I looked at the economics of the FLDS here:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/...f- eldorado.html

The bottom line is: Don't let these people into your state. They are parasites. Once you let them in, it's very hard to do much about them, as the failed raids of 1953 and 2008 shoe.

Steve, these are not Mormon polygamists. It seems to me that the Doc is a follower of Rabbi Carlebach, the singing Jewish Orthodox guru. Very nice people, and no parasites, they all work for a living.

Well said, Razza.

the Amish are a more extreme case in their difference from society so more slack is given

The reasons why we cut the Amish so much slack are complicated, but I don't think it's primarily because they are a more extreme case. I'd say it's more that
- they aren't a burden to others financially
- they don't cause trouble for their neighbors (unless you count driving up the price of good farmland ;-)
- it's easy mentally for people to summarize the Amish weirdness as just 'well, they want to live simply, like our great-grandparents did'. Lots of people who have hippie or crunchycon tendencies admire the Amish and occasionally express a desire to be more like them.

In reality I think they are more screwed up than most people think (see here for example), but people like to romanticize them.

Lots of people who have hippie or crunchycon tendencies admire the Amish and occasionally express a desire to be more like them.

Sometimes they even go completely overboard and conceive of them as noble savages who must be protected from our sinful world at all costs.

http://www.house.gov/pitts/press...20s- amishtv.htm

bbart, yeah, i knew about the legal affairs piece.

I think this whole thing is an example of 'libertarianism', which with regards to kids is our reigning philosophy or paradigm, failing.

A libertarian is someone who takes economics really seriously. Per economics, there are a limited number of categories that 'things' can be in. They are either a member of society, i.e. economically rational man, a 'private' good, that can have positive or negative externalities, or a 'public' good, like a bridge, the police or the army. Kids just don't fit into any of these categories at all.

I've only read two Ayn Rand novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and there aren't any kids in either novel, and though all libertarians aren't Randians, it illustrates the point, in that libertarian philosophy just doesn't deal with kids because it can't, so a 'philosophical' novel won't have any kids in it.

They are certainly not full members of society. That leaves public or private goods. Unless you're in Brave New World, they're not public goods. Most libertarians shove kids into the 'private good' category, I once read something by Virginia Postrel, where she just says that's what they are, it is the only place to put them.

But to use a more extreme example than the one given in the post, if kids really are 'private' goods, then Virginia Postrel would have no problem if the Smith's next door kept their kids handcuffed to the furnace in the basement.

To Ms. Postrel's credit, in this instance she'd probably toss her philosophy in the trash at this point. If she wanted to be consistent, given that she doesn't actually follow it, she'd leave it there, and come up with a new one that actually describes how she thinks, but I doubt she'll ever get that far.

... 'libertarianism', which with regards to kids is our reigning philosophy or paradigm, failing.

Not sure where you get the idea that libertarianism is the 'reigning philosophy' when it comes to kids. Pretty sure every state has an agency with some TLA name (CPS, CYS, whatever) that is charged with protecting kids if their parents are abusive or neglectful. And the limits on the powers of these agencies seem to be rooted more in traditional ideas of family structure and authority than in libertarian philosophy per se.

A libertarian is someone who takes economics really seriously

There are libertarians who come at it from other angles.

Per economics, there are a limited number of categories that 'things' can be in

This is a general problem of philosophy, modeling, reification of categories or what have you which is hardly specific to economics. Or libertarianism.

libertarian philosophy just doesn't deal with kids because it can't

More accurate would be to say that the proposals put forth by libertarians who are not consequentialists tend to be at variance with good taste and common sense. But there is a robust strain of consequentialist philosophy in libertarianism (Friedman and Hayek to name two). Rand is influential, but I personally don't even consider her a philosopher, since she seems to have a total lack of comprehension of at least 400 years of Western philosophy.

The majority of economists are not libertarians. They just tend to be much more friendly towards markets and free trade than the general public (who might be described as "populist").

David Friedman suspects that Texas had Sailerian reasons for grabbing the FLDS kids.