Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Down on the Compound

Re: Down on the Compound

Nurse Staff — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:34:13 -0000

I'm with several of the other commenters in that my problem is so much with state intervention in such a situation per se, as opposed to the particular form it took in this case. If things at the compound really were bad enough that such drastic measures were warranted, then perhaps they never should have been allowed to get to such a point in the first place. Once they did, though, the state had no right to break up these families; I have little doubt that the government's meddling - e.g., putting these brainwashed/sheltered/etc. kids in public schools, not to mention foster care - will do far more harm than good.

Re: Down on the Compound

Robert Rounthwaite — Sat, 03 May 2008 12:28:34 -0000

I think people are overlooking a key point. To the extent that the freedoms of the people in the FLDS compound were being abridged, what we had was not the exercise of liberty but the establishment of a tiny tyrannical state. It's not clear to me that this was not what was in effect. The question of how much freedom those within the compound had is the one to address.

Re: Down on the Compound

Christopher Morris — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:41:16 -0000

Polygamy illegal? How is that possible?? It can't be illegal to do something you can't do. For instance, outside of a few places, it's not possible for gays to marry (one another); the law gives them no legal power to do so. So what would it mean to make it illegal for them to marry? Same with polygamy. If one has the legal power to marry someone of the opposite sex as long as one is not already married, legal polygamy is not possible.

Now there could be laws against co-habiting with more than one person, and there are laws prohibiting sex with minors. Liberals and libertarians most likely don't object to the latter, but they surely object to the former.

What is the libertarian position on polygamy? Now that I think of it, it's not clear if there's a libertarian position on marriage of any kind. Why should states be giving people powers to make bonds of this kind?

CM

Re: Down on the Compound

Jason Malloy — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:08:07 -0000

"...and tell her about how I am God, and she must never leave the basement because the world is evil and only I can protect her...
The correct answer: An elaborate form of rape."

Is the basement door locked? Is there a reasonably implied threat of violence - by the father himself - if she chooses to leave the basement or doesn't meet sexual requests. The answer to all of these questions is almost certainly 'yes', in any realistic scenario, which is why it is, of course, rape in my opinion.

Importantly, though, it is not rape for the reason you are apparently implying it is rape: information asymmetry impairing so-called "free will". This is why, e.g. we distinguish sex obtained through implied threat of harm as rape from sex obtained through false pretenses (e.g. saying you're a rock star), a common form of using information asymmetry to obtain sex.

Also contra Will's implication, judges and juries aren't generally sympathetic to claims of "brain-washing", which isn't really a scientific idea. E.g. Patti Hearst, Steve Fishman...

So to turn Will's scenario on him, what if this same hypothetical man asked this basement daughter of his to fly to Indonesia with these tickets and this money and stab a drug-dealer to death for her Daddy God. Would this be a murder she is fully accountable for: yes.

And if this man instead asked her to meet him in Indonesia with these tickets and this money and have sex with her Daddy God there would it then be rape? No, for the same reasons.

Re: Down on the Compound

TGGP — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:28:58 -0000

I don’t see the difference between these two
I really enjoyed "The Ancestor's Tale", but after reading that I understood why Vox Day loves to mock Dawkins. Gerin Oil is not a chemical. If it was, and it had the effects that Dawkins attributed to it (including Spanish colonialism!) it would be quite different from Rohypnol, which induces passivity.

The whole point of brainwashing is to make the brainwashed person feel as if they’re making a commitment out of their own “free will,”
There is no free-will. It's an untenable idea.

and not because they’ve been brainwashed.
We are all the products of our circumstances and there is no essence-of-you that we can compare to the you shaped by your past. How will you avoid agency being denied to you as well as those in the FLDS?

So we can’t take lack of objection as evidence that they’re fine with their situation, and would stay if they had a legitimate option to leave.
What makes an option "legitimate"?

Re: Down on the Compound

Steve Horwitz — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:06:30 -0000

As many have noted, the danger with giving the state the power to intervene in families is a very real one. Like all other pieces of state power, one can muster arguments for them IF the state actors just do what you think they should do. The problem, of course, is that once they have the power it gets abused, which is why so many libertarians are distrustful of arguments where people only point to the good things states do. K. Larson got it just right above:

"Admittedly, this brightline seems impossible in practice- the potential for abuse by State bureaucracy is too high. It may be that a bit of child abuse now and then is the price of admission into a free society in the same way that the occasional KKK rally is the price of admission for Free Speech. This is sad, but considerably better than the alternatives."

To prove the point, folks might check out this story from the Detroit Free Press. A guy mistakenly gave his 7 year old son Mike's Hard Lemonade at a Tigers game (he doesn't watch TV and assumed it was regular lemonade). A security guard sees the kid drinking it and next thing you know the kid is in foster care for a couple of days until dad, who is a prof at Michigan, got a law school colleague to help him cut the red tape and get his kid back.

Whatever might be the real problems at FLDS, giving the state the power to intervene in families is like giving matches to, uh, children. The odds of it being used only wisely are very small.

Re: Down on the Compound

John — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:54:49 -0000

I'm with several of the other commenters in that my problem is so much with state intervention in such a situation per se, as opposed to the particular form it took in this case. If things at the compound really were bad enough that such drastic measures were warranted, then perhaps they never should have been allowed to get to such a point in the first place. Once they did, though, the state had no right to break up these families; I have little doubt that the government's meddling - e.g., putting these brainwashed/sheltered/etc. kids in public schools, not to mention foster care - will do far more harm than good.

Re: Down on the Compound

peco — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:28:57 -0000

Greg:

How about explicitly asking them whether they want to stay? If they say they want to, they want to. Informed consent doesn't matter here either. Uninformed consent is a bit like brainwashing someone someone--most people would object to being inadequately informed if asked, but small children don't. This is fine, as long as would not object to whatever happens to them later right before it happens. ("I was brainwashed and now I object to it" doesn't count)

Re: Down on the Compound

Greg N. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:54:40 -0000

Peco,

The whole point of brainwashing is to make the brainwashed person feel as if they're making a commitment out of their own "free will," and not because they've been brainwashed. So we can't take lack of objection as evidence that they're fine with their situation, and would stay if they had a legitimate option to leave.

Re: Down on the Compound

Greg N. — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:49:20 -0000

TGGP,

Sorry, I meant Geriniol (or Gerin Oil) and Rohypnol. They're both mind-altering drugs.

Rohypnol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohypnol

Geriniol: http://www.anst.uu.se/dla05000/Gerin%20Oil.html

I don't see the difference between these two.

Re: Down on the Compound

TGGP — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:53:21 -0000

Greg N., I would consider the use of date-rape drugs to obtain sex to be rape. I don't know what Gerinol and Rohypnol are.

So if a teen is, say, nutritionally stunted, illiterate, and incapable performing rudimentary tasks
I don't know what would qualify as "rudimentary tasks", but your description seems like it could fit most of humanity throughout most of history.

If any of those teen brides had lived with “not weird” folks for a year and then come back, that would be evidence of meaningful consent.
Do not-weird folks then need to spend a year with the weird?

Having had an education that created the possibility for contextualizing and evaluating the decision, that would be evidence consent was meaningful.
Most of humanity for most of history would have found our concept of "education" to be foreign. The dividing line between "education" and "brainwashing" if we are willing to accept the concept also seems vague.

Why are you interested in making the obvious intelligibility of the idea of meaningful or informed consent less than obvious?
I say it is not obvious. Here I stand, I can do no other :) I seek an objective standard that would not allow people in the FLDS or the like to deny my agency based on more than "I'm right and they're wrong", which is a basis that could of course be turned around on me.

It’s laughable to assert that one can’t make normative judgments about human conditions (rape/violence/deprivation=bad) and it should therefore be easy to develop SOME objective, working definition of moral capacity.
I deny just that. I am an emotivist or non-cognitivist, and Will in his diavlog suspects he may be as well. You cannot derive ought from is, nor can we observe moral facts, so I claim there are no normative truths, only subjective opinions. I do have a negative opinion of those things you listed, but I consider them to merely be opinions.

If human conditions (being raped or enslaved) can possess normative values, then clearly any prior condition that prevents one from making cost-benefit decisions about those states is one that we can label “impaired”.
This boils down to "I'm right, they're wrong, if being raised that way leads them to believe it such an upbringing is wrong". The problem of course is that you had an upbringing with your beliefs as a result which is just as vulnerable to that criticism from a contrary perspective.

Teaching my daughter that her ‘place is in the kitchen’ differs from locking her in the basement in that in the prior case my daughter is exposed to multiple sources of information (media etc) regarding her ‘place’
And if this is a backward country where the media perpetuates sexism and gender stereotypes?

Re: Down on the Compound

K. Larson — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:22:08 -0000

It seems to me that niggling over the meaning of "informed consent" and "moral capacities" is a bit obtuse. It's laughable to assert that one can't make normative judgments about human conditions (rape/violence/deprivation=bad) and it should therefore be easy to develop SOME objective, working definition of moral capacity.

If human conditions (being raped or enslaved) can possess normative values, then clearly any prior condition that prevents one from making cost-benefit decisions about those states is one that we can label "impaired". The question seems to be "where does influence transition into abuse?" rather than "can we distinguish abuse and influence at all?"

Teaching my daughter that her 'place is in the kitchen' differs from locking her in the basement in that in the prior case my daughter is exposed to multiple sources of information (media etc) regarding her 'place'. The clearest possible brightline (that I can think of) would be to insist that children not experience a monopolized flow of information.

Admittedly, this brightline seems impossible in practice- the potential for abuse by State bureaucracy is too high. It may be that a bit of child abuse now and then is the price of admission into a free society in the same way that the occasional KKK rally is the price of admission for Free Speech. This is sad, but considerably better than the alternatives.

Re: Down on the Compound

peco — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:42:22 -0000

Greg:

Most people would object to being drugged if they were asked, so it would be ethically questionable to drug them. 1-year olds would not object to being brainwashed, and they never object to the brainwashing/"abuse" at any point.

Will:

Who decides whether the education is valid ("it's all true" is fine, but not all education is factual)?

Re: Down on the Compound

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:52:47 -0000

TGGP,

The correct answer: An elaborate form of rape.

So if a teen is, say, nutritionally stunted, illiterate, and incapable performing rudimentary tasks, is that just a different way of developing capacities, or a way of not developing capacities?

You cannot prevent someone from denying something. But you can show that they are wrong to deny it by saying something intelligible about the conditions for meaningful consent and showing that they are met. I don't even think it takes that much. If any of those teen brides had lived with "not weird" folks for a year and then come back, that would be evidence of meaningful consent. Having had an education that created the possibility for contextualizing and evaluating the decision, that would be evidence consent was meaningful. Etc. Why are you interested in making the obvious intelligibility of the idea of meaningful or informed consent less than obvious?

Re: Down on the Compound

Greg N. — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:49:08 -0000

TGGP:

What if you drugged her first? Would it still be consent? If not, what's the distinction between one shot of Rohypnol and an extremely high, potent dose of Gerinol, distributed regularly for 18 years?

Re: Down on the Compound

TGGP — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:32:40 -0000

Is that informed consent? Or a very elaborate form of rape?
If she gives consent it's not rape. What makes consent "informed" seems an irresolvable question to me.

But I’m interested in the idea that kids have a right to develop their moral capacities
They are developing their capacities in a manner you do not approve of, as I'm sure they would not approve of how we develop ours.

meaningful consent
What is necessary to make consent meaningful? How would you prevent someone from denying that your consent is meaningful? The fact you aren't weird by the standards of most people?

Re: Down on the Compound

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:44:55 -0000

Matt, Fair enough. But parroting Kerry is in fact a reliable epistemic strategy, because she is never wrong, which is easily verifiable through intuition.

Reading Friedman, I don't actually find see any substantive defense of this FLDS community's practice other than his pointing out that other religions also involve distributing teen girls to older men. So the point is: that aspect of those religions ought to be illegal too? OK!

He's probably right that the case is bunk, legally, that the state is making some stuff up, etc. But I'm interested in the idea that kids have a right to develop their moral capacities, are denied them in these kinds of conditions, and so they really are not giving meaningful consent to participate in this way of life. It's bad for all of them, but girls in particular are turned into baby-making machines without their ever becoming able to seriously considering an alternative life.

Re: Down on the Compound

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:08:17 -0000

TGGP, Don't call it brainwashing if you don't want. Thought experiment: Suppose I find an infant girl one day on my doorstep. I raise her in total social isolation in my basement where I feed her well, teach her to read, etc., and tell her about how I am God, and she must never leave the basement because the world is evil and only I can protect her. When she reaches the legal age of consent, I tell her she must let me have sex with her. She says OK. Is that informed consent? Or a very elaborate form of rape?

Re: Down on the Compound

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:03:43 -0000

Steve, Good point. I think the state plays a perverse double role in this. First, the state bans polygamy, pushing it into the margins of society, isolating the children in insular enclaves, largely gutting their ability to eventually exercise their right to exit. Next, the state SUBSIDIZES THE WHOLE THING with welfare checks! Then, the state notices the kids are mistreated and takes them away. I suspect the state wouldn't need to step in if it hadn't done so much to facilitate the existence of this community.

Re: Down on the Compound

steve burton — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:54:38 -0000

Would the FLDS even be possible without AFDC?

Why aren't libertarians more interested in the role of the welfare state in enabling polygyny - and not only in this case?

Re: Down on the Compound

TGGP — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:27:07 -0000

I'm skeptical of whether "brainwashing" is a meaningful concept.

In the state of Texas, children may marry as young as 16 (it was 14 not too long ago) if their parents give permission and once married statutory rape laws do not apply. I suppose that's only relevant to a legal argument, which we may consider irrelevant.

One thing I find strange is how many people upset by the FLDS are also pro-choice, while a number more sympathetic to them are pro-life. I am radically pro-choice, and my positions on both issues mesh.

Re: Down on the Compound

GilM — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:07:15 -0000

I won't wade on the specifics of this case, but I have to add that I've seen plenty of discussions where "libertarians" consider children to be the property of their parents rather than rights-bearing people who deserve protection from coercion (including from their parents).

If they're being abused (with a reasonable standard of abuse) they should be protected.

But, there should also be compensation for the victims and punishment of the perpetrators of unwarranted, excessive, police actions.

I suspect that this action was excessive. But, some aren't.

Re: Down on the Compound

greenish — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:56:57 -0000

I don't see this is a philosophical challenge to the anarchy-inclined. If you think the compound's behavior rises to the level of child-abuse, then you should think it is morally justifiable for anyone to use force to free the children, if they do it with care.

The interesting challenge is all practical: given the existence of places like this, how should we fight them? Even when violence is morally justifiable, it is often not prudent or effective.

Re: Down on the Compound

Christopher Monnier — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:09:27 -0000

For me the heart of the issue is what Ken is getting at. Children were taken away from their parents without due process simply because some in the "community" were suspected to have committed child abuse. Granted, this is a very self-selected community, but even assuming that child abuse did occur at the compound, it seems immoral (and unconstitutional) to take ALL of the kids from ALL of the parents based on the suspected wrongdoing of SOME of the parents. What's the difference between this and arresting ALL the residents of an inner-city ghetto because SOME of the residents are selling and/or using drugs?

Re: Down on the Compound

Matt McIntosh — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:35:47 -0000

What Ken said.

Of course Will is going to just parrot whatever Kerry says on this one, for obvious reasons.

See what I did there? It was rude, blatant, unwarranted ad hominem and completely failed to address your substantive and respectable argument. So why is it okay for you to dismiss DDF just as glibly?