[Tax-chick]

It's peculiar to see John Stossel defending polygamy so fervently, when, as practiced, it's overwhelmingly a massive swindle of the taxpayers. So much for small-government conservativism, huh? And even Reason magazine noted that, in all societies over all time period, the main losers are the men who can't get wives and are stuck with each other (or camels).

I think this is one of those situations like price controls or the minimum wage: some people desperately, viscerally want it to be a good idea, but the overwhelming empirical evidence shows that the practice is harmful for all but a very few.

Frankly, between this and the recent column supporting public sex and nudity, I'm starting to wonder if he's gone off the deep end ...

[Gondring]

It's peculiar to see John Stossel defending polygamy so fervently, when, as practiced, it's overwhelmingly a massive swindle of the taxpayers.

What do you mean?

[Flo Nightengale]

Stossel is a lightweight. For a more well-reasoned, in-depth look at the arguments against legalizing polygamy, see Polygamy vs. Democracy, by Stanley Kurtz.

From his column:

Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one's partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that's not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.