Replies

I guess we’ll see in the days to come but I’m guessing that this report is pretty one-sided. Simply reading it makes me question its credibility.

I should chime in on that: I agree with you. In most of these cases it turns out the folks are not people you would want as your neighbors. But for me it is really not about them. It’s about the state and what it uses as justification to get involved, via the power of the gun, in the life of an autonomous family.

Notice the kids don’t have SSN’s? That is “proof” they are nutjobs to many. It proves to me that they are willing to, as John Adams said, risk their “comfort” for freedom.

Notice the kids don’t have SSN’s? That is “proof” they are nutjobs to many. It proves to me that they are willing to, as John Adams said, risk their “comfort” for freedom.

I'm OK with the notion of no SSN's unless they are old enough to flip burgers after school and want to work. However, I did read that several of the home-birthed children in the family in this dispute do not have birth certificates. That is a no-no in today's world.

Back in the day, however — pre-WW2 in the case of someone I personally knew — some families never took care of registering the birth until the child was old enough to get a job. And that's how the person I knew changed his own middle name to one he much preferred, because of being teased in school over the original one given by the parents.

Someday these kids will want and need to go out into a world they may not be prepared for. Also, what happens if the father dies young, or abandons the family, for instance? I see food stamps in that "off the grid" future.

So while I am interested in them retaining maximum individual rights, I'm also aware that there are many risks; and if they are sincere in their desire to be self-sufficient without depending on the taxpayer, they've got a lot of hard work cut out for them. Really a lot.