Comments on: Down on the Compound http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Nurse Staff http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14308 Nurse Staff Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:34:13 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14308 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. 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.

]]> By: Nurse Staff http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14307 Nurse Staff Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:34:13 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14307 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. 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.

]]> By: Robert Rounthwaite http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14306 Robert Rounthwaite Sat, 03 May 2008 16:28:34 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14306 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. 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.

]]> By: Robert Rounthwaite http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14309 Robert Rounthwaite Sat, 03 May 2008 16:28:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14309 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. 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.

]]> By: Christopher Morris http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14305 Christopher Morris Thu, 01 May 2008 02:41:16 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14305 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 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

]]> By: Christopher Morris http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14316 Christopher Morris Thu, 01 May 2008 02:41:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14316 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 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

]]> By: Jason Malloy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14304 Jason Malloy Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:08:07 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14304 <i>"...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...</i> <i>The correct answer: An elaborate form of rape."</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing#The_APA.2C_DIMPAC.2C_and_theories_of_brainwashing" rel="nofollow">"brain-washing"</a>, 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. “…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.

]]> By: Jason Malloy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14315 Jason Malloy Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:08:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14315 <i>"...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...</i> <i>The correct answer: An elaborate form of rape."</i> 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 <i>not</i> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing#The_APA.2C_DIMPAC.2C_and_theories_of_brainwashing" rel="nofollow">"brain-washing"</a>, 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. “…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.

]]> By: No true Scotsman disagrees with me « Entitled to an Opinion http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14303 No true Scotsman disagrees with me « Entitled to an Opinion Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:46:05 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14303 [...] teageegeepea under I Don't Need Society!, Moral posturing   Will Wilkinson and I got into an argument stemming from the FLDS raid that came to center around competent agency, brainwashing and “false consciousness”. [...] [...] teageegeepea under I Don’t Need Society!, Moral posturing   Will Wilkinson and I got into an argument stemming from the FLDS raid that came to center around competent agency, brainwashing and “false consciousness”. [...]

]]> By: TGGP http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/04/28/down-on-the-compound/#comment-14302 TGGP Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:28:58 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1433#comment-14302 <i>I don’t see the difference between these two</i> 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. <i>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,”</i> There is no <a href="http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/GreeneCohenPhilTrans-04.pdf" rel="nofollow">free-will</a>. It's an untenable idea. <i>and not because they’ve been brainwashed.</i> 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? <i>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.</i> What makes an option "legitimate"? 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”?

]]>