While I cannot help but question the specifics of the people in the story, the threats and so forth. I mean if he's threatening people with guns to "steal" water, that's not right obviously. So don't get me wrong in the following.
When I look at the grander scope, I have to say that I do have some concerns about the seeming universally acceptance that we [our government] should be taking children from parents things like for not having running water, or not having a "floor"... Or perhaps more precisely, this concept of "we know better than you how you should live your life" as a whole.
I have a cabin down south that doesn't have running water or electricity, my husband and his buddies have stayed there up to a week during the hunting season. We also winter-proof our north cabin every winter and have stayed there without running water for up to a week for a random snow machining jaunt (why de-winterize for a week only to re-winterize again decision.) It wasn't /that/ bit a deal - hell my boys thought it was hilarious to piss off the deck and "draw" in the snow (and I have to admit the regular blue ball jokes /were/ amusing heh). Now I personally wouldn't want to live that way all the time because I'm spoiled by my modern conveniences, but I never /once/ considered it "unsafe" and certainly do not think it was "child abuse."
Our main house is on an auxiliary power line and the thing breaks a lot (no power to the well pump) The last time it was down for 11 days, it really /wasn't/ that hard to deal with. We heated and cooked with the woodstove, melted and boiled snow for baths and food, etc. I don't think anyone we were "unhealthy" there either. In fact the biggest problem we had was constantly moving milk inside and out so it stayed cold, but didn't freeze. Not to mention, denied our internet connection, TV shows, and computers, my eldest son and I had some really great in depth conversations sitting around the stove before bed; one of which happened to be about "how people used to live." I suppose prior to that I'd never thought about it too much, but this story has brought it back to mind...
Homesteading from Federal land was available in the us until like 1976, and in Alaska until 1986... (That's where you get a plot of land and you go live on it, no electricity, no water, no septic/sewage, nothing but the work you put into building your own home there, usually in the middle of nowhere...) As the financially well off did not qualify for them, I have to presume people were out in the wilds building their own homes without "modern" utilities up into the mid 80s here; and I'd dare say at least /most/ of them probably are just fine today - though admittedly considering we loose at least 3 tourists to the wilds every year, some might have perished. I can't be sure they had kids with, but you never know, it was a way to bring in immigrants and offer the poor a home as I understand it.
I have found no evidence to support any idea that homesteading was considered a "bad" way to live anywhere. Homesteading was mostly eliminated because the Federal Government basically wanted more parkland in the west, instead of giving it to people, they turned it into parks; and perhaps it could be argued it was because we didn't need as many immigrants, but certainly nothing anywhere says it was ended for "safety concerns." Plus the fact that Alaska, one of the harshest environments in the country, was given an extra 10 years of Fed land homesteading leads me to presume it wasn't considered "dangerous" to any ones safety. In addition you can /still/ buy "homestead" lots through open bids today (I think they limit use to "recreational cabins" though, and its on an open bid basis so I am sure the well to do win them and just pay people to make it happen.)
So I guess my concern, or maybe question is, have things really changed so much that living as this countries founders did, as homesteader's in Alaska did just 30 years ago, now considered somehow "unsafe," and even considered child abuse? While all of us might be "dependent" on modern convenience, who are we to "dictate" that /no one/ should be allowed to live like that, even if they /want/ to?
While I can agree that modern conveniences have certainly /increased/ peoples health, I do not feel that a truthful argument can be made that there is such a major health concern for going without those conveniences the government needs to get involved and put a stop to it...
