« Limited Liability | Main | Markets in everything »
Sentences of interest
The libertarian point is that the illegality and attendant marginalization of polygamy pushes it into isolated, authoritarian, quasi-state cult compounds where these kinds of crimes are most likely to take place.
That's Will Wilkinson and the point reminds me of recent party debates on drug legalization. I don't mind legalizing polygamy (though I disapprove of the practice), but would such legalization prevent an FLDS type of episode? Maybe the goals of the perpetrators are rape, abuse, and power-mad intimidation, rather than polygamy per se ("polygamy: merely a means to an end.") In that case polygamy legalization won't limit their ability to set up isolated, authoritarian, quasi-state cult compounds for their nefarious purposes.
Alternatively, if illicit polygamy is a marketing point that draws people to the compound in the first place, legalization may well help. Oddly legalization helps most when the religious belief (in polygamy) is relatively sincere and the abuse accumulates through evolutionary processes of increasingly bestial behavior; legalization helps least when the religious belief in polygamy is for cynical reasons of control and could easily be replaced by some other marketing point.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 30, 2008 at 12:31 PM in Law | Permalink
Comments
Yes, it is a means to an end. It exists for the purpose of letting 60-year old men rape children. It seems that there is always some number of mental weaklings in society, so utterly in need of affiliation to a group, who easily fall prey to evil charismatics (Jim Jones, Koresh, Solar Temple, etc.) and their messiah cults. Many of these cults have the common element of the leaders/elders having lots of sex with many different very young girls. It's a helluva scam.
Of course, all organized religions are primarily power-and-control mechanisms, but these groups are obviously worse than most. However, it seems that this problem is going to manifest itself in human existence for the forseable future. As long as there is a supply of willing sheeep, wolves will arise to consume them.
Posted by: bartman at Apr 30, 2008 12:50:03 PM
How illegal is polygamy really? Is there any law that prohibits a man and several women to live together, have sex and call themselves man and wives, or to have religious ceremonies about it?
If all of that is already possible, I can't imagine that legalization would have much impact in any direction. It would be largely a matter of different taxation protocols.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Apr 30, 2008 12:51:17 PM
Some things are evil enough that they should be banned, even if they cause the formation of these cult compounds (i.e, even the moderate form is unacceptable), and that cult compounds that form in order to practice them ought to be snuffed out with military force.
Polygamy is not one of those, child rape is.
Posted by: jb at Apr 30, 2008 12:56:57 PM
Why are you against polygamy, per se? Not that I am necessarily for it. I certainly don't like the hyperpatriarchal outcomes and abuses that seem to be correlated with it when practiced in the US. But is there any good argument against it per se? I am genuinely asking, not making a point.
Posted by: paul at Apr 30, 2008 1:03:45 PM
There is nothing illegal about "polygamous" unmarried cohabitation, yet we seldom see it, despite the fact that the "monogamous" version is quite common.
This might just be a clue as to how voluntary polygamous relationships in religious cults really are.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Apr 30, 2008 1:04:50 PM
I think the point of legalization being a help or not in softening the hard edges of an otherwise abusive relationship is that it doesn't punish the abused for being involved in the relationship. This at least gives the abused person access to a broader set of remedies, if they wish to pursue them. A prostitute can't complain to the police about the way her pimp is treating her. A drug user can't complain that they were ripped off on the purity.
Polygamy is a more complicated relationship than the commercial relationships that are illegal. The problem Tyler cites are problems that can exist in any marriage or strong religious influence. But at least the battered wife with a stern Catholic upbringing can go to the authorities without fear of legally compromising herself, or hurting her non-abusive relations.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Apr 30, 2008 1:15:18 PM
One way to avoid running into a slippery slope argument with respect to state intervention on polygamist cults is to altogether abolish marriage as a state-recognized institution. That way no one will have many many wives (at least recognized by the law), the state won't have to bust up polygamy cults, and people will be free to make questionable decisions with their partner(s).
Posted by: mpkomara at Apr 30, 2008 1:21:17 PM
Well, our conceptions of "rape, abuse, and power-mad intimidation" may actually be important parts of the desired social structires of FLDS adherants (after all, plenty of people would categorize polygamy itself as "abuse" or tie it to intimidation). If this is the case, then simply be weighing the cost of having to give up mainly underage sex (as far as I know) against the benefits of going legit versus the cost of having to give up underage sex AND polygamy against the benefit of going legit. While we might expect this to shift the choices of some at the margin, these communities tend to tied together in such a way that there isn't much of a margin at all, it'd be an all-or-nothing thing.
But I'd question the seemingly-implicit assumption that "isolated, authoritarian, quasi-state cult compounds" would go away if these communities didn't have any unsavory practices they wanted to hide. It's possible that this is simply the kind of social structure that these people want... I don't think groups like the Amish are suspected of having "nefarious purposes", right?
Posted by: Peter Twieg at Apr 30, 2008 1:23:06 PM
But Hodak, what is stopping women in polygamous relations from going to the police if they are beaten? I am serious, I am not American and laws might be different over at your side, but as far as know there is nothing criminal about polygamy over here. The second and later 'marriages' just do not have legal status, but that is no reason to stop anyone from seeing the authorities if they are beaten. Beating someone who is not your legal wife is still a crime.
Posted by: Great Zamfir at Apr 30, 2008 1:26:31 PM
"Why are you against polygamy, per se?"
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm against polygmay because my wife won't let me practice it.
Posted by: Commenter at Apr 30, 2008 1:27:26 PM
Paul:
I can't say that this is the best or only point out there, but I see polygamy as being potentially harmful socially, as it increases the potential for a large-ish segment of the male population being disenfranchised, assuming of course that the norm for polygamy continues to be one male and multiple females, and also assuming that the phenomenon would gain some sort of prevalence.
From a less social, more personal standpoint (and of course I can't speak for Tyler here at all), polygamy is totally out of line with my own (Christian) view of marriage as a total self-giving between two persons. Asking a woman to give all of herself to a man, and then expect back whatever of himself is left over from the other women in his life (and no, I'm not speaking specifically of sex) seems cruelly unfair.
Posted by: d.cous. at Apr 30, 2008 1:29:28 PM
d.cous., if a society allows young men to study engineering, it does not care enough about 'disenfranchised young men' to warrant a ban on polygyny.
Posted by: Great Zamfir at Apr 30, 2008 1:41:14 PM
Word to mpkomara!
Posted by: David Wright at Apr 30, 2008 2:40:38 PM
Try thinking less about the a priori morality of polygamy, and more about the economics of polygamy and you'll make more progress. Polygamous societies tend toward the economics of the pyramid scam, with aspects of puppy mill, welfare fraud, municipal corruption, and confiscatory taxes thrown in. For details, see:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/04/economics-of-eldorado.html
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 30, 2008 2:42:04 PM
Try thinking less about the a priori morality of polygamy, and more about the economics of polygamy and you'll make more progress. Polygamous societies tend toward the economics of the pyramid scam, with aspects of puppy mill, welfare fraud, municipal corruption, and confiscatory taxes thrown in. For details, see:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/04/economics-of-eldorado.html
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Apr 30, 2008 2:42:31 PM
GZ,
You're right, no one will penalize a beaten woman going to the authorities for being beaten. They may penalize her, however, for being involved in a polygamous relationship, which might prevent her from going to the authorities if her husband is beating her, where she risks upsetting the whole extended family.
By the way, I agree with you that the illegality of polygamy is not the real issue--anyone intent on living with multiple women can easily get around the law. That's why the law hasn't been able to get at the members of the FLDS before, and needed the reason (excuse?) of child molestation to raid the camp.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Apr 30, 2008 2:50:55 PM
I think this case is very interesting because of the way people react to it. There's the standard revulsion that people have and the linking of polygamy to raping children. This is a disconnect because polygamy doesn't necessarily lead to this. Although, as the recent raid shows, sometimes it does. This, also, seems to be a confirmation bias, though, more than a real confirmation. Are polygamists really more prone to the raping of children than non-polygamists?
Also, the word rape gets thrown around a lot in a very loose manner. At the risk of sounding like a pervert, is it rape if the woman is willing, but considered underage? The age of consent seems very arbitrary. I know this is an old argument, but 150 years ago, it was standard fair for a 13 year old woman to be married to a 25 year old man. Once a woman reached child bearing age, she was ready to have sex and bear children. Why has this thinking changed so much? I don't know how or why this norm changed, but we view young woman as unable to make a good choice when it comes to sex. As a society, we are treating people like children for longer and longer. I'm not so certain this is a good thing.
Lastly, I read an interesting article (can't find it, though, sorry), which points out the discrepancy between the moral condemnation of LDS as opposed to other cultures. LDS does seem to get a disproportionate amount of bad press, while other cultures/religions do the same thing and get a free pass on it. The question raised by the article mentioned above is: how big of a deal would people be making of this if the compound had been muslim, instead of LDS? Sad to say, I think that not only would it receive less attention, but wouldn't even be run as front page news.
Posted by: Ken at Apr 30, 2008 2:59:01 PM
Ken:
A little more than 150 years ago owning other people was commonplace. Are you perplexed as to why we outgrew that?
From my experience, polygamy as practiced in most of the Arab world is different. Men are limited by scripture to four wives, and generally have to be able to support each wife financially. Polygamy is legal, but quite rare. Of all the Arabs I worked with (50 or 60), only one had multiple wives, and they all had separate homes - they didn't live in a compound, or a harem. It is rare (but not unheard of) for a husband to have multiple wives in the same dwelling. Almost none of my Arab students were interested in having more than one wife. Maybe Tyler is right: because it is not forbidden or cloistered in Moslem society, polygamy is not as allied to child rape and messianic power-mongering there as it is here.
That said, I am only familiar with the Levant and the Gulf, and things may be different in more backwards African moslem countries.
Some Arabs I know claim that polygamy is simply a way for a society to take care of its war widows. Remember that in its nascence, Islam lost a lot of young men to war. A war widow would become the second wife of a survivor, and her honor and livelihood would remain intact. Not sure how accurate that is, but that's the story I got.
Posted by: bartman at Apr 30, 2008 3:14:32 PM
Ken,
Bartman has already come up with a more cutting and succint reply than mine, but as far as people being treated as less mature until older ages, I think the investment of human capital required to be an adult capable of sustaining a family ecnomically has increased. Centuries ago, one could support a family as soon as he was able to do manual labor. Decades ago, a high school education might suffice. In many segments of our society, supporting a spouse and children requires one or both parents to have four or more years of post-secondary education. No wonder people are seen as children until 18 and adolescents until 28.
In some ways, it's a good thing, in others it's a bad thing. But the time of 25 year old grooms and 13 year old brides has vanished. As have slavery, horse-drawn carraiges, and roledexes.
Posted by: Robin at Apr 30, 2008 3:22:52 PM
There seems to be some confusion here between polygamy and cults. Without the option in polite society for polygamous marriages what we observe about polygamy in America doesn't tell us much about what it would be like if legalized. You have selection issues - who is attracted into these relationships if they are illegal. Those who are likely to sexually abuse their children would still exist -- polygamy isn't the cause.
And you have issues of the opportunity set differences that would constrain behavior and/or shape organizations differently if not illegal - would sects/cults even be necessary? In polygamous communities that have been carved out - where local authorities have adopted live and let live - you have a sect that feeds on sourcing brides from within and forcing many boys out onto the street in their teens to fend for themselves outside the community to keep the scheme going. And these sects spend considerable energy brainwashing by living apart from secular society. Would they survive if legality caused entry and they had to compete with polygomous arrangements that also partook of other benefits of modern society?
Posted by: John B. Chilton at Apr 30, 2008 3:52:04 PM
In the age when marriage between 13-year-old brides and 25-year-old grooms was common, it didn't matter if the 13-year-old was capable of consenting to sex because the decision to enter into the relationship was being made for her, not by her.
Posted by: Sean at Apr 30, 2008 4:01:25 PM
That's right Robin, and we most definitely want to pyt slavery, horses, and roledexes and polygamy on the same level. Out with one for completely valid reasons and out with them all for the same reason! (it's old and icky and came from a time of slavery)
I on the other hand am firmly not in favor of confiscating the kids of anyone who owns a roledex.
If you're a roledex owner who abuses kids, I'm all for the death penalty. However, the case has to be made and proven in a court of law, not just en masse where we have kids being confiscated and taken to the "Baptist" community center or whatever. (Because we all know how tolerant many Baptists are of other faiths)
Posted by: sam at Apr 30, 2008 4:10:52 PM
At least one 2008 Presidential candidate lives in a polygamous marriage. (He has a wife and a co-husband).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moore_%28performance_artist%29
His platform [ http://www.frankmooreforpresident08.com/platform-print.html ] says "... any two or more adults who have been living together for at least 2 years should be able to register as a “family.”"
Posted by: Ed at Apr 30, 2008 5:34:21 PM
Were children really being raped? Is there any real evidence of this?
It seems to me, if you want to persecute a religious minority, all you have to do is throw around some accusations of child rape, and the government can then behave in ways that we would normally find intolerable.
The government can't engage in overt religious persecution anymore, because there would be popular outrage and legal action from civil liberties groups. But if you make some false allegations about "child rape" and create a smear campaign, you can now harass and persecute the religious minority to your hearts extent. No civil liberties group is going to tarnish their reputation protecting a bunch of "child rapers", even if the allegations are false. And the general public, who are not privy to confidential evidence, will automatically assume the police are telling the truth.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 30, 2008 5:43:24 PM
The polygamy issue raises issues both of historical and current interest, aside from these cases that appear to be more about child rape than polygamy, per se. A current issue, not yet come to the fore, is our society's attitude to the Muslim allowing of polygamy (up to four wives only, though). When Muslims arrive from abroad who have already got multiple wives, what is or will be our view? What is it now? As the percentage of Muslims in the US population rises, what might it become?
Needless to say, historically polygamy was frowned upon and banned by a more traditional Christian society. This was one of the main reasons for the attacks on the LDS church when it first appeared, its polygamy, although there were also other reasons as well. In its pre-Utah days a split occurred when the founder, Joseph Smith, died. Curiously, the split looks a bit like that between Sunnis and Shi'a in Islam: will the leader be a descendant of the founder, or someone selected by the leading group? In Islam, the dominant Sunnis went with the second, while the smaller Shi'a went with the first. Similarly in Mormonism, the dominant group chose Brigham Young, who would lead his followers to Utah. When it became a state, a condition of statehood was to ban polygamy, which they did (even though Brigham Young himself had something like 28 wives, if I am remembering correctly). The splinter minority group followed Joseph Smith III, son of the founder, calling itself the Refounded LDS, and did not go to Utah en masse. The current polygamist factions are descendants of that church, which has been scattered around the US since then.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Apr 30, 2008 5:49:51 PM
