ללא מחבר No Author

Money Is for Mitzvos!

On Amassing Money

Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Some sociologists opined that money is an evil of society. The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 72:2) pointed out that halacha does not share that perspective. Rather, even in an ideal Torah world we would use kesef (money) to fulfill mitzvos.

The halacha declares that in most instances shoveh kesef (a commodity which has value) can be used in place of kesef. For example, we get married by having the chosson hand a ring, i.e. shoveh kesef, to the kallah, as opposed to giving her kesef, and this constitutes a form of kidushei kesef. Nonetheless, one can only fulfill the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel by giving kesef to the Beis Hamikdash for the purpose of purchasing the korbanos tzibbur (Bechoros 51a).

A variety of opinions are presented in Shulchan Aruch (Choshem Mishpat 369) regarding the extent to which halacha recognizes dina demalchusa. The Shach (Yoreh Deah 165:8) points out that all agree that dina demalchusa determines what is considered kesef. Whatever currency the government of any given country establishes has the halachic status of kesef. When the second Beis Hamildash was built there was no Jewish government ruling over Eretz Yisroel. As such, the mitzvah of machatzis hashekel had to be fulfilled by giving a coin recognized as kesef by the ruling non-Jewish government. After several centuries when the Chashmonaim established a Jewish government in Eretz Yisroel and minted their own coins, “Jewish” coins replaced the “non-Jewish” coins for this mitzvah.

The Talmud (Pesachim 54b) speaks of the concept of “money” being part of G-d’s initial plan for creating the world, just as the Torah and the mitzvos preceded the creation of the world. The rabbis of the Talmud (Shabbos 33b) tell us that Yaakov Avinu improved the life of the citizens of Shechem by introducing a monetary system for them. Money is something positive. Without money we can not function.

Judaism, as opposed to certain other religions, has never preached that poverty is an ideal. The Rema (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 248) considers making a living something positive, comparable to a mitzvah. As such, one who lives in Eretz Yisroel is permitted to go to chutz la’aretz for the purpose of making a living. Even if one is making ends meet, but wants to go to chutz la’aretz to make a more comfortable living, the accepted opinion is that this too is permissible. However, we would not allow one who already makes a comfortable living to go to chutz la’aretz in order to become wealthy (see Moed Kattan 14a). There is no mitzvah to be poor, but there is also no mitzvah to be rich.

We all need food in order to survive, be healthy, and function. However, we should not love food. Many Americans suffer from obesity because they love food and overeat. Similarly, we all need money to live in this world. However, we should not develop a love for money. Koheles (5:9) teaches us that one who loves money will never be satisfied with the money he has. The Medrash (Koheles Rabbah 1:34) famously comments, “ein adam yotze min haolam vechatzi ta’avaso beyado“. When those who love money die, regardless of how much money they have amassed it will not be even half of what they desired.

The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 11a) tells us that R’ Yehuda Hanasi was extremely wealthy, which was necessary for his position as chief rabbi. But he did not love the money. In fact, he hardly took any pleasure from this world (Kesubos 104a).

The parsha tells us (Breishis 47:14) that Yosef amassed all of the cash from Egypt and Canaan by selling the grain that he stored. He understood that this was needed for the Egyptian government, and apparently saw this as part of the message of Pharoh’s dream. However, we do not get the impression that he became one who loved money.

The Medrash (Koheles Rabbah 5:8) distinguishes between two types of observant Jews: one who merely observes the mitzvos, and one who loves mitzvos. The one who observes, but does not love, mitzvos will be satisfied with keeping the mitzvos which come his way. But the one who loves mitzvos will always be on the lookout for additional miztvos. He will never be satisfied with the miztvos that he may have fulfilled already – “ohev mitzvos lo yisba mitzvos“.

Rather than love money, or love food, we should all develop a love for mitzvos.

From Torah Web, here.

Ron Paul: The Idea of Minimal Police Authority

Police Problems? Embrace Liberty!

By Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul Institute

April 27, 2021

Many Americans saw former policeman Derek Chauvin’s conviction on all counts last week as affirming the principle that no one is above the law. Many others were concerned that the jury was scared that anything less than a full conviction would result in riots, and even violence against themselves and their families.

Was the jury’s verdict influenced by politicians and media figures who were calling for the jury to deliver the “right” verdict? Attempts to intimidate juries are just as offensive to the rule of law as suggestions that George Floyd’s criminal record somehow meant his rights were not important.

The video of then-policeman Chauvin restraining Floyd led people across the political and ideological spectrums to consider police reform. Sadly, there have also been riots across the country orchestrated by left-wing activists and organizations seeking to exploit concern about police misconduct to advance their agendas.

It is ironic to see self-described Marxists, progressives, and other leftists protesting violence by government agents. After all, their ideology rests on the use of force to compel people to obey politicians and bureaucrats.

It is also ironic to see those who claim to want to protect and improve “black lives” support big government.

Black people, along with other Americans, have had their family structure weakened by welfare policies encouraging single parenthood. This results in children being raised without fathers as a regular presence in their lives, increasing the likelihood the children will grow up to become adults with emotional and other problems.

Those at the bottom of the economic ladder are restrained in improving their situation because of minimum wage laws, occupational licensing regulations, and other government interference in the marketplace. They are also victims of the Federal Reserve’s inflation tax.

Many progressives who claim to believe that “black lives matter” do not care that there is a relatively high abortion rate of black babies. These so-called pro-choice progressives are the heirs of the racists who founded the movement to legalize and normalize abortion.

The drug war is a major reason police have increasingly looked and acted like an occupying army. Police militarization threatens everyone’s liberty. Black people have been subjected to drug war arrests and imprisonment at relatively high rates.

Those interested in protecting and enhancing black people’s (and all people’s) lives should embrace liberty. Libertarians reject the use of force to achieve political, economic, or social goals, Therefore, in a libertarian society, police would only enforce laws prohibiting the initiation of force against persons or property.

A libertarian society would leave the provision of aid to the needy to local communities, private charities, and religious organizations. Unlike the federal welfare state, private charities can provide effective and compassionate aid without damaging family structure or making dependency a way of life. In a libertarian society, individuals could pursue economic opportunity free of the burdens of government regulations and taxes, as well as free of the Federal Reserve’s fiat currency.

Free markets, individual liberty, limited government, sound money, and peace are key to achieving prosperity and social cohesion. Those sincerely concerned about improving all human lives should turn away from the teaching of Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, who advocated expansive government power, and, instead, embrace the ideas of pro-liberty writers such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.

From KMJ Now, here.

Restoring the Monarchy Would Be GREAT – Empirical Research Data

Are Monarchies Better for Economic Growth? Here’s What the Empirical Evidence Says.

04/23/2021

Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued that monarchies take a longer-term view of their national economies and therefore are more likely to pursue more stable and secure economies. That is, among monarchs, the desire to maximize wealth promotes more farsightedness than exists in democratic regimes. Due to the lower time preference of monarchs, they are less likely to succumb to the whims of economic populism.

Hoppe outlines this argument in a 1995 article:

A private government owner will predictably try to maximize his total wealth, i.e., the present value of his estate and his current income…. Accordingly, a private government owner will want to avoid exploiting his subjects so heavily, for instance, as to reduce his future earnings potential to such an extent that the present value of his estate actually falls. Instead, in order to preserve or possibly even enhance the value of his personal property, he will systematically restrain himself in his exploitation policies. For the lower the degree of exploitation, the more productive the subject population will be; and the more productive the population, the higher will be the value of the ruler’s parasitic monopoly of expropriation.

A Comparative Analysis

Quite interesting is that research confirms the assumption of Hoppe. According to Mauro Guillen monarchies are more effective than democratic republics at protecting property rights primarily because of their long-term focus. “Monarchies tend to be dynasties, and therefore have a long-term focus,” Guillen says. “If you focus on the long run, you are bound to be more protective of property rights…. You’re more likely to put term limits on politicians that want to abuse their powers.”

Similarly, Guillen in his study points out that monarchies can curtail the negative consequences of internal conflict on property rights:

For instance, the case of Spain has received considerable scholarly attention in terms of both the continuities in the process of transition to democracy during the late 1970s, and the sequencing of political and economic reforms with the crown playing a key role…. The continuity of monarchy in Spain was a major factor in preserving property rights during the political transition. In Portugal, by contrast, a comparable country that made the transition from dictatorship to democracy at roughly the same time but had become a republic back in 1910, nationalized 244 banks and large enterprises during its transition to democracy.

Moreover, Christian Bjørnskov and Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard in their publication “Economic Growth and Institution Reform in Modern Monarchies and Republics: A Historical Cross-Country Perspective, 1820–2000,” present fascinating information: “While large-scale political reforms are typically associated with short term growth declines, reflecting what has become known as the “valley of tears,” the data indicate that this valley does not appear in monarchies. In fact, if anything it has the opposite effect.”

Moreover, the rating agency Standard and Poor’s asserts that monarchies have stronger credit scores and impressive balance sheets relative to republics. Credit analyst Joydeep Mukherji submits that there is no difference between constitutional and absolute monarchies in the assessment of their debt risk. “However, absolute monarchies score higher than constitutional monarchies in external risk and fiscal risk, largely reflecting the strong general government balance sheets and high external asset positions,” he noted.

Like Gullien, Victor Menaldo in “The Middle East and North Africa’s resilient monarchs” posits that monarchies are linked to respect for the rule of law, protection of property rights, and economic growth. As Menaldo shows, the predictability of the political culture embedded by monarchies positively affects the decision to invest: “Given the emergence of a stable political culture … elites and citizens will be encouraged to protect their planning horizons due to longer executive tenures and an institutional succession process. Both elites and citizens will be more likely to make the investments in physical and human capital that encourage capital accumulation and increases in productivity.”

Another argument in favor of monarchies is their relative intolerance for wars, since involvement in warfare has the potential to eviscerate wealth. Though comparing political systems based on the likelihood to wage war is rare, one study written by leading political scientists intuits that premodern monarchies were less likely to fight wars:

There seems ample empirical support for our conjecture that monarchies were less conflict-prone in the pre-modern era. This contradicts the usual impression offered by mythic and historical accounts of kings who make war as a matter of occupation. When Charles Tilly declared that “states make wars and wars make the states”, he was doubtless thinking of kings as instigators. And it is true that the great monarchies (England, France, Spain) had considerably more wars to their credit than their smaller republican neighbors. However, we have seen that this is a product of grandeur rather than truculence. Small monarchies were more peaceful than similarly sized republics.

Suggesting that monarchies display superior characteristics relative to democratic republics does not mean that we should return to the past. However, one cannot criticize monarchy without understanding its strengths and limitations. In much of the world today, there’s a built-in prejudice against monarchies, but the evidence suggests that monarchies—especially small ones—are more peaceful, stable, and protective of private property than their republican neighbors.

Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).

From Mises.org, here.

Even Non-Jewish Governments May Not Steal Public Funds for ‘Charity’

Not Yours to Give

Monday, December 22, 2008

[The following story about the famed American icon Davy Crockett was published in Harper’s Magazine in 1867, as written by James J. Bethune, a pseudonym used by Edward S. Ellis. The events that are recounted here are true, including Crockett’s opposition to the bill in question, though the precise rendering and some of the detail are fictional.]

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Davy Crockett arose:

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown . It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. . . . But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown . Is that true?’

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown , neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington , no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had every seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him–no, that is not the word–I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted–at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens–I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens–It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men–men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased–a debt which could not be paid by money–and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

From FEE, here.