10 ms·

The neighbors and locals assumed that the house was a weed farm, which strangely enough are illegal here. They are often found in farm houses like this or in ch

The neighbors and locals assumed that the house was a weed farm, which strangely enough are illegal here. They are often found in farm houses like this or in cheap units on industry terrains. The guy who rented the house also had such a unit. The papers are reporting that some of the children were not registered, but it's still crazy. I'd speculate that this happened because the mother died young and the father basically lost it and was enabled by the renter.

theandrewbailey 7y ago
> The papers are reporting that some of the children were not registered, but it's still crazy. Registered how? It's pretty obvious that these people were living off grid and didn't want to be registered with anyone in any way, and that (in and of itself) shouldn't be illegal.
- leoedin 7y ago
  When a child is born it's generally common to register the birth. In many countries it's a legal requirement - which as a first step towards child protection probably isn't a bad thing.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- leoc 7y ago
  It absolutely should be illegal, first and foremost because minor children "off the grid" is a massive risk for abuse. In any case, regardless of the rights and wrongs, one wouldn't expect the Netherlands to be tolerating anyone living fully out of the system.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    That's an awfully one-sided "think of the children" you've got there. Requiring humans to be registered (ie insisting that we be legible to the State), is also a guaranteed path to some forms of lifelong exploitation. So like everything, it's a tradeoff.
    - ecpottinger 7y ago
      They either have to go to school or if home schooled pass the tests that show they are learning the basics for their age group. Or are you suggesting it is okay to have children and never educate at all?
      - invalidOrTaken 7y ago
        The real question is why does the state have any say? There's no fundamental reason to trust the state over a child's parents; the reason the state has any say has more to do with might rather than right.
        caf 7y ago
        The reason is because the state has an obligation to take reasonable efforts to ensure the basic human rights of all people within its jurisdiction are protected. That is, the state has a duty towards the children that is independent of the state's relationship with the parents. There also is a fundamental reason to trust the state over a child's parents: the state has considerably more transparency and oversight over its actions than the parents do.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
        Because Europeans believe more in collectivism, pushing for greater good together for the society. Also compared to Americans who tend you like individualism we are not paranoid of our government because they are part of us, even if we don't like the politicians. Two different mindsets, it's hard to argue with that libertarian lens with Europeans.
        onion2k 7y ago
        There's no fundamental reason to trust the state over a child's parents. Most people don't want to harm children and won't sit by when they see it happening. They want to help. That means it's better to get more people involved in the lives of children. "The state" is one way we codify that. I think there's a good argument for enabling communities to assume that role rather than central government, but some group should be there to protect children from neglect.
- Scarblac 7y ago
  In the Netherlands that is absolutely illegal. We register more or less every leaf of grass.
  - Glawen 7y ago
    I find it funny when you know it is Napoleon who forced every dutch to chose a surname in order to build up a registry (to tax them of course) . It is the source of the many funny names that the dutch have, as they thought they will have a laugh at the french :)
    - isoprophlex 7y ago
      People that wonder what could be deliberately funny about a surname: here's a few real life examples! - Naaktgeboren, "born-naked" - Van 't Zelfde, "same to you" - De Naamloze, "nameless" - Bij 't Werk, "on the job"
    - mkl 7y ago
      Can you share some examples?
- benj111 7y ago
  The state has a responsibility to be carer of last resort, at minimum. How is it supposed to do that if it doesn't know about the children. How do you enfranchise people who have no paperwork, no id, who you don't know exist. How do you decide whether to give someone a pension, if you don't know how old they are.
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    One of my coworkers doesn't know his date of birth. In fact, my father in law is pretty sure his official birth date is wrong. As for voting, I think it's the better plan to give everyone the vote unless you can prove they're tourists. In NZ, permanent residents get the right to vote, so it's not such a stretch. The person is, after all, subject to the laws. (Rights should be afforded to subjects, as a rule, not citizens. The change of language in the 20th century was probably not a good thing. Roman citizenship law is not actually something to emulate.) Prove they're deportable and deport them, or let them vote. I used to live in a house the government didn't really know existed. (I think the state government was happy to believe me, but the federal government and local council struggled.) Someone would come over, verify that it was indeed a residence, and move on. This lasted a few years until I think they were all happy to acknowledge it. I think it's at least that easy to prove a person exists. (I was the first local citizen to live there in many years; the rest were generally international students.)
- PeterisP 7y ago
  You can argue whether it should or should not be illegal but in many countries of Europe (probably except the UK) not being registered with gov't in any way whatsoever is explicitly illegal.
  - jstanley 7y ago
    It's illegal in the UK too, in a round-about way. There's a £1000 fine if you don't register to vote.
- mantap 7y ago
  Dutch people have a very communal value system. Anglo saxon notions of freedom from government interference aren't a thing in their culture.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Less Anglo Saxon and more very specifically American. You'll find hardly anyone in the UK, except maybe extremists like Rees Mogg, who would object to registration of birth. Generally speaking, we quite like our government institutions and services. It's conservative politicians who are wedded to turning us into the 51st state. Even conservative voters often object to closure of services or attempts to to use a popular slogan and outright lie: "introduce the efficiency of the market" to the NHS.
    - squiggleblaz 7y ago
      How is it conservative to throw away your own traditions and replace them with someone else's? Don't let them steal your country by taking your words.
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They started taking the word when they named the party 150 or 200 years ago, when they formed out of the smoking wreckage of the Tory party. Up until 1979 they were a mostly traditionalist and small c conservative party. Since then they have been steadily getting more radical and extreme.
    - mantap 7y ago
      In the UK there is no requirement for adults to possess any kind of ID, let alone carry it around. The mere introduction of optional ID cards caused a huge shitstorm. There is no requirement for adults to register their whereabouts with the authorities. And home schooling is explicitly legal, the authorities may or may not check on children who are home schooled. In many western European countries these things would be radical. Both US and UK share a strong tradition of individual independence.
Sargos 7y ago
>a weed farm, which strangely enough are illegal here Has the world changed so much that this is weird now? Weed is still illegal in 90% of the entire world.
- toyg 7y ago
  I guess a Dutch guy living in a city, where weed "coffee shops" have been legal for decades now, might find it a bit illogical -- which it is.
  - sailfast 7y ago
    It is illogical, but allows policing when things are perceived to "get out of hand" which is an interesting way to have things both ways (both as citizens, and as law enforcement). It's a delicate balance that could be easily thrown-over, but so far has managed to last. We'll see how long it can continue though given a lot of boundary-testing.
- catalogia 7y ago
  Some might find it weird that cannabis was ever illegal anywhere in the first place.
  - A2017U1 7y ago
    While I agree with the sentiment feel the urge to note that where I live but you will face punishment for having blackberries growing on your property similar to what you would for selling marijuana. Blackberries are a national pest, and yet sell for $80/kg in supermarkets. The average person could collect over $50 worth from the side of the road in under an hour. Australia is not known for its efficiency nor logic.
- agranig 7y ago
  Strange for a country where you can legally smoke (and buy?) weed at every other corner.
  - 7y ago
supakeen 7y ago
The mayor confirmed in their press conference that all children were registered and noted that it was weird that they were never checked on their school attendance (mandatory at that age).

theandrewbailey 7y ago

> The papers are reporting that some of the children were not registered, but it's still crazy. Registered how? It's pretty obvious that these people were living off grid and didn't want to be registered with anyone in any way, and that (in and of itself) shouldn't be illegal.

leoedin 7y ago
When a child is born it's generally common to register the birth. In many countries it's a legal requirement - which as a first step towards child protection probably isn't a bad thing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
leoc 7y ago
It absolutely should be illegal, first and foremost because minor children "off the grid" is a massive risk for abuse. In any case, regardless of the rights and wrongs, one wouldn't expect the Netherlands to be tolerating anyone living fully out of the system.
- mindslight 7y ago
  That's an awfully one-sided "think of the children" you've got there. Requiring humans to be registered (ie insisting that we be legible to the State), is also a guaranteed path to some forms of lifelong exploitation. So like everything, it's a tradeoff.
  - ecpottinger 7y ago
    They either have to go to school or if home schooled pass the tests that show they are learning the basics for their age group. Or are you suggesting it is okay to have children and never educate at all?
    - invalidOrTaken 7y ago
      The real question is why does the state have any say? There's no fundamental reason to trust the state over a child's parents; the reason the state has any say has more to do with might rather than right.
      - caf 7y ago
        The reason is because the state has an obligation to take reasonable efforts to ensure the basic human rights of all people within its jurisdiction are protected. That is, the state has a duty towards the children that is independent of the state's relationship with the parents. There also is a fundamental reason to trust the state over a child's parents: the state has considerably more transparency and oversight over its actions than the parents do.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
        Because Europeans believe more in collectivism, pushing for greater good together for the society. Also compared to Americans who tend you like individualism we are not paranoid of our government because they are part of us, even if we don't like the politicians. Two different mindsets, it's hard to argue with that libertarian lens with Europeans.
      - onion2k 7y ago
        There's no fundamental reason to trust the state over a child's parents. Most people don't want to harm children and won't sit by when they see it happening. They want to help. That means it's better to get more people involved in the lives of children. "The state" is one way we codify that. I think there's a good argument for enabling communities to assume that role rather than central government, but some group should be there to protect children from neglect.
Scarblac 7y ago
In the Netherlands that is absolutely illegal. We register more or less every leaf of grass.
- Glawen 7y ago
  I find it funny when you know it is Napoleon who forced every dutch to chose a surname in order to build up a registry (to tax them of course) . It is the source of the many funny names that the dutch have, as they thought they will have a laugh at the french :)
  - isoprophlex 7y ago
    People that wonder what could be deliberately funny about a surname: here's a few real life examples! - Naaktgeboren, "born-naked" - Van 't Zelfde, "same to you" - De Naamloze, "nameless" - Bij 't Werk, "on the job"
  - mkl 7y ago
    Can you share some examples?
benj111 7y ago
The state has a responsibility to be carer of last resort, at minimum. How is it supposed to do that if it doesn't know about the children. How do you enfranchise people who have no paperwork, no id, who you don't know exist. How do you decide whether to give someone a pension, if you don't know how old they are.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  One of my coworkers doesn't know his date of birth. In fact, my father in law is pretty sure his official birth date is wrong. As for voting, I think it's the better plan to give everyone the vote unless you can prove they're tourists. In NZ, permanent residents get the right to vote, so it's not such a stretch. The person is, after all, subject to the laws. (Rights should be afforded to subjects, as a rule, not citizens. The change of language in the 20th century was probably not a good thing. Roman citizenship law is not actually something to emulate.) Prove they're deportable and deport them, or let them vote. I used to live in a house the government didn't really know existed. (I think the state government was happy to believe me, but the federal government and local council struggled.) Someone would come over, verify that it was indeed a residence, and move on. This lasted a few years until I think they were all happy to acknowledge it. I think it's at least that easy to prove a person exists. (I was the first local citizen to live there in many years; the rest were generally international students.)
PeterisP 7y ago
You can argue whether it should or should not be illegal but in many countries of Europe (probably except the UK) not being registered with gov't in any way whatsoever is explicitly illegal.
- jstanley 7y ago
  It's illegal in the UK too, in a round-about way. There's a £1000 fine if you don't register to vote.
mantap 7y ago
Dutch people have a very communal value system. Anglo saxon notions of freedom from government interference aren't a thing in their culture.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Less Anglo Saxon and more very specifically American. You'll find hardly anyone in the UK, except maybe extremists like Rees Mogg, who would object to registration of birth. Generally speaking, we quite like our government institutions and services. It's conservative politicians who are wedded to turning us into the 51st state. Even conservative voters often object to closure of services or attempts to to use a popular slogan and outright lie: "introduce the efficiency of the market" to the NHS.
  - squiggleblaz 7y ago
    How is it conservative to throw away your own traditions and replace them with someone else's? Don't let them steal your country by taking your words.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      They started taking the word when they named the party 150 or 200 years ago, when they formed out of the smoking wreckage of the Tory party. Up until 1979 they were a mostly traditionalist and small c conservative party. Since then they have been steadily getting more radical and extreme.
  - mantap 7y ago
    In the UK there is no requirement for adults to possess any kind of ID, let alone carry it around. The mere introduction of optional ID cards caused a huge shitstorm. There is no requirement for adults to register their whereabouts with the authorities. And home schooling is explicitly legal, the authorities may or may not check on children who are home schooled. In many western European countries these things would be radical. Both US and UK share a strong tradition of individual independence.

Sargos 7y ago

>a weed farm, which strangely enough are illegal here Has the world changed so much that this is weird now? Weed is still illegal in 90% of the entire world.

toyg 7y ago
I guess a Dutch guy living in a city, where weed "coffee shops" have been legal for decades now, might find it a bit illogical -- which it is.
- sailfast 7y ago
  It is illogical, but allows policing when things are perceived to "get out of hand" which is an interesting way to have things both ways (both as citizens, and as law enforcement). It's a delicate balance that could be easily thrown-over, but so far has managed to last. We'll see how long it can continue though given a lot of boundary-testing.
catalogia 7y ago
Some might find it weird that cannabis was ever illegal anywhere in the first place.
- A2017U1 7y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment feel the urge to note that where I live but you will face punishment for having blackberries growing on your property similar to what you would for selling marijuana. Blackberries are a national pest, and yet sell for $80/kg in supermarkets. The average person could collect over $50 worth from the side of the road in under an hour. Australia is not known for its efficiency nor logic.
agranig 7y ago
Strange for a country where you can legally smoke (and buy?) weed at every other corner.
- 7y ago

supakeen 7y ago

The mayor confirmed in their press conference that all children were registered and noted that it was weird that they were never checked on their school attendance (mandatory at that age).