7 ms·

> 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 livi

> 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
        Some parents clearly aren't fit to be parents at all, I trust our collective wisdom as embodied by our government a lot more. Even though child protection services are horribly underfunded and have also become quite bad.
  - Scarblac 7y ago
    Yes, but the people on that side of the discussion mostly moved to countries like the US in the last few centuries.
    - benj111 7y ago
      I would think the US takes more notice than most countries as all citizens regardless of where they live and if they've ever actually visited the US are required to pay US taxes.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > guaranteed path to some forms of lifelong exploitation Like what? Because most states have had registration of births for about a century.
    - jandrese 7y ago
      Like paying taxes. Taxation is theft after all. Also, possible military service maybe? But the GP poster is 100% correct that purposely not registering your children with the state in this day and age is hugely suspicious. You are giving up so many services and getting very little apparent benefit in return, there has to be some ulterior motive. It's not a good place to be where the least terrible answer is that you're a bit crazy in the head.
    - soperj 7y ago
      This is a reply to your reply. Taxation is not theft. You either work in the country and make money, and use everything around you in that country that was provided by taxes (roads, sewer, fire, police, etc) or you don't work and don't pay taxes.
      - Arnavion 7y ago
        (If you click the <# time ago> link in the comment, you get taken to a page just for that comment tree. That page will always have a reply box, even if the main comments page hides it.)
      - wincy 7y ago
        It’s theft because you get thrown in prison if you don’t pay. It’s little better than the mafia, only we’ve been brainwashed to think it’s okay by being forced to attend public schools. I wouldn’t consider it theft if paying taxes was voluntary. Maybe the fire department and police shouldn’t show up if I don’t pay, maybe I can’t drive anywhere, but they shouldn’t show up and steal my home then imprison me. Prison for unpaid taxes is just modern day debtors prison.
        merpnderp 7y ago
  - voldacar 7y ago
    I'm glad someone else here has read the Scott book!
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.

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
      Some parents clearly aren't fit to be parents at all, I trust our collective wisdom as embodied by our government a lot more. Even though child protection services are horribly underfunded and have also become quite bad.
- Scarblac 7y ago
  Yes, but the people on that side of the discussion mostly moved to countries like the US in the last few centuries.
  - benj111 7y ago
    I would think the US takes more notice than most countries as all citizens regardless of where they live and if they've ever actually visited the US are required to pay US taxes.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > guaranteed path to some forms of lifelong exploitation Like what? Because most states have had registration of births for about a century.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Like paying taxes. Taxation is theft after all. Also, possible military service maybe? But the GP poster is 100% correct that purposely not registering your children with the state in this day and age is hugely suspicious. You are giving up so many services and getting very little apparent benefit in return, there has to be some ulterior motive. It's not a good place to be where the least terrible answer is that you're a bit crazy in the head.
  - soperj 7y ago
    This is a reply to your reply. Taxation is not theft. You either work in the country and make money, and use everything around you in that country that was provided by taxes (roads, sewer, fire, police, etc) or you don't work and don't pay taxes.
    - Arnavion 7y ago
      (If you click the <# time ago> link in the comment, you get taken to a page just for that comment tree. That page will always have a reply box, even if the main comments page hides it.)
    - wincy 7y ago
      It’s theft because you get thrown in prison if you don’t pay. It’s little better than the mafia, only we’ve been brainwashed to think it’s okay by being forced to attend public schools. I wouldn’t consider it theft if paying taxes was voluntary. Maybe the fire department and police shouldn’t show up if I don’t pay, maybe I can’t drive anywhere, but they shouldn’t show up and steal my home then imprison me. Prison for unpaid taxes is just modern day debtors prison.
      - merpnderp 7y ago
- voldacar 7y ago
  I'm glad someone else here has read the Scott book!

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.