Even though I think Kerry's answer is internally contradictory, from a practical standpoint, I believe it is a better reason for coercion than finding a practice “repulsive.” I do get concerned that immigration and changes to our population could lead to an increase in appetite for state coercion of norms. This is happening elsewhere; sometimes it is overblown, and sometimes it isn't. I think Kerry's argument, teased out, might even support a prohibition against people from more traditional cultures or practicing particularly illiberal forms of religion from voting (I wonder what Will or Kerry would think of that application of her reasoning?)

My answer to your example is actually pretty much the same as Kerry's on the theoretical, but I see it cutting in the other direction when it comes to application. BECAUSE everyone's values are contingent upon the circumstances, community, and culture in which they grew up, there ought to be a firm, ex ante rule that says the state has no role in shaping the child-rearing context. Even though I'm instinctively uncomfortable with this rule's application in certain contexts because I agree with you that the polygamous cult's child-rearing is fairly repulsive, I don't think the situation you describe is significantly different from most traditional cultural practices, and would closely mirrors more traditional Muslim practices. It just includes an “ick” factor, along with perhaps additional cultural distance so that I feel very little sympathy. When I imagine traditional muslims who have recently immigrated living next door and raising their children in a traditional manner, I find that forceful intervention sounds much less appealing. Do you agree?

Also, a child who grows up in a family that is secular and liberal will have attitudes that many, if not most people in the United States find “fairly repulsive.” While this may be changing, I still suspect that a society in which everyone agrees that the most powerful political block gets to impose its social norms on everyone else, the secular liberal family loses out. Its for this reason that I oppose state coercion, and I'm not going to support it if and when people who are more like me attain power.

I agree that we should allow groups from the seasteaders to the Amish through the ACLU to form an associate as they see fit. Communities naturally have norms and generally will disassociate from members who don't live by them and that's unavoidable, but there are elements here that are tricky for me. I think there's a basic kernel of norms that's essential to a liberal society, and for me they go a bit further than non-coercion. When a sub-group abandons those norms, I think its appropriate for the wider society to intervene. I'm not sure such intervention can always be non-coercive, although I'd certainly prefer it to be.

Take the example of a polygamist cult that believes that women should not be educated, should be married to a man of their father's choosing at the earliest age, should be obedient to their husbands, and should be exposed to no outside influences. Lets suppose that they're not breaking any laws (its unlikely in practice, but this is for the sake of argument). Now most of us would find this fairly repulsive. Personally I'd also favour any possible private non-coercive action to change the situation. If that didn't work would I favor forceful intervention? I personally find this a very hard question.