Another response to Libertarianism = Anarchy:
Another response to Libertarianism = Anarchy:
Wife-beaters, polygamists, and libertarians
An old acquaintance believes the United States should divide itself into small territories for every religious, racial, political, and philosophical group that wants to live according to its beliefs and practices. Sons of the Confederacy would get part of the South, polygamists would get Utah, etc. Basically, anyone who wants to live a divergent lifestyle would get space to set up its own government and society and run it as it pleased. (Yes, he's serious.)
In the following exchange, he suggests giving libertarians their own area too.
>> They should be given a territory in the US where they can practice and develop their own ideal form of society. <<
They can leave the country and develop their society elsewhere. We're under no obligation to cater to wife-beaters or polygamists or libertarians. That's a position I've also advocated since before you met me.
>> And they COULD make it work <<
No, a libertarian system is fundamentally flawed. Take Economics 101 and learn about public goods.
The debate continues....
>> You are SO damned narrow! <<
Since you haven't proved you have a clue what my positions are on any issue, this comment is worthless. Being called narrow by you is like being called rigid by a bowl of spaghetti.
>> That is no way to build the broad coalition we need if we are to change the world. <<
The "coalition" will build itself through myriad channels. Fueling it will be information such as that found in my comics and website. It won't happen through anything you're doing.
>> If we're "under no obligation to cater to . . . polygamists or libertarians" then maybe you think we're not obligated to cater to African-Americans, Jews, gays, or the disabled, for example. <<
The only legal obligation we're under is to give everyone their constitutional rights. We're arguably under a moral obligation to help those in need, which doesn't include wife-beaters, polygamists, or libertarians. They can go elsewhere to meet their needs.
>> You can't lump wife-beaters in with these other groups because their actions harm others while polygamists, et al, don't. <<
Polygamists harm others by taking advantage of immature girls. As the Tom Greene case in Utah demonstrates, they also harm society by illegally sponging off welfare to support their extended families. Libertarians harm others by innumerable social and economic gambits to enrich themselves at our expense. See the headlines of any newspaper in the country for examples. We don't need to cater to either of them.
>> Our obligation is to try to build the kind of world in which all decent people can find happiness. <<
Neither polygamists or libertarians are decent, since they harm other people.
>> You dope, there are many libertarians who know a lot more economics than you do. <<
Not that I've seen. They must be in hiding somewhere. I'll concede they know more than you do, though, since they know our capitalist system won't collapse.
Of course, libertarians didn't have a clue that Enron or WorldCom would happen. How could they, since they think the market is and should be self-regulating? Another definition of self-regulation is "let the so-called self-regulators rob people blind." I knew this and perhaps you did too, but the libertarians sure as hell didn't. So what exactly do they know that I don't?
Seeing you tout libertarians' expertise is hysterical considering they're precisely the ones who would rip your theories to shreds. If a wealth tax isn't the last thing in the world they'd support, it must be close. If they know so much, are you admitting your socialist theories are a piece of crapola? Because that's what 99% of libertarian economists know. And that's what they'd tell you if you weren't afraid to expose your theories to ridicule.
Both you and libertarians are fanatics—incapable of understanding reason. Reason abides in the center, where I am—judging the merits of both sides, accepting what works, discarding what doesn't. The fanatical fringe will never know more than the rational center, because zealots (like you) are irrational by definition.
Norman Solomon agrees that capitalism is a matter of faith, not reason:
And you think I'm defending the status quo? How flippin' idiotic can you get?
What do libertarians know?
>> They know all about public goods and externalities, but they still place a higher value on individual liberty—which they have the right to do as long as they don't force it on the rest of us. <<
Their whole philosophy—the real version, not the abstract version—is based on forcing their philosophy on us. They want to control the decision-making process and banish referendums on their policies as much as possible. See small-government pseudo-libertarians such as Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush for examples. As I've argued many times, the true libertarian is almost wholly a myth.
>> What they HAVEN'T given enough thought to is poverty and the concept of equal opportunity <<
And you haven't given enough thought to the long, successful history of capitalism as a fundamental economic system. I and the libertarians in the Chicago School of Economics have. That's why they are firm backers of classic, free-market capitalism.
>> their HUGE mistake is that they really don't know that capitalism does not work, it will surprise them when their economic system collapses. <<
No, their huge mistake is not understanding that capitalism can't work without regulation—as in the kind of system we have now. The current corporate scandals prove this point beautifully, which may be why I haven't heard a peep from "libertarians" recently. Your mistake is confusing your opinions with facts.
>> But they'll struggle with it and come up with some interesting solutions, I predict, if we allow them to, as I said, build their own form of ideal society. <<
They're welcome to move to Russia or some equally empty place to form their own society. In the US, the majority rules, and the majority wants well-regulated capitalism. Since that's eminently constitutional, the minority can love it or leave it.
The debate continues....
Learn about the harm of polygamy. From the LA Times, 8/18/02:
Groups Airing 'Utah's Dirty Little Secret'
As activists gather, they say state's inaction on the issue allows sexual assaults, child abuse, welfare fraud to go unchecked.
By JULIE CART, Times Staff Writer
ZION NATIONAL PARK, Utah — It's been two years since Utah's Legislature appointed a full-time investigator to root out crimes associated with polygamy. But, aside from last year's high-profile prosecution and imprisonment of polygamist Tom Green, no other cases have been brought to court.
Anti-polygamy activists, who gathered here Saturday for an unprecedented meeting, charge that the state has not done enough to stamp out "Utah's dirty little secret." They say the inaction is allowing child abuse, welfare fraud and sexual assault to continue unchecked in polygamous communities.
Groups from Utah, Arizona and Canada met for the first time to gather material for a report they intend to forward to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. They also have recruited former "sister wives" to help build a massive class-action suit to be filed against a polygamous religious group that arranges marriages of girls as young as 13.
Activists called polygamous leaders "the American Taliban," saying women are subjugated by the practice of plural marriage.
And over and over again, they said Utah's polygamy investigator has merely provided political cover for the state, which has little interest in delving into a highly sensitive issue.
"I think it's a good show, but it's all a political game," said Flora Jessop, who fled her polygamous family in Colorado City, Ariz., when she was 16.
Colorado City and Hildale, Utah, are polygamous communities that straddle the states' borders about 40 miles southwest of here. There are an estimated 40,000 polygamists living in western areas of the U.S. and Canada, where some splinter groups have fled after internal fractions.
"Polygamy is an ugly word, no matter how you look at it," Jessop said. "But child abuse is ugly too. What do people think is going on in these towns? There are still children being abused and still girls trying to run away. So as long as that's [still the case], no, I can't say there's been any progress in two years."
Officials say that investigating closed societies is difficult and that women and girls seldom come forward to report abuse. In some rural areas, the sheriff and county prosecutor are reluctant to get involved in what they view as a matter of religious choice or lifestyle, state officials say.
Anti-polygamy activists say that's no excuse for not going after lawbreakers.
Ron Barton, Utah's polygamy investigator, acknowledges he doesn't have much to show for two years of work.
"I would have hoped that more would have been done during that time," he said. "My eyes have been opened to the problems in the community. The problems are pretty well hidden. There are children who are victimized, sexually molested by non-family members. Incest. Underage marriages. Spousal abuse. Welfare fraud. Women and children are the primary victims."
Barton investigated flamboyant polygamist Green, who was sentenced last year to five years in prison for bigamy and failing to repay the state for thousands of dollars in welfare payments his family improperly received. It was the first conviction of its kind in Utah in 50 years.
Green, 54, will be sentenced again Aug. 27, this time for child rape for marrying Linda Kunz Green in 1986 when she was 13. He was 37. She is the only one of his wives that he legally married. The others were sealed to him in a religious ceremony.
Green's complex family structure, which was dissected during the trial, gave investigators fits. When they finally constructed a family tree, Green was charged with rape.
Linda Kunz Green was Green's stepdaughter at the time of their marriage. Green had been married to Kunz's mother, Beth Cook, whom he later divorced. Green, who has married two other stepdaughters, has at least four wives, four ex-wives and 33 children.
Anti-polygamy activists dismiss Green's prosecution as a "show trial," a charge that riles Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff.
"They don't know what they're talking about," he said, adding that new polygamy cases are being prepared. "I have no respect for people who just stand there and complain and do nothing to help. This is a much more wide-ranging problem than we had thought. Other prosecutions will be forthcoming, but we're making sure to do this right. We are serious about it."
Aside from appointing a polygamy czar, the Utah state Legislature has done little to display the political will to deal with the issue. A draft bill making it easier to prosecute polygamists appears to be doomed to defeat.
In 2001, legislation was killed that would have punished parents who allowed unlawful marriages—such as underage or plural unions.
"They've been slow to respond to the issues," said Jay Beswick, one of the organizers of Saturday's meeting. "I don't think Utah can really tackle this problem without outside help. They can't do it themselves because everyone is too connected to polygamy."
Polygamy was a tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until 1890, when the practice was outlawed. About 70% of Utah is Mormon and more than 90% of the state's elected officials are church members.
In the months before the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, polygamy was a taboo subject for general discussion in Utah. Now, that informal ban seems to have been lifted.
Even as anti-polygamy activists gain a voice, once publicity-shy polygamists are speaking out. Signs on Salt Lake City's Main Street and Interstate 15 advertise a book, "More than One: Plural Marriage—A Sacred Pioneer Heritage."
Meanwhile, Arizona, which has polygamous communities in Mohave County on the Utah border, is not talking about it.
State representative Linda Binder attended Saturday's meeting and said she is dismayed that officials in both states have done so little about the problems.
"I don't care what consenting adults do," Binder said. "I do have a problem with sham religious marriages and child abuse. I do have a problem with that."
Binder said her efforts to pass legislation curbing polygamy have met resistance. Elected officials can no longer say they are unaware polygamy exists, she said, or claim ignorance of abuses.
"We have a situation here that is unconscionable," she said. "We have the Taliban in our backyard. We know about what's happening and it's time to step up to the plate. I'm a woman. I can't turn my back on women and children who are in these situations. It's appalling."
The debate continues....
>> I first have to make my main point, which is that there ARE cases of polygamy WITHOUT child abuse, underage marriage, welfare fraud, etc. And if such a family wants to continue to live in that polygamous fashion, it would be wrong for us, or the government, to prevent them. <<
We can't monitor every family individually. Therefore, it would be wrong to let people practice polygamy when there's a significant chance of harm to others, especially minors. Or of fraud, which is harmful to society.
>> It's complicated for many reasons.(1) I don't know how the government can in general find out about child abuse. <<
It's not complicated. You simply ban the practice after the evidence mounts that child abuse and welfare fraud happen frequently. Besides, most of these Mormons seem to marry underage females, who aren't capable of making informed, adult decisions. Again, that's a defect inherent in allowing a potentially harmful practice that we can't monitor.
>> Are you prepared to say that all polygamous families should be kept especcially under surveillance because they are particularly prone to child abuse? <<
Nope. Banning the practice suffices. Polygamists can go somewhere else and practice their lifestyle—somewhere where people aren't concerned about child abuse or welfare fraud. It's not our responsibility to condone the consequences of their lifestyle.
The debate continues....
>> You're wrong to outlaw whole classes of people just because SOME people in that class may abuse their children <<
Who says I'm wrong? Another of your worthless opinions.
In America, wrong is what the majority of Americans say is wrong. No more and no less.
>> I would support your right to establish a territory in which there were no polygamy, just as I support homophobes' right to establish a territory where there would be no gays/lesbians, etc. <<
I support their right to establish their own territory. They can leave the US, where they're not wanted, and establish their own territory somewhere else. We're under no obligation to give up our territory for them.
Related links
Right-wing extremists: the enemy within
|
. . . |
|
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.