The raid and seizure of over 400 children from a Polygamist cult in Texas got me thinking.  First let me say that I do not condone the beliefs or actions of these cult members. I simply want to share some thoughts these events have triggered and I’d like your comments.

1. I was unaware that child protective services could seize children from their parents without evidence of abuse. If what I understand about this case is accurate, the government received an anonymous call from a female claiming to be a 16 year old victim of this cult. It now appears this call was fraudulent. A single unsubstantiated call gave the government probable cause to seize over 400 children from over 100 families. I must restate… I don’t like this cult… but regardless of that… does this mean that a single unsubstantiated anonymous phone call could lead the government to seize your children? Doesn’t that seem wrong to you? Shouldn’t the burden of evidence be upon the state? Shouldn’t there be some proof?
   
2. These mothers were not legally married to the men who fathered their children, so technically they were single mothers who drew welfare benefits from the State of Texas. It also appears that no one in this cult was employed in the traditional sense. So the taxpayers of Texas have been funding this cult for years? Isn’t this a case of the state creating (or at least perpetuating) the problem? Wouldn’t this cult have gone bust without government funding? Instead of using police force, why not cut off funding? Or prosecute them for welfare fraud?
   
3. One more time… I don’t condone polygamous marriages, but I must ask an important question. In our modern “loose” society, how can we criminalize this behavior? For example, I’ve met unmarried men who have three children from three different women. I’ve also met women who have three children from three different men. Why is it legal for some people to behave this way and illegal for others? It’s illegal if you have multiple sex partners as a matter of religious principle, but legal if you do it as a matter of casual promiscuity. Doesn’t that seem horribly inconsistent? Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had sex with 20,000 women, yet if he married two of them at the same time, even with their knowledge and consent, he’d be a criminal. So you can legally have casual sexual relations with as many people as you wish but if you make a commitment to more than one of them, you’re a felon? Can anyone explain this? I sure can’t.

I learned about this case listening to Ian and Mark at Free Talk Live who are being attacked for asking similar questions. I’m glad they are there. Someone needs to ask tough questions, even about weirdos.

Update:

As I expected, I have gotten some serious hate mail and I am being attacked in social media because of this post. I guess that’s what happens when people perceive you to be defending the indefensible. I am not defending these people. I am questioning the actions of the state. There is a difference you know.

I want to point out to those of you who think I am nuts, that right here in Minnesota we have two major immigrant populations who practice widespread polygamy and child marriage. So I ask you who are insulting me, should Minnesota CPS also remove all the children en mass from all the homes of these immigrants based upon their cultural and religious practices? Or would it be better to treat it on a case by case basis like we do now? I prefer case by case because it passes constitutional muster.

This blog is about ideas, not personalities. This isn’t personal, unless you want to wrap your ego around your ideas and beliefs. Making it personal is your choice, not mine.

I’ve already been told by a reader to quit blaming licensed professionals and government institutions for the problems in public schooling and how unfair it is to the people who are trying so hard to make these institutions work. I don’t blame the people, I blame the failed ideas which they choose to defend. It is when they let go of those failed ideas that they will find the solutions. I want to debate those ideas. You may directly benefit from the ideas I challenge here and that doesn’t mean I don’t like you. It means I am challenging you to think about the ideas you fail to question. Most of us live our lives and without questioning the ideas and institutions of which we are a part.

For example… Professional Licensing. We claim professional licenses exist to ensure safety and quality. Do they? Can you prove it? How? As compared to what? Why do you believe in this idea? What are the facts? Have you done any critical thinking about the matter?

It is impolite in our society to question certain ideas. I will question the very foundation of many of our political ideas, beliefs, and institutions. I don’t do this in an attempt to malign anyone or be impolite. I do it in an attempt to get you to think and question reality.

In American political discourse we don’t challenge ideas. We attack people who challenge ideas. This is an effective way to end debate and resist change, because keeping the debate personal makes it uncomfortable for most of us to debate ideas. Our focus on personalities over ideas obscures fact from fiction and reason from emotion. People shut down quickly when I challenge the fundamental beliefs they hold about our political culture. In many areas they are uncomfortable even entertaining the idea that there may be better ideas than the ones we currently embrace.

One retort I hear most often…
Now, that is never going to happen!

What if Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Adams had sat down in a pub and thought up the idea of a free constitutional Republic, and a couple of pints later… Ben said, "Hold On. Wait a minute. What will the British Empire do?"

To which John and Thomas reply, "You’re right, that’s never going to happen. See ya at the pub tomorrow."
It would be a different world, wouldn’t it?

We must challenge and debate the ideas which shape our current reality:

• Public Schooling is an idea
• The IRS is an idea
• Licensing is an idea
• The Nanny State is an idea
• The War on Drugs is an idea
• The University is an idea
• Terrorism is an idea
• War is an idea
• Prison is an idea
• Paramilitary police tactics are an idea

These are just a few of the ideas that I am going to challenge.

Have these ideas been implemented in our reality? Yes.

Did they exist before they became an idea in someone’s mind? No.

So in order to change our current reality, what do we need to change? Our ideas.

Do we have to cling to old ideas in fear that new ideas are dangerous? No. That is a choice.

Can these old ideas be replaced with new ideas? Yes. Better ideas? Certainly.

I don’t want you to come here and get offended. I want you to come here and think.

I lean libertarian. I’ve been a Republican. I am involved in party politics, but I refuse to wear a label. Stick around, I may surprise you. All intelligent discussion is encouraged.

I’ve chosen the domain thefreesavage.com for three reasons:

1. I cherish individual freedom.
2. I love John the Savage from Adolus Huxley’s novel Brave New World. Below is a snippet about John the Savage from huxley.net:

JOHN THE SAVAGE
The illicit son of the Director and Linda. He was born and reared on the Savage Reservation (”Malpais”) after Linda was unwittingly left behind by her errant lover. John the Savage is an outsider both on the Reservation - where the ignorant natives still practise marriage, natural birth, family life and religion - and the ostensibly civilised Brave New World: a totalitarian welfare-state based on principles of stability and happiness, albeit happiness of a shallow and insipid nature. The Savage has read nothing but The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. He quotes them extensively and, for the most part, aptly, though his allusion to “Brave New World” [Miranda’s words in The Tempest] takes on a darker and bitterly ironic resonance as the novel unfolds. John the Savage is intensely moral. He is also somewhat naïve. In defiance of BNW’s social norms, he falls romantically in love with Lenina, but spurns her premature sexual advances. After his mother Linda’s death, the Savage becomes ever more disillusioned with utopian society. Its technological wonders and soulless consumerism are no substitute for individual freedom, human dignity and personal integrity. He debates passionately and eruditely with World Controller Mustapha Mond on the competing merits of primitivism versus the World State. After his spontaneous bid to stir revolt among the lower castes has failed, the Savage retreats to an old abandoned lighthouse, whips himself in remorse for his sins, and gloomily cultivates his garden. But he is hounded by reporters and hordes of intrusive brave new worlders. Guilt-ridden, the Savage finally hangs himself after - we are given to infer - he has taken the soma he so despises and succumbed to an orgiastic debauch.

If you want to know more about John the Savage you must read this.

3. I reside in the City of Savage Minnesota.

This site will feed the political animal inside you. I hope you enjoy it. It’s for me and you.