In answer to Difster's questions:
I understand what you're getting at Mike, but quantitatively, how are these 'lost boys' any different than the boys who grow up in the inner city and are forced to turn to gangs for survival?
I assume he meant qualitatively. That said...
They are qualitatively different in a few ways:
- They are explicitly abandoned by their family, and thrown into society, without any support or means to support themselves, at an age where they cannot truly legally support themselves.
- They are often abandoned in locations where they have no support network other than the government to draw on. Sometimes, they are just abandoned along a stretch of road to fend for themselves.
- Inner city kids are "abandoned" by neglect, not usually by a conscious decision to simply walk away from the child altogether by both parents. In most cases, the mother will at least make a very half-assed attempt to raise her child. That is better than what most of these "lost boys" get from their families.
Yet, we're not raiding the inner cities and taking away the 'at risk' youth so they don't have to endure that screwed up culture either.
I explicitly acknowledged the due process angle in this story, so I am not sure what Difster's point is here.
I'm not justifying the expulsions, I'm saying that the government solution really isn't any better.
Parents should not be able to just dump their unwanted children and teens on the side of the road or in a far off city to abandon them, hoping that someone else will pick up the pieces for them. There has to be punishment for parents who do not go through the proper procedures to see to it that they are at least extricating themselves of their parental responsibility in a way that will not be a burden on society or obviously harmful to their child. Since at 13 they cannot work a full time job, drive or sign a contract to even rent an apartment, the parents have a moral and natural obligation to not send their kid packing. Since Difster is a Christian, I doubt that he would have much grounds to argue that a parent has few moral and natural grounds to argue that they have little to no responsibility for their child's welfare.
Someone, somewhere is always going to be harmed in someone way by someone else. That's our sin nature and you can't use the force of government to overcome that prior to an action happening. By necessity, government must be reactive, not proactive when it comes to crime; even abuse.This is a non-sequitor. If the police find that a FLDS family is dumping its teenage boys onto the lonely streets of Salt Lake City or Las Vegas (or God forbid, just leaving them on a stretch of highway to walk to the nearest city which is God only knows where), then the government must react by arresting and prosecuting the parents. I fail to see the issue here that some have with the government stepping in, if it can be proved that the parents are abandoning children and teens to their own fates when they cannot support themselves. If anything, this is the one behavior that is well-known about the FLDS that is clearly, unequivocally abuse.
So, to recap...
The FLDS is in fact being abusive to many of its teenage boys by abandoning them at an age where they cannot legally support themselves. If they did this to 16-17 year olds only, that might be somewhat acceptable, but many, possibly most, are younger than that and cannot even legally work for a living to feed themselves. As such, the FLDS is deliberately turning many of their children into wards of the state by illegally abandoning their parental duties.
I have seen others try to explain away this behavior by arguing that it used to be acceptable to send a 13 year old packing because they were an adult. That is, however, not relevant in the least to this issue. It would be if there weren't laws prohibiting a 13 year old from working full time, signing contracts, joining the military, etc. However, given all of the restrictions on young teenagers that bar them from accepting responsibility for their lives and welfare, it is a simple fact that unless a government agency or charity takes up their cause, that this teen will be put into a position where their welfare is essentially thrown to the wolves.
Yes, I meant qualitatively...
They are explicitly abandoned by their family, and thrown into society,
So? Whether a boy grows up with a dad (or dads) and then finds himself on the street at 13 or has no dad and is essentially raised on the street because his mother is mostly absent as well, the net result is mostly the same. I could probably make a pretty good argument that the latter is worse, but I don't want to derail the discussion.
They are often abandoned in locations where they have no support network
Not to sound cruel, but that's what busses are for. To transport you to places where those resources are avaialable. Note, I'm not conding the abandonment. I'm just stating action to be taken after the fact by the outcast in light of his circumstances.
Inner city kids are "abandoned" by neglect, not usually by a conscious decision to simply walk away from the child altogether by both parents. In most cases, the mother will at least make a very half-assed attempt to raise her child. That is better than what most of these "lost boys" get from their families.
I disagee that the inner city kids are better off (in most cases). Let's save that for another post. It gets too off topic.
Parents should not be able to just dump their unwanted children and teens
Agreed. The whole paragraph. No problems there.
I fail to see the issue here that some have with the government stepping in, if it can be proved that the parents are abandoning children...
It sounds like you agree with me, then turn around and say that the government should step in to PREVENT it. Again, the government should only be REACTIVE to these situations. For the government to be proactive they must assume the posture that they actually own the children and parents are merely stewards of same that serve at the pleasure of the government. By, all means attempt to refute that claim Mike; and don't forget the slippery slope; it's alive and kicking.
...turning many of their children into wards of the state...
The state should not be taking responsibility for caring for children. Private charity served this purpouse well before FDR's RAW DEAL. You can't argue for practive enforcement to reduce the burden on public resources that shouldn't be doled out to begin with. You could but it would be intellectually dishonest.
I have seen others try to explain away this behavior by arguing that it used to be acceptable to send a 13 year old packing because they were an adult.
I agree that claim is stupid.
It would be if there weren't laws prohibiting a 13 year old from working full time, signing contracts, joining the military, etc.
What should be the age? Why not 15? I think that would be a better age of consent than 18. Off topic though.
it is a simple fact that unless a government agency or charity takes up their cause, that this teen will be put into a position where their welfare is essentially thrown to the wolves.
Don't state as FACT what is still just your opinion. Relying on the mercy of a government program, foster homes etc. is just throwing them in to a different pack of wolves but wolves nonetheless.
Mike, we've had this "good of society" discussion before. Remember my post on polgyamy and why I think the state should not be involved in marriage and you think it does?
Keep in mind, on aggregate, I believe that more people are hurt by the existence (and obviously subsequent use) of government programs than would be harmed without them. Without the welfare state, people would have to return to personal responsibility or die. Again, that's a post for another day, but when examing issues like this, you have to keep the big picture in perspective too. If the government can preemptively take kids away for the alleged abuses with no due process, what's to prevent them from doing the same to parents who want to homeschool? Look at what's happening in Germany. A kid was put in to a mental institution because she didn't want to go to the public school as the government demanded. How far off are we from being in the same place? It's incrementalism Mike and the power hungry are VERY good at at. Libertarian types tend to be very bad at it because we can't stomach anything but the ideal. We anti-abortionists are bad at it too.
Except for the fact that the FLDS kid is being thrown to the wolves in a city that they never known, having never had to adapt to that sort of environment, and having no resources to rely on.
Bus tickets cost money, something these boys tend to not have...
What on Earth makes you think I am expecting them to be proactive? I am saying, and have said since the beginning, that if the government finds out that a member of the FLDS engaged in abandonment of their teenage son(s), they should be prosecuted. I would go so far as to say that if a family is practicing this with their teenage sons, that such a thing would actually make them unfit to raise their other children. Look, ask my wife. I am one of the most vitriolic critics of CPS workers you'll ever meet. Were it neither illegal nor a sin, I would advocate putting them into carnival dunking booths that sit over a vat of acid...
*Sigh*. It is a fact that they become wards of the state under our current system. That is no small part of the reason why I advocate harsh punishments for parents who just dump their children onto the streets.
What is your objection to my point? It is a fact that under our current system, that the teen is not able to take on the responsibility for their own welfare. It can only come from one of three possibilities: a legal guardian, a charity or the state. My point was simply that it is pure bullshit to argue that they can be abandoned and be expected to just pick up the pieces legally, like an adult. That alone is very abusive of them.
Oh dear God, Difster. I have never once advocated on your blog, Vox's blog or here for proactive enforcement. I have said that if a family is found abandoning their kids a la the FLDS, that the government should aggressively pursue charges against them. The only reason I ever even mentioned the issue of government welfare was to highlight to people who are being boneheads about this from a libertarian POV that there is absolutely NOTHING deserving of libertarian sympathy for those who abandon their teens under our current legal system because the only result is a ward of the state. Both Vox and Doom are skeptical that these FLDS cultists have even engaged in this, when there is a lot of testimony and witnesses to the effect that it is a fairly common practice with the FLDS.
I don't like the raid on their compound anymore than you do. The reason I have been bringing up the issue of abandonment is to point out that this cult does actually have a behavior that is proven and worthy of a serious, constitutionally-sound criminal investigation to those who believe that they are just a creepy, but otherwise harmless group.
Not that we've never found ourselves debating before only to discover we're more in agreement than we thought; but perhaps I mistook your fervor of the subject for "something should be done," in a premptive sense.
We completely agree that abandoning children is abuse. I'm not sure what more need be said since we also agree that government should be involved until a crime has been committed.
I'm not disputing your claim this happens. I have no doubt it does however, I do question the frequency of it. Here's my thinking.. I'm a 13 year old boy and I find my self on the side of the road in some small town. I have only the clothes on my back and (probably) some cash in my pocket (I don't think they leave them to die nor do they want them to steal, etc to survive but it's possible they leave them with nothing). What am I going to do? I'd probably go to the police or a church (who would then call the police). Look what happens when teens run away, they get returned to the parents. If this was happening as often as you say it does; meaning that the kids are truly left with no resources, I would think there would have been some serious investigations and high profile arrests long before now. Again, I don't doubt that it happens but I'm skeptical of the frequency.
Dif raises a good point.
If we were to believe the 70% number being thrown about, that would mean that there are at least 350-400 expelled boys from this compound running around; that would have to attract the attention of law enforcement somewhere.
So there are three possibilities that come immediately to mind: the number of boys being expelled, left to fend for themselves, is overblown; the boys are moved somehwere else and not left to fend for themselves, like a halfway house of sorts, or law enforcement doesn't really care about abandoned boys.
Even if law enforcement doesn't care as much about boys as girls--which is suspect is somewhat the case--350+ abandoned boys all coming from the same Texas is bound to attract some attention. That we haven't really heard about this by now suggests that option 1 is more likely than 2 or 3.
"...why I think the state should not be involved in marriage and you think it does?"
Mike, I know this is OT, but in what ways do you think the State should be involved in marriage?
EW,
Here is what I wrote about polygamy and the state a while back.
Mike's response was on his old blog so it's no longer a valid link. But it would be instructive to read the comments in what I posted to get a general feel for what he said.
Mike, if you can pull up your old archives from back then, this was the post on your blog where you responded to me and post it here that would be helpful.
The last estimate that I saw of the number of boys expelled from the entire denomination was about 2,000. That's really not THAT many in a denomination that I think still has a few tens of thousands of members. Still, from the information I've read up on the subject, what they do is they generally take any excuse they can to kick boys out to make room for the older men. That's been the story of the former members and lost boys that have been interviewed.
One thing that you and Dif seem to not realize, though, is that these boys are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that people outside of their denomination are evil, even other Mormons. In fact, I doubt they even recognize mainstream Mormons as Mormons because of their denomination's teachings. The odds that they would go to a real Christian church are very, very slim.
My guess is that it is lower than 70%, but still, the expulsion issue is a real one that has been well-documented about this group.
As to the issue of what I think the state's involvement should be in marriage, I think none at all except in cases of minors under 12 or 13 and where coercion is present. I am actually a strong advocate of getting rid of the various laws that regulate how minors are judged before the law and adopting the Bible's "age of accountability" at around 12-13 years of age for all laws.
Here is the link that you are referring to.