Under the table, better than nothing at all
It’s so amusing to read about “under the table” jobs as if the participants were committing murder. This is a huge difference in attitude between the Finns and Americans. The article uses words like “shady”, “wrestles with his conscience”, and “temptation” to describe the people involved in this practice. Pleaseee….
PAM reports that its Helsinki office is contacted about once a week by someone who has been offered undocumented work. The information comes by telephone. “They want to remain faceless. Common sense dictates that these kinds of things will not bear the light of day”, says Irmeli Mäenpää, head of the office. Jussi sometimes wrestles with his conscience. “But I will have time to pay plenty of those taxes when I get a regular job.”
People involved in the grey economy are rarely well off financially. Like the article says, it’s often restaurants, probably just trying to make ends meet, offering this undocumented work because the state makes it too costly to do legally. And the workers, often students and young people like the article states, are struggling with the high youth unemployment in Finland - they either they take the under the table jobs or they’re broke and unemployed.
In addition to young people, immigrants are newcomers to the Finnish labour market, and as such, are subject to offers from shady characters.
These under the table jobs are mostly temporary anyways, few people do this work for long periods of time. And you usually get paid daily, so if the boss screws you over, you just tell him to suck it…and you never return. But I guess the state would rather we immigrants and young people sit home and collect the welfare, and have the small shops and restaurants go bankrupt?
These under the table jobs are mostly temporary anyways, few people do this work for long periods of time. And you usually get paid daily, so if the boss screws you over, you just tell him to suck it…and you never return.
How would you know.. .?
Comment by Anton — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
No, Phil, the state would rather want to see immigrants and young people work and pay their taxes and demand the same from the small shops and restaurants as well.
And this is for the benefit of all of us. I don’t remember by heart whether that article was translated into English (and am too lazy to check) but the Sunday issue of HS some weeks ago ran a lengthy article about two Turkish men exploited by their employer here. Too much work, illegal working hours, far below standards pay and so on. Really a sad story. Rather than a situation where both the employer is saved from the evil state and the employee given more flexibility, this is what the grey market is more all about.
Comment by Moral minority? — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Moral minority? wrote: “And this is for the benefit of all of us.”
But of course! How naïve of us to think that what we create with our own hands and brains would be ours to keep! It’s only fair that the one with the guns gets to take a portion. Nevermind that the main use of that portion is to ensure that the confiscation can continue unhindred.
It sure helps to have brilliant people like you to spread the message of “morality.”
Comment by Liber Al — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
I’ve read that story about the turkish men, why is that so sad? No one was forcing them to work those hours or take that pay. If it wasnt for that low pay and long hours, they would probably never have been brought to finland and would be back in Turkey working even longer hours for even less pay.
Comment by Phil — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
That article was published in finnish in todays HS
Comment by Justen — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
Phil your stupidity amazes me
Comment by P — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
Phil… the Turkish men were brought to Finland under false pretences that they would be working a 37.5 hour week. They worked six days a week, roughly 12 hours a day, and could do nothing much about it as they were:
a) unable to speak either Finnish or English,
b) (as a result of a)) completely dependent for information on their employer, who apparently fed them a crock of shit,
c) initially unaware of Finnish workplace legislation or the rights and obligations of employees and employers, and
d) scared that they would be sent home if they bitched about the job and the hours.
These men were mercilessly exploited by one of their own, for his own profit. The pattern is being repeated in similar (and much worse) circumstances in many other ethnic communities and in many other countries besides Finland. But never mind, the exploiters are themselves exploited by the evil überstate.
So that’s alright then.
Comment by Lawyers, guns and money — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
The only time I have ever read something similar to that Phil’s opinion, have been some communist propacanda twisting things beyond any sense by burning stalinism.
Comment by Markku — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
I would stress the little sentence: “Work in the grey sector can be especially attractive if the student’s official income is starting to approach the limits for eligibility for student grants.”
This is all too true. If you are approaching the earning limit, the only ways to improve your economic situation is to get money from your parents or do an under-the-table job. If the tax authorities do not know, KELA won’t know either. It is the state’s fault that it does not provide people a way to improve their economic situation by earnest open-market work.
For those who think that the limits are not too thigh, I must stress they are personal. If there is a pair, and only one works part-time to finance their living, the limit is still single-person limit for the working one. That the other does not have time or chance to work, does not raise the limit for the other. So, in effect, the limit/person is halved for them.
Comment by Iiro — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
Thank you, Lawyers, guns and money, you replied before I could have. This is no funny issue at all. The merciless employer really exploited them, used their lack of language skills and knowledge of Finnish society and legislation to get a huge profit for himself. It’s not a question of doing one quarter of an hour of unpaid extra work per day for a meager salary, it was a question of hundreds of hours of unpaid work for an illegally low salary plus other illegalities, all this done consciously exploiting people’s ignorance (which the Turkish guys are not to blame for, they didn’t know).
This is all called exploitation. I don’t understand how someone can support the conscious exploitation of other, ignorant human beings for his own profit. Disgusting, honestly.
Liber Al, what I meant by for the benefit of all of us is wrote I wrote above. It’s in the interest of everybody that situations like that with the Turkish men don’t exist. If you think what happened with them is OK, please feel to do so but I hope I’ll never live in a society ruled by people with such ideals.
Comment by Moral minority? — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
phil do you remember when you first came to finland ,how hard and frustrating it was , now imagine that without your girlfriend to translate and guide you.
this is one of the best countries in the world to live in but also one of the hardest to establish yourself in , but i think most on this board would agree its worth it in the end but please dont belittle these guys troubles, just remember your own troubles and multiply it
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Mar 31st, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
This is all called exploitation. I don’t understand how someone can support the conscious exploitation of other, ignorant human beings for his own profit.
Just start studying libertarianism. The advocates of it are notorious for denying that the free market system could produce anything bad. This means that you’re free to exploit Phil’s ignorance or any other inferiority anyway you want and expect him accept it with a smile: “Sure, you just ripped me off from my last cent by selling me an apartment that doesn’t exist, but hell, I asked for it by trusting you, didn’t I?”
Comment by TomiA — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 9:23 am
People who get paid under the table work in jobs that they don’t keep for long. On the other hand it can be a stepping stone to a job that pays wages that feed into the economy. If you were stranded and looking for work, and had little options open to you, would you rather take a job that paid under the table until you found “decent” employment or would you starve?
Comment by Ms. New Jersey — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 10:06 am
Ms. NJ
It depends who would offer me a under-the-table job. If it was a wealthy person, I would do what I could to bring the person to justice. I think it is possible in Finland to get a fair trial even if you are poor. If it was a case where the employer can not afford fair pay, I might take the job. But decisions are not usually that simple.
Comment by Auriga — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
I completely agree that what was done to those turkish men was wrong, but c’mon, Turkish men cant count? they agreed to 7.5 hours but worked 12? dont be such a sucker.
If I want you to shovel my snow, and we agree on a price of 10 euros, and it takes you 4 hours to do it, so you get paid 2.50/hr…is that illegal?
Comment by Phil — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
And i think poor people and poor companies shouldnt pay any taxes whatsoever. Go after the rich companies offering the under the table work.
Comment by Phil — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
This is getting really silly…
If it takes 4 hours to shovel the snow and you pay 10e for it, the hourly wage is about 5e, because the shovel is empty half of the time, thus work is not being done half the time.
Besides… if it’s _your_ snow, nobody else should be allowed to take it :).
Comment by Auriga — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
I’m not the least bit surprised that Phil thinks like he does. Afterall, it’s libertarianism to shamelessly exploit those who can be exploited. Bigger profits is all that counts and if someone can’t stand up for their rights, well it’s just boo-hoo, too bad. Let’s bring back slavery. In a way we have already. That’s what’s the globalization is all about. That’s why companies are moving to the low cost countries. You can do what the hell you want there and won’t get busted because there’s no legislation there to protect the workers or the environment.
Comment by Ã…boy — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
As we all know the culprits are always ulkomainen. Proving that Finns are more moral than immoral foreign parasites who come to Finland to steal “our” wealth.
The HS sings the same song (indoctrination) Recently they ran an article screaming about the fact that most ethic restaurants were commiting fraud. The cat was unintentionally let out of the bag later on in the article. Those conducting the investigation had apparently made a conscious decision to focus their enquiries, on yes you’ve guessed it……ethnic minority run restaurants. What did they expect!!!!!
The real story went un-reported. The Finnish media and the role it promotes in encouraging racism in Finland.
Comment by Finnish honesty — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
As we all know the culprits are always ulkomainen. Proving that Finns are more moral than immoral foreign parasites who come to Finland to steal “our†wealth.
I’m sure that most people, taxi drivers not included, don’t really care about some kebab shops paying taxes less than diligently. The real culprits are in the construction industry and it seems that realtors are pretty dirty as well.
The real story went un-reported. The Finnish media and the role it promotes in encouraging racism in Finland.
Depends on who you ask, really. According to some people the media is full of foreigner-hugging goddamn liberals who try to hide the fact that all foreigners rape and murder for a living.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
goddamn liberals
In the American sense, obviously. Over here the accurate description would be “lefty flower-hatted auntie”.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
Afterall, it’s libertarianism to shamelessly exploit those who can be exploited.
Exploitation is such a bad word. It’s just the more able and gifted members of society taking what’s rightfully theirs.
You might like to know that True Libertarians in Finland have their own community. Enjoy:
http://members.fortunecity.com/piilopaikka/index.html
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Apr 1st, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
Aboy:
Slavery is what goes on in back alleys of all major cities in the U.S. Undocumented workers come from another country and are desperate for a job. They go to these “sweat shops” because they know that if they go apply for real work they’ll get; busted (as we say in America) for not having legal status to work here. Attention has been called to these places and our President is trying to get a new immigration Bill passed that would end the chances that sweat shops would be able to find employees because the immigrants would be able to get a workers permit and thus be able to find a job that not only pays them a real workers salary, but also gives them a chance for advancement.
By the way; sometimes money can be made on the side that is totally legal. Tip your Paperboy at Christmas and it’s side money for him. Tip your mail carrier it’s the same thing. When something’s really illegal it’s the job of the person being wronged to stand up for themselves. Can’t get legal aid, become your own lawyer. Stand up and speak for yourself. You don’t need a courtroom to assert yourself properly. The formal english language; or formal Finnish language or formal language of whatever country you live in, is a great tool. Also; no question is a stupid question. The only stupid question is one that goes unasked.
Comment by Ms. New Jersey — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 8:46 am
Oh well, I remember well the HS jesusing around about the Joensuu skinheads in the 90’s with letters to the editor about those damn stupid racist country hicks of Pohjois-(K)arjala. (sic!). On the same time they stonewalled the bomb threats, broken windows, smoke granades, and a couple of attempted arsons at Malmi refugee reception center. I know, I was living in the bloody building. Now that was flowerhatted auntie journalism to the core.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Oh well, I remember well the HS jesusing around about the Joensuu skinheads in the 90’s with letters to the editor about those damn stupid racist country hicks of Pohjois-(K)arjala. (sic!).
When someone who you secretly or not-so-secretly consider inferior expresses bigotry or commits hate crimes, it is a great excuse to let your own prejudices loose. Here we have a textbook example of that happening.
On the same time they stonewalled the bomb threats, broken windows, smoke granades, and a couple of attempted arsons at Malmi refugee reception center.
Then again, it is quite likely that the very same hicks were responsible, as they migrated en masse to Helsinki during the 90s.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 11:58 am
“Then again, it is quite likely that the very same hicks were responsible…”
I don’t deny the possibility. At least one group of perpetrators was apparently a local open minded and tolerant group of grunts, who were jealous of the pississies hanging around there all the time.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Phil, are you really that stupid? The real problem with the Turks was not that they worked more than they first thought but that they were not properly paid for their overtime.
By the way, how much do you earn? Or should I check that with the tax office? It’s public information anyway.
I guess seeing your early income would make you a terrible hypocrite. You earn surely more than the average resident here and don’t think that people should be properly paid but exploited.
Comment by Moral minority? — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 9:20 pm
By the way, how much do you earn?
Not enough.
I guess seeing your early income would make you a terrible hypocrite. You earn surely more than the average resident here and don’t think that people should be properly paid but exploited.
I absolutely think people should be properly paid! And if I wasn’t properly paid, I’d quit on day one.
And I think those Turks aren’t the only ones in this country not getting properly paid! It’s like 50% of Finland.
Comment by Phil — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
Problem with grey sector is not easy one. Some part of it is not that bad. There are always companies making use of it, but what matters most is the amount of money and who gets it. In some situations thing could be that amount of work/money is so small that it would make reporting amounts of things and paying taxes too much of work. But different thing is when company uses people for long time regularly without paying taxes. I don’t meant that it is OK to avoid taxes, but sometimes it could be justified because of limited amount of money from job.
Comment by Mr. Nobody — Sun, Apr 2nd, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
About the original topic (grey economy):
Apparently a significant portion of the public has been successfully brainwashed to believe that the Finnish society will collapse if anybody works without paying taxes (unless that somebody is the president), and this is reflected in the underlying assumptions of the article (”it is wrong to not pay taxes”) that are not questioned, ever. The guilt stems probably from this idea. The jealousy angle might come into play, as well: “Since I’m paying my taxes, everybody must pay their taxes, or they’ll be better off than I, and that cannot accepted in the egalitarian Finnish society.”
Phil (4): The restauranter committed fraud against the two turks by lying about the work terms. That was the wrongdoing in this case. Had he told the truth up front: “You’ll be working 12 hour shifts 6 days a week at such and such pay”, the contract would have been truthful, and thus all right.
Lawyers… (7: Well put. The restauranter was definitely exploiting the guys.
TomiA (12), Ã…boy (18):
You’re mispresenting liberalism in your posts. I cannot know if the reason is ignorance or malice, though.
Selling a non-existent apartment to Phil is fraud against him, and thus a violation of his rights. Fraud is a crime in a free market operating under libertarianist premises (and no other premises result in a free, unhampered market).
“Bigger profits is all that counts” is untrue as well. What matters is each individual’s right to make his or her own choices. That is the liberty we libertarians are after: freedom to make our own choices without limiting the freedom of other individuals to make their own choices.
Phil (15):
If the shoveler has his own tools (shovel) and at least two other customers, and he’s has a permit for doing his own withholding, he can be an entrepreneur under the Finnish law, and at that point he can sell his services at any price. If he’s willing to shovel snow for four hours for 10 euros, then it is his prerogative.
However, if you’re his only customer, then the tax agency will interpret the situation to mean that you’re his employer, and you’ll have to do the withholding and pay the other fees related to employing someone. If this particular field of business (shoveling snow) has a “universally valid” collective labor agreement, then there is a minimum wage for the job. If the snow shovelers do not have an universally valid CL agreement, they may still have a non-universally valid CL agreement that is binding, if the shoveler belongs in the appropriate union…
This is why the grey economy is so tempting: why spend time on nonproductive bureaucratic bullshit when you could be shoveling snow? Who benefits from this forced jumping through hoops? Union bosses, politicians and bureaucrats. And everybody else pays for the show.
Comment by MarkkuT — Mon, Apr 3rd, 2006 @ 5:51 am
Two restaurants side by side. One obeys the law pays his dues to the society, another does not. Which one do you think can have succesfull business? With your “libertarian” agenda, all kinds of frauds and illegality is ok. Perhaps someone could then liberate you from your money. Because that’s what your childish rant that you call liberalism will lead to.
You are misrepresenting liberalism.
Comment by Markku — Tue, Apr 4th, 2006 @ 11:26 am
Libertarians seem to ignore the stonecold fact that an employer and an employee, on their own, are usually not even close to equal in bargaining power. If you’re applying for a manual labour work and without any special professional credits you’re probably forced to take whatever you can get. You can’t usually just switch jobs in the case that your boss happens to be a Major Dick. Even some professionals might have difficulties in this. The fact is that many people in the States, for example, just have to stick with it and bite their tongue, until they can’t bear it any longer and they “go postal”. Exploiting people in dire straits is very, very easy in an environment where the employee has no official social, legal or economical support from anywhere.
The situational factors are almost always to the employer’s advantage. So when negotiating a working agreement the employer often has an upper hand, especially if there are no other rules or laws to the game except the law of jungle. In a libertarian utopia the employees would be fending for themselves without any safety nets, which are (for example)
a) the legislation guaranteeing some rules and universal rights,
b) the tax-paid services provided by the state and
c) the services and legal support provided by the unions.
Look at every country without these safety nets and look how the people there are doing (practically any third world country). In most countries over half of the population are living in squalor and poverty, enslaved by the ruthless work market. In China, the Great Wet Dream of globalization and libertarianism, the workers are working in crappy environments and getting crappy payment, without any benefits. Also the companies hiring them couldn’t care less for the damage they are inflicting on these people or the natural resources around them.
That’s libertarianism for you.
(P.S. Please refrain from reminding us that China is supposed to be a communist country where everyone would ideally get fairly compensated for their work by the state. We all know that that should happen, if China indeed were a communist country, which it isn’t.)
Comment by Ã…boy — Tue, Apr 4th, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
Markku (31):
Let’s see. If these restaurants operate in a mixed economy like Finland, the tax officials will shut down the one that “pays his dues to society”. If the restaurants operate in a free market economy, the restaurant with better service/lower prices/better food will do better. What was the point of your question? And where is the fraud and illegality that is ok under the libertarian agenda?
You seem to have the implied premise that anarchy (=absence of state) means chaos. Furthermore, you’re implying that an individual is incapable of protecting himself or acting rationally or volitionally. I disagree with this, as there is ample evidence for the opposite.
Let us review the basics of libertarian philosophy in a nutshell:
The main principle is one of self-ownership. From this follow the rights to one’s own life, liberty and property (acquired by production, barter or inheritance). Anything that violates these rights (attempts of murder, enslavement or theft, whether by force or fraud) is morally wrong (and a crime in a libertarian society), and a valid reason for self-defence.
The non-agression principle (NAP) is derived from reciprocity.
The current Finnish society is definitely guilty of enslavement (compulsory military service) and theft (taxation). If you call theft “taxation” and create a law that legalizes “taxation”, it becomes legalized theft. It still violates the right to one’s own property.
Why do you feel threatened by this philosophy? What prompts you to attack it? If you know that it is wrong, please present your arguments. Perhaps you can convince me that I’m wrong in my thinking. A comment about “childish rant” won’t do it, I’m afraid.
Ã…boy (32): Strawman. You’re telling what you call libertarianism and then knocking it down. It won’t do.
Comment by MarkkuT — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 8:04 am
Have you ever heard of a social agreement, Markku? People pay taxes because they have collectively decided to do so. Go and ask the average finn and he’ll probably tell you that yes the taxes are quite high but she/he likes to pay them because she/he knows that they are put to good use.
And by the way, I know that it’s easier for you to just bypass my post no. 32 with a shrug and some obscure statement about strawmen than actually try and answer to the presented facts.
The libertarian thinking resembles somekind of darwinisim, or the rule of the most ruhtless. It’s a philosophy based on the idea that if you wind up in a bad situation or if you’re not strong or clever or innovative enough you should perish. Every man and woman just for him-/herself. No social or collective responsibilities, the only responsibility is to take care of your own hide.
A good analogy is medicine. We have developed numerous treatments to different injuries and sicknesses and in order to improve the quality of our lives and to lessen the human suffering we should logically put these treatments to use. The libertartian way of thinking though would be “No treatments, if they are any good they’ll heal. It’s not my responsibility to try and heal, it’s the responsibility of that persons own body. It’s just freeriding.”.
Comment by Ã…boy — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Ã…boy (34):
There is no “social agreement”. Acquiescence does not mean approval. The cost for non-payment of taxes (loss of property and freedom or leaving Finland) is higher than the cost of paying them (loss of property and the choice of living in Finland). Apparently an average Finn believes that high taxes are better than the postulated social unrest that would follow from low taxes and more responsibility for one’s own life. I wonder where this idea comes from?
In post number 32 you didn’t present any facts. You simply strung together non-specific generalizations, opinions, half-truths and outright lies.
Where is the darwinism or “rule by the most ruthless” in the idea of “Live and let live”, “Do what thou will, an thou harm none”, “Leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” since that’s what the libertarian principle of self-ownership distills down to? It would seem to me that you don’t really know the first thing about libertarian philosophy. You just seem to think that it is an enemy to be reviled and vilified, and I’d be interested to learn why you feel threatened by it.
If you don’t save for a rainy day and you’re so universally hated that even the Salvation Army won’t help you, but you need a government to provide a safety net, maybe you should take a good, long look at your way of life… It’s so much easier just to claim that a country with a government is the only possible way of life, and anybody who suggests anything else is a crank with childish rants.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your analogy about medicine, since it doesn’t make any sense. The concept of “no treatments” belongs to Christian Scientists or some other sect.
Comment by MarkkuT — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Some definitions of ‘analogy’:
“Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect.”
“An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity.”
“A resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike.”
“The comparison of two things, which are alike in several respects, for the purpose of explaining or clarifying some unfamiliar or difficult idea or object by showing how the idea or object is similar to some familiar one.”
“A comparison between two unlike things (a subject and an analog) that nevertheless yeilds insight into the nature of the subject.”
(Definitions taken from Goole, define:analogy.)
The analogy was thus:
Personal resources = The human body
Services provided by communal tax money = Medical treatments
Comment by Ã…boy — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
Considering vilification, that’s exactly what the libertarians like to do to poor people and those who have ended up with the short end of the stick in life.
It’s the american way: If you’re poor that’s God’s will and you’ve angered Him in some way. If you’re rich it’s because God loves you.
Comment by Ã…boy — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
You seem to have the implied premise that anarchy (=absence of state) means chaos.
Sane people tend to have this premise.
The main principle is one of self-ownership. From this follow the rights to one’s own life, liberty and property (acquired by production, barter or inheritance). Anything that violates these rights (attempts of murder, enslavement or theft, whether by force or fraud) is morally wrong (and a crime in a libertarian society), and a valid reason for self-defence.
And this is, of course, the most spectacular failure of libertarian “theory”. As most property, especially land, is, at some point, acquired through force or fraud, the assumption that a generation or two of inheritance will suddenly make it all right and then taxing this property magically becomes “theft”. For instance, Finns have acquired their land by force from the Sami people, then the Swedes took it by force from the Finns and so on. If you own a piece of land in Finland, who would you consider the rightful owner according to libertarian “theory”?
Well, who cares, as long as you don’t pick my goddamn berries…
Why do you feel threatened by this philosophy?
I am not threatened by this “philosophy” any more than I am threatened by Scientology or astrology. It’s just wrong and stupid and I am happy to point it out when the subject comes up. It is also distasteful, since its proponents are quite keen on advocating violence in defending it. Indeed, they are the Stalinists of the right.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
Freeridin’ Franklin (38):
Are you saying that since the Finnish tribe arrived in Finland 3000 years ago and pushed the Sami up north, then the Swedes conquered Finland and allocated it back to Finns, I should wallow in guilt? I don’t agree with that, since I’m not responsible for my forebears’ choices.
If I were to own a piece of land in Finland, which I bought or inherited from its previous owner, I would own the plot, since I have the better title. No Swedish nobleman, whose family owned the land in the 17th century or a Sami whose forebears hunted and gathered on that piece of land 3000 years ago have a better title. And that’s the solution to your “spectacular failure”: “better title”.
Taxing that property has always been theft, since a man can live by either producing or by plunder, and taxation is definitely plunder (i.e., robbery), since the tax man produces nothing, but only takes away, backed by force.
I wouldn’t dream of picking your berries. Just put up a fence, will ya? Even a string will do for me (with a few signs “Property of Freeridin’ Franklin. Don’t pick my goddamn berries.”)
“Stalinists of the right.” That’s rich. How does “Leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone” translate in your mind to “I’ll kill 30 million peasants so that I can collectivize all of the Ukrainian farmland and turn this rich, rich land that used to export oodles of wheat into a poor importer. And just to be certain of staying in power, I’ll murder my 15,000 best officers.” I would say that it’s merely honest to state up front that if you tread on me, I’ll fight for my rights instead of dilly-dallying around the subject.
I see from the tone and content of your comment that you don’t accept the premise of self-ownership, and we can agree to disagree. Or, of course, you could tell me the premises under which you find the libertarian philosophy to be “wrong and stupid”. Just saying that it is so, or mentioning scientology and astrology don’t make it so, ya know.
Comment by MarkkuT — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
Are you saying that since the Finnish tribe arrived in Finland 3000 years ago and pushed the Sami up north, then the Swedes conquered Finland and allocated it back to Finns, I should wallow in guilt?
Of course not. But excuse me if I regard the mindless babble about some “non-aggression principle” as exactly that. You advocate protecting the fruits of fraud/aggression with force.
If I were to own a piece of land in Finland, which I bought or inherited from its previous owner, I would own the plot, since I have the better title.
Yeah, just as the government has a “better title” to your tax money.
And that’s the solution to your “spectacular failureâ€Â: “better titleâ€Â.
Hallelujah. Libertarians are always able to come up with solutions that fit nicely on a bumper sticker.
Taxing that property has always been theft, since a man can live by either producing or by plunder, and taxation is definitely plunder (i.e., robbery), since the tax man produces nothing, but only takes away, backed by force.
This is the sound of a brain on neutral gear.
“Stalinists of the right.†That’s rich. How does “Leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone†translate in your mind to “I’ll kill 30 million peasants so that I can collectivize all of the Ukrainian farmland and turn this rich, rich land that used to export oodles of wheat into a poor importer.
Well, in the real world, the multinational corporations, landowners and what have you, won’t just “live and let live”. Oh no, they will interfere with your life in a myriad of ways. Just ask the indigenous tribes of the Amazon.
I see from the tone and content of your comment that you don’t accept the premise of self-ownership,
I respect the principle as an ideal, but reject the bizarre conclusions that libertarians make, especially with regard to the market-worship that they engage in.
Or, of course, you could tell me the premises under which you find the libertarian philosophy to be “wrong and stupidâ€Â.
I believe I just did. You can, of course, cover your ears and shout all you like.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
I wouldn’t dream of picking your berries. Just put up a fence, will ya? Even a string will do for me (with a few signs “Property of Freeridin’ Franklin. Don’t pick my goddamn berries.â€Â)
This is illegal in Finland, and rightfully so. The case would be different if Finland was significantly more densely populated and berries were scarce. Actually, there are limitations to the everyman’s right up north with the more valuable berries.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Apr 5th, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
FF (40): You haven’t stated any premises. You have merely restated that you disagree with the conclusions.
About fruits of fraud/aggression: Who are the heirs of the original owner(s) of my plot of land, the victim(s) of aggression that cost them their land? If the heirs can be located, it is right to make a restitution (return the land). However, since the victims’ heirs cannot be found (the original events being 3000+ years in the past), the property has come into state of non-ownership in regard of the original owner. And at that point, if I (the current possessor of the plot of land) am not the actual criminal who stole the land (yeah, I have a time machine for the purpose of killing Sami, right), it belongs to me, properly, justly and ethically.
As for the “mindless babble about some ‘non-aggression principle’”, it is merely a succint formulation of the central principle of my philosophy. Man needs a philosophy to be able to lead a happy life. Without a philosophy to tell man how to lead his life, he can’t know when he is acting for good and when for evil. From the simple premise of self-ownership one can generate the necessary framework to lead a content life.
“…just as the government has a ‘better title’ to your tax money.”:
I disagree. I have earned the money. I did the work to get the skills necessary to earn that money. I have born the entrepreneurial risk. The government has not done anything to produce the work that earned the money, nor has it shared the risk. That money is the product of my life, and if it is taken from me without my consent under threat of incarceration, it is definitely stolen.
“Hallelujah. …”: Don’t you have anything else to offer than appeals to ridicule? Please don’t waste my time with logical fallacies.
“…brain on neutral gear.”: Ad hominem.
“…in the real world…”: The CEOs of multinationals, landowners and whatnot are not libertarians. If they were, they wouldn’t steal the land. Misleading argument.
Comment by MarkkuT — Thu, Apr 6th, 2006 @ 7:53 am
“I disagree. I have earned the money. I did the work to get the skills necessary to earn that money. I have born the entrepreneurial risk. The government has not done anything to produce the work that earned the money, nor has it shared the risk. That money is the product of my life, and if it is taken from me without my consent under threat of incarceration, it is definitely stolen.”
Except that if you’re finnish (as your name implies) you’ve probably received free education and free healthcare, for example, from the state as you were growing up. You and your parents probably also used the numerous free services provided by the state (daycare, libraries etc.) so please do not argue that the state has done nothing for you or that you’ve never receiced anything for the taxes we pay. If you don’t want to pay taxes then do not use the tax-paid services either, thank you.
Libertarianist see the state as something outside the people. What they seem to forget is that the state or the government is us. The state is formed by the people living in it. The tax money is a sum that the people put together, little from everyone, so that all would have an enjoyable life and that those in need would get support. The tax money is also used to run the services for each and everyone of us so that our daily lives would be more comfortable.
Without tax paid services only those with the right amount of $’s or €’s would be able to get what they need. Like I said earlier, libertarianism is apparently somekind of social darwinist or eugenistic “philosophy” rooting for the survival of the fittest.
Comment by Ã…boy — Thu, Apr 6th, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Ã…boy (43):
As a child, I had no choice, as my parents made the choices that directed my life. I am not responsible for choices that others (in this case, my parents) made. I must only live with their consequences. Or are you saying that I’m responsible for my parents’ choices?
Your statement “If you don’t want to pay taxes then do not use the tax-paid services either, thank you” is nonsense. You’re saying that since I disagree with the Finnish system, I shouldn’t use the services. That would make me even more of a chump and a sucker: first I pay for the public health system and road network and then I don’t even use it.
I have no choice in the matter of paying taxes other than defaulting and going to jail after foreclosure proceedings (thus losing my property, liberty and life) or leaving the country (which may well happen in near future). After taxes, I do not necessarily have the wherewithal to pursue the free-market alternatives to the available public services, so I do not always have the choice of paying taxes and then not using the services which my taxes pay for.
I’m not a politician nor a government official. Because of that, I’m not part of the state, but an individual who lives in Finland. If I were to leave Finland, the state would not change in any way, so I’m definitely not part of the state. People who coexist in a region form a society, not a state. Please do not distort the terminology.
Comment by MarkkuT — Thu, Apr 6th, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
About fruits of fraud/aggression: Who are the heirs of the original owner(s) of my plot of land, the victim(s) of aggression that cost them their land?
Ah, so you need to make sure the people you steal your land from are dead. The core of the libertarian ethos crystallises.
Man needs a philosophy to be able to lead a happy life. Without a philosophy to tell man how to lead his life, he can’t know when he is acting for good and when for evil.
But of course, many people need a “philosophy” like Scientology or libertarianism to replace logic and common sense in decision-making processes. Excuse me, though, if I don’t embrace either despite this.
“…in the real world…â€Â: The CEOs of multinationals, landowners and whatnot are not libertarians. If they were, they wouldn’t steal the land. Misleading argument.
Two interesting premises here:
1. In the Libertarian paradise, only True Libertarians would be allowed to run companies.
2. Libertarians are all Christlike individuals who would not dream of “initiating force” for personal gain.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Thu, Apr 6th, 2006 @ 9:57 pm
FF (45): Okay. Your agenda seems to be libertarian bashing, not debate. I will give you the benefit of doubt this once.
For communication we need to agree on common terminology. Since you seem to have different definitions from mine, I’ll present my definitions.
The pertinent definition of the term philosophy for this conversation is “a system of values”. It covers other, overlapping concepts, as well, but this is the usage of “philosophy” in the statement: “My philosophy is called libertarianism”, or: “In my experience, libertarian philosophy offers the best tools for living in society”, or: “The premise of libertarian philosophy is self-ownership.” Do you disagree with this definition? What is your definition for the word “philosophy” (you seem to have a penchant for quotes)?
To apply logic and common sense to moral questions (and the example you presented [owning land in Finland] is specifically a moral question) you need to have a premise or premises. Once you have found the premises that you accept, you have a philosophy. Do you disagree with this statement? If you disagree with the statement, could you please tell me what you use as the basis for applying logic and common sense? And in any case, what are the premises which you use to deduce what is right and what is wrong?
The premise that I accept (self-ownership) is the premise of libertarianism. Therefore I can call myself libertarianist. It does not mean that I mothball my brain, since applying philosophy to life issues still requires thought. Is there something you don’t understand in this statement?
About the “Two interesting premises here”:
You’re talking about implied assumptions (not premises), and your (mis)interpretation implies one of the following:
1) You don’t know or understand how things would work in “the Libertarian paradise”.
2) You don’t care how things would work in “the Libertarian paradise”.
3) You understand perfectly well how things would work in “the Libertarian paradise”, but you choose to ignore the knowledge.
If 1), you’re ignorant. If you’re willing to learn, the discussion can continue. If 2) or 3), you’re dishonest, and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
Comment by MarkkuT — Fri, Apr 7th, 2006 @ 10:19 am
“In my experience, libertarian philosophy offers the best tools for living in society”
That’s just it. Libertarianism doesn’t seem to be so much about living in a society as it seems to be about individuals forced to coexist. In essence libertarianism seems to be about destroying what little social or communal there’s left in the modern society.
Comment by Ã…boy — Fri, Apr 7th, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Your agenda seems to be libertarian bashing, not debate.
Well, I admit I’m not keen on spending too much time engaging in serious debate with people who are only capable or willing to parrot mantras.
Do you disagree with this definition? What is your definition for the word “philosophyâ€Â
I prefer the literal one, “love of wisdom”, which is quite at odds with libertarianism.
To apply logic and common sense to moral questions (and the example you presented [owning land in Finland] is specifically a moral question) you need to have a premise or premises.
Agreed.
1) You don’t know or understand how things would work in “the Libertarian paradiseâ€Â.
There are few examples of libertarian, particularly anarcho-capitalist societies. I can think of the northern parts of Somalia and Afghanistan, which are hardly encouraging examples. There are plenty of ideologically motivated pipe dreams of how libertarian societies would work, of course. My “not understanding” actually means not joining the True Believers, n’est-ce-pas?
2) You don’t care how things would work in “the Libertarian paradiseâ€Â.
On the contrary. A libertarian society would be a fascinating social experiment! I would even consider living in one. The possibilities of entrepreneurship would be limitless! Running a legal crack house would be cool.
3) You understand perfectly well how things would work in “the Libertarian paradiseâ€Â, but you choose to ignore the knowledge.
I am well aware of the pipe dreams, having been exposed to libertarian “thought” for nearly two decades. I am equally aware of the knee-jerk like tendency of libertarians to start accusing people who question these pipe dreams of logical fallacies. Truly, resistance is futile. Likewise, the allusion that the critic lacks an esoteric understanding of economics that only True Believers have is more the rule than the exception.
Of course, you skipped the issue entirely, as was to be expected.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Apr 7th, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
FF (48):
Somalia is actually an interesting phenomenon: president Siad Barre was deposed in 1991. After that the country’s currency (shilling) has become much more stable in world currency markets and its exports have quintupled. Not bad for a stateless society. Northern Somalia (Somaliland) is apparently quite peaceful.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, is nowhere near an an-cap society.
I assure you that there is nothing knee-jerk about my attempts at analysing your replies. I find it convenient that there is established terminology for discussing different types of intellectual errors.
I think you’ve had enough chances to imply (through libertarian bashing) that a society cannot survive without the state. Is that what you think?
And back to your premises (which you’ve conveniently left unstated).
What are your moral premises? If you’re incapable of answering this question, please say so, and I’ll stop asking.
There is no “esoteric understanding of economics” required. Merely a few months of applying yourself to suitable materials (”Human Action” by Mises and “Man, Economy and State” by Rothbard come to mind).
Comment by MarkkuT — Sun, Apr 9th, 2006 @ 6:42 pm