Polygamy - 1 United States - 0

[Jerome Scuggs]

Well the issue extends deeper than that. It extends down to the question of state police at all - if it turns out that this is how they need to conduct their operations, and that pressing need overrides due process, then what unique benefit does the state provide that otherwise couldn't be provided for in the market (incorrectly assuming, of course, that market police forces didn't enforce due process)? Once again we don't see any answers... just more questions. Questions about the role of parents, questions about the age of consent, questions about the proper role of police, et cetera. This is the classic problem of centralized planning: unforeseen consequences and ambiguity.

This also applies to the question of the cults' existence. If landowners were not, by law, compelled to "not discriminate", then surely FLDS compounds would dramatically decline - who would want to sell their land to them? And if someone did want to sell their land to them, then why do we have discrimination laws? To see how the cults even set up shop in the first place, is a prime example of how the government actively prevents problems from being solved, which lets them grow until eventually violent coercion can be justified.

Surely the people of the town knew about the cult far before federal officials did. But specifically because of the removal of responsibility from citizens, nothing was done. The responsibility was put in the hands of the State. But the State can't solve for local problems, as this points out, specifically because of its existence as the protector of "everyone". The children are being ordered back into the custody of the FLDS.

To make the argument of necessity is to spit in the face of every other victim in society who has been forced to trudge through our legal system in search for justice. What makes these children so important that police will intervene, yet when there's death and violence running rampant in a ghetto, the victims are told to wait for justice?

I don't see the justice to it. Or the logic. Or the "order" and "harmony". What I see is the very sort of thing that the State supposedly guards us against, being used by the State, in order to justify the State's right to guard us. How is society supposed to function in a nation like that? What is freedom when it can be thrown away in a second's notice for the pressing need of the moment? Especially when, as we now see, the "end" that the means justified, wasn't even achieved?

[Kolar]

So you think private security is the answer?

I personally believe due process was served. With all the information they had at the time they made an informed decision to remove the kids, right or wrong in the end they made the best decision at the time. A judge ordered the removal of any child 17 years of age and younger so they didn't bypass the courts.

I didn't know landowners were not allowed to discriminate. Link if you can. Either way I don't think it would do anything, you're assuming people given the opportunity will give a fuck. They just want their money.


I also wasn't suggesting that you support the Republican party with my link. I was referring to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal being a serious consideration for McCain's VP running mate given his very Conservative creds and youth being an asset to McCain.

[genocidal]

I didn't know landowners were not allowed to discriminate.

Land and housing discrimination laws abounded in number and enforcement with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It continues to be a problem today, and it most certainly is illegal.

[riske]

With all the information they had at the time they made an informed decision to remove the kids,

they had no evidence to believe any child other than the one that called was in any type of immediate danger.

It would be like a kid on your street calling about his dad hitting him, and they come and take EVERY kid on your street. Just because they are a polygamist ranch, doesnt mean they had to take the the kids from the other parents.

edit-- forgot to say

Yea it SEEMS liek there is a lot of shady shit goin on there, but they obviously dont have all the evidence, hence all the talk the last 2 days.

[Kolar]

This isn't your average suburban street riske. It's a fundementalist Mormon ranch created by Warren Jeffs.

[genocidal]

14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Sec. 1

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Important parts are bolded, Kolar. I don't know how Canadians conduct business but this is how we do it.

[riske]

Its not your typical suburban street, youre right, but the laws are the same. 1 kid does not = different kids from different parents.

I definetly agree if some of the shit they THINK they are doing, is happening, they should take them. but they just dont have the evidence they need right now.

[Kolar]

Important parts are bolded, Kolar. I don't know how Canadians conduct business but this is how we do it.

Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

[Jerome Scuggs]

So you think private security is the answer?

Well, it's a tough proposition. In a society where citizens were free to arm themselves and organize as they saw fit, would private security even be necessary? It's hard to imagine the role private security would take in a free society because it's hard to imagine how a particular society would organize (unless you went, street by street, and asked how badly each person needed security). But I think that since each individual would become fully responsible for defense of his or her property, aggregate demand for security (public or private) would necessarily fall - especially when you look at what is considered "criminal" now. How many cops do you need to arrest tax evaders and drug users when there are no taxes or drug laws?

A very interesting question, but probably best saved for another thread. At this rate, we'll probably get to it in, say, a week, when the government somehow manages to fuck that up. Until then, the question at hand is whether or not public security is the answer, and I see no reason in the thread to answer affirmatively to that.

[genocidal]

I was being a dick, I knew full well that Canada had similar legal protections.