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

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

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.

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.

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”?

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”?

“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.

“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.