 20th Century and earlier, this was a common practice within our country -- and not that long ago.
To send the older partner to jail when both parties declare it was consentual is wrong (with the younger partner being an adolescent). I think that a 14, 15, 16 year old person should have responsibility for his/her actions -- we currently treat them as if they are unable to use their brain ("they are children, they can't consent - therefore it was rape").
Maybe it is not the best of morals but definitely should not be an excuse for government intervention, and depriving their liberties.
ColumbusGA: Exactly. My wife's grandmother was married at age 15 (probably 60 years ago). They are still married, and she would never consider that she was raped (i.e., statutory rape). From the early part of the 20th Century and earlier, this was a common practice within our country -- and not that long ago. To send the older partner to jail when both parties declare it was consentual is wrong (with the younger partner being an adolescent). I think that a 14, 15, 16 year old person should have responsibility for his/her actions -- we currently treat them as if they are unable to use their brain ("they are children, they can't consent - therefore it was rape"). Maybe it is not the best of morals but definitely should not be an excuse for government intervention, and depriving their liberties
Maybe it is not the best of morals but definitely should not be an excuse for government intervention, and depriving their liberties
Statatury rape laws are a joke. They always have been and they always will be. I agree, I believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, but it is not the government's job to impose their ethics on the population. I say all of this inferring that the sex was consentual obviously.
Consider this, if a 16 year old kills somebody in cold blood, they will mostly likely be tried as an adult, or if not, they will still face a very similar punishment (life in prison as it seems that the death penalty is not as popular as it once was) that an adult would. The state in this situation, would say that the 16 year old knew what he/she was doing and will have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her actions. However, if a 16 year old has consentual sex with, lets say, a 24 year old, the state will come rushing in claim that the 16 year old was a victim, and was not aware of what they were doing. The whole idea is blatantly hypocritical and utterly abusrd.
Juan:There seem to be some states where the age of consent is actually 16....
This is true. The age of consent varies from state to state, however, most states have it between 16 and 18. Also, many states with age of consent laws are discriminatory towards males.
I believe it's 14 in Canada... I seem to recall a story about guys getting busted (in the US) for setting up sex "tours" of Canada for this reason. Also, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is "infamous" for supporting rolling the age of consent back to age 12.
Personally that range sounds about right to me, and 18 is ludicrous. Teenagers are young adults, not old kids. Blame our society for inventing "adolescence" and creating soft, coddled, self-entitled idiots who vote for a bigger nanny-state. Most of these "kids" should be working, instead of forced into school, as well.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Mark B.: Unfortunately, this whole affair stinks on both sides.
Unfortunately, this whole affair stinks on both sides.
Exactly.
These people are secretive because they fear persecution. The state comes charging in (just like they feared the state would) and takes their children.
A complete validation of every fear they had.
The state asserts that telling someone it is their duty to marry is "rape". Well, the state asserts that children as young as 5 must be stripped from their parents by force every day for "school" because it's their duty.
Hypocrisy, thy name is government.
So how would this be handled in a completely free society? I think I see one answer:
1) Because of the lack of fear of coercive intrusion, the believers would not be so cloistered.
2) Because of less isolation, more information would flow both in and out. People might shake their heads, but without the anonymous hammer of state power to hide behind, even the most prudish and puritanistic would have no power to take action.
3) Because of the aversion to coercion that would permiate society as a whole, if any reports of coercion were heard, there would be an investigation (funded by prudes and puritans and even good people) and if no coercion were discovered then no action could be taken.
4) Because the believers would not be threatened by honesty, they would have every reason to cooperate. Any danger of coersion occurring would more likely be rooted out by the members themselves. As it stands now, they have every reason to hide any evidence of coercion that might or might not exist.
5) But what about the "children"? How can we balance our natural reacion to "protect the children" against the right of an individual to choose (even if we disagree with their being told it's their duty) to, for example, marry at 14?
5.5) Well, by their own beliefs 14 is an adult. So if someone is "forced" to marry that does not want to, they have no recourse but to allow them to refuse. By calling them "adults" so that they can marry, they release them from the tyranny we call a family.
Freedom is self-limiting. By claiming the freedom to act, one also accepts the responsibility for those actions.
==============
On this particular situation as it stands right now, I'm repelled far more by the state's action than by the believers. The believers were harming no one, and had their children taken from them at gun point. It doesn't matter how much I disagree with their beliefs, if I as a regular person couldn't walk in and take their children at gun point, how can anyone rationalize the state doing it?
The fact that it's very likely the original call was a fraud only punctuates the insanity: Did the judge instantly give the children back, release everyone, and have the cops investigated for violating the 4th Amendment?
No, the state moves on with its destruction even without any evidence of harm.
i believe the goverment should leave the polygmist churches alone ..Our country is about freedom !!!!
CurtHowland: So how would this be handled in a completely free society? I think I see one answer: 1) Because of the lack of fear of coercive intrusion, the believers would not be so cloistered. 2) Because of less isolation, more information would flow both in and out. People might shake their heads, but without the anonymous hammer of state power to hide behind, even the most prudish and puritanistic would have no power to take action. 3) Because of the aversion to coercion that would permiate society as a whole, if any reports of coercion were heard, there would be an investigation (funded by prudes and puritans and even good people) and if no coercion were discovered then no action could be taken. 4) Because the believers would not be threatened by honesty, they would have every reason to cooperate. Any danger of coersion occurring would more likely be rooted out by the members themselves. As it stands now, they have every reason to hide any evidence of coercion that might or might not exist. 5) But what about the "children"? How can we balance our natural reacion to "protect the children" against the right of an individual to choose (even if we disagree with their being told it's their duty) to, for example, marry at 14? 5.5) Well, by their own beliefs 14 is an adult. So if someone is "forced" to marry that does not want to, they have no recourse but to allow them to refuse. By calling them "adults" so that they can marry, they release them from the tyranny we call a family. Freedom is self-limiting. By claiming the freedom to act, one also accepts the responsibility for those actions.
This is a very good post. In practice, polygamous societies are extremely dysfunctional. The young men leave and the old men just get older and the young brides get more restless. It is the ultimate irony in this case that without DoD contracts and welfare, this FLDS sect would probably have disbanded in a couple of generations.
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
Juan:There's no reason why polygamy can't exist as a contractual arrangement in which all expenses are 'privately' payed for.