There is no need to invoke “community” as demanding justice, just any individual or collection thereof taking action to end coercion. But they don't have a right to do this at the expense of others lives, i.e. bombing thousands at the periphery to reach thousands at the core.

Sorry, I notice I didn't quite provide a reponse to your points that actually addresses them.

When you write “the community is imposing coercion…”, I don't think they are, but instead preventing it (from continuing), save for the ex post facto declaration of “Hey, I didn't want to be saved!”, in which case coercion was imposed. In the hypothetical you present, however, I'd be damned surprised if this posed much of a problem though.

This makes me wonder how anyone would even know this was happening to the children, as apparently removed from the peering eyes of the community as this hypothetical would seem to make them.

Children have individual rights too, and I'd have to wonder how they'd feel about such actions being taken against them. But I'll assume you mean that these kids have grown up since day one in conditions like this, and so pose no real threat of resistance, not knowing any better.

This is akin to slavery IMO. Many, if not most, slaves grew up thinking their condition - being caged, actually owned - was simply reality, and they could expect no better. They had to be persuaded that their bondage was unjust, and to demand bodily sovereignty. But no matter how much one demands they realize this, “forcing them to be free” (to leave the plantation) is unjust. Admittedly, in the case of children unable to communicate, it would be fine by me, and a risk I'd be willing to take, if they were so forced (rescued). If they later say “What the hell were you doing, I wanted to stay!”, well, they have a point. (Keep in mind this is indeed what the FLDS kids were saying, and not even “later” but rather immediately!)

If the community, as represented by the government, feels that it has the right to step in so as to prevent children being raised in cages, then (1) the community has some implicit wants with respect to raising children; (2) the community is imposing its own interpretation of what behaviors will reach those goals; and (3) the community is imposing coercion in order to get those behaviors.

There is no need to invoke “community” as demanding justice, just any individual or collection thereof taking action to end coercion. But they don't have a right to do this at the expense of others lives, i.e. bombing thousands at the periphery to reach thousands at the core.

It is even theoretically only possible for a community to be _relatively_ liberal, and to have _relative_ absence of coercion.

Of course. And no definition of coercion is rock solid. I'd refer to J.C .Lester's definition as “minimizing proactive imposition” as an alternative to an impenetrable Rothbardian natural rights edifice. In this way, reductios become less likely to cause one's head to explode.

If the community, as represented by the government, feels that it has the right to step in so as to prevent children being raised in cages, then (1) the community has some implicit wants with respect to raising children; (2) the community is imposing its own interpretation of what behaviors will reach those goals; and (3) the community is imposing coercion in order to get those behaviors.

To truly let parents raise their kids as they see fit, without external coercion, is to allow parents to raise children in cages, and worse.

Even if you let parents raise children in ways they consider happiness maximizing, and you truly let parents decide what happiness maximizing is, you are allowing all sorts of genital mutilation, torture, etc. If you have no standards with regard to what leads to happiness, then the parent only needs to justify the genital mutilation as helping towards the child's future happiness. They will provide just such justification.

Your remark “dangerously close to illiberal and authoritarian” fails to see that there is no way, at all, even in principle, that we can have the reproductive process that we have, and avoid being illiberal and authoritarian. If the community doesn't impose standards how children should be raised, then parents are free to raise their children in tyranical, illiberal, authoritarian, abusive fashion. On the other hand, if the community imposes _any_ standards on parents, then the community has crossed the line. As soon as you enforce that parents shouldn't lock their children in cages, or give them beatings, or whatever, this is _already_ being illiberal and authoritarian.

The question is not _whether_ we are being illiberal and authoritarian. The question is _who_ is going to be permitted to lord it over whom. Because someone's gonna lord it over someone. In the extreme example, either the community lords it over abusive parents, or the abusive parents lord it over their kids.

It is even theoretically only possible for a community to be _relatively_ liberal, and to have _relative_ absence of coercion. I agree that it is preferrable that coercion is minimized, but the minimum amount of coercion isn't zero. This is never achievable. At the very least, you need to have a sufficient amount of coercion to prevents coercive people from being coercive.

And even then, you can have your island of non-coerciveness within a relatively confined community, such as the community of people, but you ain't ever gonna make that system work in nature in general. Outside our little civilized communities, the law of the strongest reigns supreme.

When enforced “happiness maximization” is something apart from the aggregate of individual desires, with all of their informational and situational shortcomings, it comes dangerously close to being illiberal and authoritarian.

You still haven't specified any criterion you want to maximize (the “want”) in order to determine what you “should”.

If, suppose, the government wants to maximize happiness a few generations down the road - or even just for the next generation - then it makes sense for the government to (a) support those parents who raise children in a way that will be happiness-maximizing, and (b) use force on parents who raise children in ways severely detrimental to happiness.

One could make the argument that it helps maximize their future happiness if you raise kids in an open-minded manner while trying to develop their abilities for good judgement and information processing.

One could then further argue that (1) religious inculcation is forcing a child down a certain cultural path rather than letting them evaluate their environment and opt for the option which provides them with most happiness; so religious inculcation is detrimental to happiness.

And, (2) not teaching a child to read or write detracts from their ability to process information about their environment, and thus reduces their ability to make choices that will maximize their future happiness.

If the government believes these arguments, it now has reasonable grounds to use force against parents who inculcate their children with religious beliefs, and who fail to teach a kid to read or write.

It's all a matter of setting up criteria and then finding ways to satisfy them. You ain't gonna answer this question without deciding what you want to achieve in the first place.

True, and this can be extended to the world at large, not just American society. But this is issue is separable from the question of government force. When CLR James, the unorthodox Marxist anti-colonialist, critiqued the excuses for continued British control of various parts of Africa, he mentioned their idea of the inability of the indigenous blacks to self-govern due to mass illiteracy. Self-determination was to be denied because of a “politically mandated developmental minimum” in the eyes of the colonizers.

The British, in this case, can rightfully claim that literacy is a necessity for a “meaningful exercise of freedom” (even then, mid 20th century), can they not? Or, at least, meaningful for an exercise of freedom that a Brit would likely undertake. But the indigenous Africans of yesteryear, and the resistant young adults of FLDS, are not comfortable with an external force telling them that without their intrusion their life is not sufficiently “meaningful” from the perspective of the dominant mainstream.

Robin's argument is not necessarily “cultural rights” in orientation. Mine is not. No individual member of the FLDS should be forced to reside in rural Texas by government forces in order to “preserve” culture any more than the FLDS, collectively, should be suppressed by same forces. (And, apparently, the Texas welfare apparatus has been keeping these folks in suspended animation - isolation - for some years.)

Kind of off-handedly, I recently read a story about ex-Californians and Vegas yuppies moving to a very remote part of southwestern Utah. The area has a good number of polygamists, who exist in tension with the more mainstream Mormons. These newly arrived, relatively secular liberals are fine with the polygamists, and get along well with them. The mainstream Mormons find this upsetting. If I can only find the link somewhere…

In any case, it'd be interesting to see if a kind of polygamist attrition occurs over time, as the “secular liberal professional” population grows in rural Utah. (But if the polygamists continue to exist in a legal-welfare limbo, they can be artificially sustained.)

So do you support the government forcing parents to teach their kids to read and write? If a set of parents were proud of their illiterate culture, and wanted to raise their kids to be part of that culture, I'm pretty reluctant to use government force in this case.

This is a question of “want”, not a question of “should”. There is no objectively best threshold unless you define what you want to maximize. What you want to maximize, in turn, is just your personal preference, and you need to present arguments why the ruling tribe would want to maximize that same thing. Even so, it all boils down to what the ruling tribe wants. There is no “should” beside what “should” be done to achieve what the ruling tribe “wants”. There is no outside standard to decide what the ruling tribe “should” want, and no way to measure it other than to go around and ask members questions.

Judges are a formal organ of the ruling tribe here, so the threshold is where the judges say it is, assuming that their judgement is upheld. The judges will make their decision based upon some mix of idealism derived from founding principles, mixed with some legislature, and a large dose of personal preference. There is no greater outside standard beyond their decision.