I've been hearing 'libertarians' defend the kidnapping and the subsequent claim of state ownership of the 400+ children who were snatched from the 'polygamy ranch' in Texas. Most of the arguments I've heard are based on the right of a 3rd party to intervene in order to prevent an act of violence against an innocent other; for example, the right to use force to stop a rape going on a back alley. Applying the '3rd party intervention' justification to the Texas state kidnapping, however, is a total distortion of the argument. There are no grounds within libertarianism to justify the raid. (Note: this post deals mostly with the women who were kidnapped, not the children, because I think the two categories are sufficiently different to require different arguments. If I have enough time tomorrow, then I will specifically address why I believe the children are also victims of the State.)

Before I offer a counter-argument, however, some clarifying preamble is required.

First of all, I don't like the adult residents of the ranch. I 'respect' (in a non-respectful way) the women's right to make choices with their own bodies but I think their choices suck industrial lemons. Although I defend their 'right' to choose a debasing lifestyle and a subservient form of marriage, I wouldn't have them in my home or give them the time of day on the street. Nor do I expect they would treat me with the same decency I extend to them; that is, I do not expect they would publicly defend my right to be an atheist and live a heathen lifestyle. More likely, if they had the power to do so, they would impose their suck-lemon values upon me.

Second, I don't buy the justification of needing to 'protect the women from themselves' because they are too brainwashed to know what is in their own self-interest. As long as these adult cellphone-wielding women are able to leave and/or request help at will, then the libertarian assumption must be that they choose to be where and how they are. Emotional blackmail may well be involved in their decision to stay -- that happens in many families -- but it is not the business of a 3rd party to kidnap a sane, peaceful and resisting adult on the grounds that she is harming herself. Even if the women's choices are wrong (by some standard), sane and peaceful adults have the right to be wrong and to make self-destructive choices. The contention that they are so brainwashed by the religious cult as to be incapable of chosing is the mirror image of the argument used by gender feminists when they are trying to avoid acknowledging the autonomy of women whose choices they dislike. Such women are said to be brainwashed by the patriarchy (white male culture) and, so, unable to choose. In short, the brainwashing argument is a way to circumvent the rights of people who are making choices you don't like. It is a political Pandora's box which can be used to justify oppression while putting lipstick on the pig -- that is, the oppression is dressed up as humanitarian concern through which you are helping the poor, poor victim who, meanwhile, is pleading with you to be left alone.

Third, I don't believe most of the claims made about this case. I have no doubt that underaged and arranged marriages have occurred on the ranch, as they do in many cultures, and I find that practice contemptible. How widespread the practice is...I don't know and neither does anyone else on the outside. But I do believe the specific and proximate cause of the raid on the ranch was probably a hoax. I believe the phone call for help by the as-yet-unlocated 16-year-old bride/rape victim was never valid. Whether the hoax was perpetrated by a vengence-seeking former cult member, an outraged outsider, the State of Texas who wanted a reason to raid...I don't know. Further, I believe the 50-something fellow named as the 'rapist' husband is innocent of the specific crime for which he was named on the warrant. Why? Although he has been questioned by the police in Arizona where he resides, the man has not been charged... This is not due to delicacy on the part of a system that was willing (nay eager) to haul off hundreds of women and children on the basis of one unverified phone call; indeed, the authorities would love to have a villian to string up by his balls. I believe the man can prove that he's been in Arizona and, so, innocent. Guilty as sin of other 'crimes'....perhaps. But that's not what's under discussion.

Fourth, I am horrified by precedent-setting trampling of Constitutional rights. To name one: the evidence gathered -- that is, the computers etc. stolen by the state -- should never see a courtroom because the warrant that gave the Texas thugs the legal patina they needed is based on an anonymous and unverified accusation. (And, yes, as long as the authorities do not have the alleged accuser to provide verification, the accusation itself is anonymous and akin to rumor.) I won't continue with Constitutional arguments, however, as they could easily consume the rest of this post.

Fifth, even if one girl was being abused, how does that justify rounding up hundreds of people who have been accused of no crime. If my neighbor or a member of my family is accused of a crime, how does that justify a SWAT team breaking into my home when nothing has been alleged against me?

At this juncture, I should break off because the preamble is about to overwhelm the post which, after all, is about how "applying the '3rd party intervention' justification to the Texas state kidnapping is a total distortion of that libertarian argument."

To recap that argument again: a 3rd party has the right to intervene in order to stop an act of violence against an innocent other even when that intervention includes using force against someone who has not initiated force against him; that is, the 3rd party can rightfully slug the back alley rapist. But, in order for the use of 3rd party violence to be proper, various conditions must be met. They include:



The raid of the Texas ranch meets none of these conditions.

1) An act of violence was alleged to have occurred in the past and alleged to be planned for the future (that is, underaged marriages preassumably would take place at a future date). The allegation, if made by a credible source against a specific individual, should have been investigated like any other accusation. If found to be true, then use of force to apprehend the guilty party would be justified.

2) The so-called victim clearly does not wish to come forward and be assisted. The State has suggested a scenario in which she was whisked away by cult members but there is no evidence for this theory and the raid was a surprise attack that should have left no time for conspiracies. If the alleged victim hasn't come forward by now for assistance, then I can only assume that she has changed her mind or that the accusation was never valid.

3) The State used massive violence in the form of kidnapping, threats, involuntary detention, etc. against the persons and property of hundreds of people against whom no accusation of a crime had been made.

On these and so many other grounds, the raid on the polygamy ranch is utterly unjustiable within libertarian theory. It is especially egregious for libertarians to defend the action when they, of all people, should know that the State is a brutal, uncaring bureaucracy that chews up children who are put into "the system." It is difficult to imagine how claiming the children as state property is a form of rescue, especially when it forcibly wrenches them out of the arms of mothers who (from all appearances) clearly love them. Indeed, I just heard on CNN's "American Morning" show that the authorities have admitted the children are healthy, loved by their families and show signs of being traumatized by the forcible estrangement.


As I mention, tomorrow -- if I can find the hour or two it will take -- I will focus on the argument that we (society/the State) must "protect the children" from the cult.