Posted on 02/28/2002 7:36:19 AM PST by Dallas
MOORE HAVEN, Fla. (Reuters) - Acting on a tip that a Florida family was keeping a child's casket in their living room, police discovered a 53-year-old man living on an isolated farm with his sister as a couple and their 13 children and grandchildren, authorities said on Wednesday.
No charges were filed against the pair for digging up the remains because the statute of limitations had run out but police filed a single charge of incest against the man. He was being held Wednesday at the Glades County Jail on $150,000 bond.
Holley said the sister had not yet been charged in the ongoing investigation into one of the most bizarre incidents in memory in rural Glades County, a citrus-growing area bordering Florida's Lake Okeechobee.
"Some of our norms are defined by law. Some people don't agree with the norms and they live outside the law," Holley said. "Our main concern was for the welfare of the children."
Investigators believe the 13 children were delivered and schooled at home. They described the house as orderly and the children as disciplined.
"You have to wonder. Didn't they know this wouldn't work out?" Holley said.
Perhaps they figured she'd been screwed too many times?
That's my guess.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
But how would you propose the community deal with it? Institute something like the Kirk Session? Also, I would disagree with you that the law has not helped here. It has probably prevented further incest behavior and children being produced from said relationship.
This is a difficult situation I think for libertarians, but I am under the belief it should remain illegial because: children, with possible genetic defects, would likely be born of such a relationship, and as I am opposed to abortion, I do not see many other options in protecting the innocent life- that is, the child that would be produced. Thus, I don't think this would be a case of merely two adults and no others involved.
Thank you.
That is the main reason that I come to this forum. I prefer rational over name calling.
In a free society, the community has myriad means other than governmental force at it's disposal, to deal with things it considers unacceptable.
For example, the individuals in a community may decide that they do not wish to trade with Mr. Incest.... or sell him goods. Or allow him access to stores, clubs, social institutions, etc. The may decide to ostracize him. Shun him. Protest against his actions with signs, editorials, and demonstrations.
They may do all of these things morally and effectively.
What they may NOT do morally, is initiate force against him. They only morally legitimate use of force is in defense of rights. Hence the use of force must be withheld unless he violates the rights of another.
I do know of at least one situation where your idea worked very well: in the company towns of the first half of the 20th century- those controlled by lumber companies and, to a lesser degree, mining companies. In lumber towns especially the company enforced a moral code, through private means one might say. You could lose your job for improper behavior. Some racial strife was cut down on as well through the workings of the free market. Also, I am reminded of Henry Ford's attempts to control his employes moral lives: he tended to succeed, though one may question his ethics there. Still, he did not use threat of force- physical force anyway.
To find all articles tagged or indexed using |
||||
click here >>> |
SASU |
<<< click here | ||
Master Bump List |
I think the coffin part's strange.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.