ללא מחבר No Author

Jewish Anti-Male Divorce Courts

Where is Torah Justice for Frum Divorced Fathers?

Guest post by Menachem B.
“Do not pervert justice” (Leviticus 19:15).
“The judge who perverts justice is called an unjust person, hateful and detested, doomed to destruction, and an abomination.” (Rashi on Leviticus 19:15).
“Orthodox” Feminist activists often love to proclaim their support for alleged “Justice” and “Gender Equality” in regards to Jewish women.
But the double standards and hypocrisy of the Orthodox Feminist activists are blatant.
If one examines the marriage/divorce policies of these activists, it is clear they are not promoting halachic divorce practices or halachic justice.
Rather the Orthodox Feminist activists are promoting blatant double standards of female power, privilege, and control over males.
The double standards promoted by these activists are in fact major causes of the alleged “agunot crisis” that the Orthodox Feminist activists constantly protest!
Here are some critical questions that need to be asked to the Orthodox Feminist activists:
1. ANTI-MALE PRENUPS: Why does the standard US Modern Orthodox prenup empower a Jewish wife to force a Jewish divorce on her husband for any reason using massive financial penalties, while Jewish husbands are not allowed any such option of forcing a Jewish divorce on their wives?
2. FEMALE GET REFUSAL ALLOWED: Why does the JOFA Guide to Jewish Divorce explicitly allow female Get refusal under some circumstances, while Get refusal by Jewish husbands is adamantly opposed by Orthodox Feminist activists who characterize it as evil, cruel, and unacceptable?
3. FAKE SEIRUVIM AGAINST MEN: Why are alleged “seiruvim” against Jewish men constantly publicized on Orthodox Feminist websites (such as the ORA and Jewish Press sites), even when the husbands are in compliance with halacha?
4. SEIRUVIM AGAINST WOMEN IGNORED: Why are valid seiruvim against Jewish women very rarely or else never publicized in the Orthodox Feminist media, even when the women have committed major violations of halacha?
5. PROTESTS ONLY AGAINST MEN: Why are alleged male Get refusers (including men compliant with halacha) often subjected to protests, public shaming, sanctions, etc. by Orthodox Feminist activists (such as ORA), while female Get refusers, female halacha violators, female mosrim, and female parental alienators are almost never subjected to any protests, public shaming, or sanctions?
6. ONLY HUSBANDS MUST CONCEDE: In typical divorce conflicts, why do the Orthodox Feminist “rabbis” and activists demand that the husband comply with his wife’s demands, including demands for a Get, while almost never demanding that the wife reciprocate by respecting the husband’s halachic rights, including respecting the husband’s rights to parent his children?
7. EVERY WIFE AN INNOCENT AGUNAH: Why do Orthodox Feminist “rabbis”, activists, and media often rush to label any woman in a divorce conflict as an innocent oppressed “agunah” worthy of public support, regardless of her halachic compliance, regardless of her halachic right to a Get, and regardless of any severe transgressions she committed against her husband?
8. EVERY HUSBAND GUILTY: Why do Orthodox Feminist “rabbis”, activists and media, when discussing divorce conflicts, often misrepresent halacha and facts to portray Jewish husbands as evil oppressors of their wives?
9. ANNULMENTS FOR WOMEN ONLY ALLOWED: Why do Orthodox Feminist “rabbis” and activists often extend full recognition to halachically invalid “marriage annulments” obtained by Jewish women, while usually refusing to recognize halachically valid heter meah rabbanim obtained by Jewish men?
10. CRUEL TREATMENT OF FATHERS IGNORED: Why do Orthodox Feminist “rabbis” and activists almost completely ignore the desperate plight of divorced Jewish fathers, many of whom are virtual agunim who have been alienated from or denied access to their children, or were financially crushed in non-Jewish courts, or were booted out of their homes on fake domestic violence charges?
Its time to start focusing some significant efforts on restoring halachic justice and halachic rights for frum divorced fathers.
Without halachic rights for Jewish men it may be impossible to preserve Jewish families and resolve the agunot-agunim problems.

Planning the Golden Menorah

The Menorah & the Arch of Titus

Written by Rabbi Yisroel Greenwald Posted in Essays

From the Arch of Titus, to the emblem of the State of Israel, the most popularized vessel of the holy Temple is undoubtedly the menorah.

Though frequently replicated, and the subject of much artistic interpretation, the exact shape of the Temple menorahh is not simple to determine. Although the Gemara delineates the height and general appearance of the menorahh,1 numerous details are omitted, and are subject to controversy.

For example, if we were to imagine ourselves looking down at the menorah from directly above it, we would imagine it comprising of a straight row of lights. Not so, according to the Zayis Ra’anan (by the author of the Magen Avraham), who challenges this commonly accepted view, quoting the Sifri: “How do we know that the branches [of the menorah] were encircled like a crown? From the verse, “The seven lights shall give off light.” 2 Based on the Sifri, he suggests that the seven branches were not in a row; rather, the centre lamp was in the middle, with the six branches surrounding it like a circular crown! This, he says, is the meaning of the verse, “They, the seven lights, shall give light.” All the lamps gave light to the center lamp equally, since all the lamps were equidistant from center. 3

The Code of Jewish Law states that it is forbidden to duplicate the form of the menorah of the Temple. 4 The Bechor Shor adds that one should not duplicate the menorah, even if made as a circular star, since the menorah would be valid in that form as well. Rabbi Akiva Eiger owned a circular lamp of seven lamps to which he added an eight light (writes his son-in-law) to ensure that it was dissimilar to the menorah of the Beis Hamikdash.

Another point of controversy is the shape of the menorah’s decorative cups. 5 The Gemara states that these resembled Alexandrian goblets, which were wide at the top and tapered down towards the base. 6 Most traditional illustrations depict the cups in a normal standing fashion. This is also the opinion of numerous commentators, who compare it to other mitzva objects, such as the beams of mishkan, or an esrog, all of which must be used derech g’diluson, literally, in its natural manner of growth. These commentators suggest that, since a “cup” has a normal way in which it is used, that is, the upright position suitable for drinking, so too, the cups in the menorah were positioned upright. The Chizkuni adds that the cups, aside from their aesthetic quality, served the utilitarian function of catching any dripping oil.

The Rambam seems to have differed from this prevailing view. Although the illustration in the standard edition of his commentary on Mishna portrays a menorah with upright cups (Fig. 2), a later edition based on a manuscript illustrated by the Rambam himself, clearly depicts the goblets upside down. (Fig. 3) It can be argued that Rambam’s diagram was not intended to be taken so precisely; the Rambam himself writes that his diagram was only meant “to show the generalities of how it was, [such as] to know the number and placement of the cups, but not its exact shape.” This may account for his diagram, for example, showing the cups as triangles, although it is highly unlikely the Alexandrian cups were perfect triangles, since in this case they would not be able to stand. Still, it is difficult to comprehend why the Rambam, for no apparent purpose, would purposely draw the cups incorrectly in 22 places.

The late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson zt’l, suggests that the Rambam’s view was based either on a direct mesorah (tradition from rabbi to student) that the cups were upside down, or had access to a midrash which is no longer extant, as are many midrashim which are quoted by Geonim and Rishonim.

He further posits the following rationale for the cups’ unusual topsy-turvy position. There is a fundamental functional difference between a barrel and a cup. A barrel primarily holds liquid; the purpose of a cup is to pour and drink liquid from. Allegorically, the cups symbolise Hashem’s continual bestowal of light and sustenance upon the physical world. Since these blessings are poured down, so to speak, from above, the cups are upside-down.

Branches of the menorah – Curved or Straight?

Another subject of intense debate is the shape of the branches themselves. The branches are commonly depicted as curving upwards like an upside rainbow, and this is exactly how it appears in the standard edition of the Rambam’s commentary of the Mishna. (Fig. 2) However in the diagram drawn by the Rambam himself, they extend diagnally from the center stem in a straight line (Fig. 3). One can attempt to reconcile the dramatic departure of the Rambam’s diagram from the traditional view by suggesting that the Rambam never intended his illustration to be an accurate artistic representation, exact in all its details, but only – in his words – “To make it easier [for the reader] to envision.” The diagram gives the appearance of the handiwork of a draftsman rather than that of an artist, who perhaps felt more proficient in drawing a straight line instead of a curve. However the testimony of his son, R Avraham, negates this theory explicitly. He writes, “that the six branches stemmed from the centre shaft in a straight line, as my father depicted it, and not as a curved arch as other’s drew it.”

The question arises: if the menorah did have straight branches, how did it become universally accepted to picture it with curved branches? A possible answer may be the existence of one of the most famous pieces of archaeological evidence from the Temple period – the Arch of Titus. After the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, General Titus brought many Jewish slaves and the vessels of the Temple back to Rome. In 71 CE there was a procession in the main square of Rome of the booty and captives from Yerusholayim, and ten years later, the Roman Caesar erected a victory arch to “commemorate” that event. The most prominent vessel depicted in the procession was the menorah. (Fig. 4)

It is interesting that the menorah held special significance to the Romans in demonstrating their power over the Jews. In the story of Chanuka, the menorah represented the victory of the Jews over the mighty Greek Empire, of the few against the many. Lacking this symbol of their miraculous victory, perhaps the Romans figured that the Jewish people could no longer rely on their miraculous victories against powers greater than them. Little could they comprehend that whereas the Roman Empire would eventually decline and fall, Jews around the world would nonetheless continue to exist and perpetuate the miraculous light of the menorah.

Is the menorah from the arch of Titus taken from the Temple?

Aside from the general difficulty in utilizing archaeological evidence to establish Halacha, 7 the accuracy of the Arch of Titus is particularly questionable. While the upper part of the menorah is possibly an authentic portrayal of the Temple menorah, the lower half is a blatant forgery.

The Gemara states that the menorah was 18 tefachim high, and that its legs, including the first flower motif, totalled a height of 3 tefachim. (Fig. 5) 8 In other words, the total base of the menorah comprised one sixth of its height. Furthermore, the base was not one solid block, but composed of three legs.

On the panel of the Arch of Titus, the upper part of menorah is roughly similar to menorah as described in the above Gemara. All branches come to the same height; branches have flowers, knobs, and cups, although the numbers are inaccurate. The proportions of the upper half also accurate reflect the words of Chazal. The most glaring departure from the Gemara in Menachos is the gigantic base, rising to one third of the height of the menorah! Even artistically, the heavy and inelegant base contrasting with the delicate branches gives the appearance of the base being a later addition. (Fig. 6)

When was the Roman styled base attached to the menorah? From the coin of Mattisyahu Antigunus (37 BCE) (Fig. 7), the last of the Chashmanaim kings, it is clear that the menorah was intact up till that period. One side of the coin read ‘Mattisyahu the Kohen Gadol and friend of the Jews,’ and the other ‘the [coin] of King Antigunus.’9 On one side of the coin was imprinted the menorah, presumably that of the Temple. As the small coin was made using only basic minting technology, one cannot expect it to be true in every detail. Still, the base roughly corresponds to Chazal’s proportions, being roughly one sixth of the height of menorah, and totally missing is the gaudy appendage found on Titus’s arch. 10

If one looks closely at the base of the menorah, one discovers the matter is even more horrific. The panels on the base include: the picture of two eagles (the symbol of Rome), and a dragon with a tail of a fish! (Fig. 8) The dragon was one of the idols of Greek mythology, worshiped during Roman rule. The Mishna in Avoda Zara states that, “if one finds vessels and upon them are the picture of a dragon… they must be thrown into the Dead Sea.” 11 They must be destroyed because one is forbidden to derive any benefit from as an idol. In fact, an exact duplication of panel, both the picture of the dragon as well as the border motif, is found in a Roman Temple in Turkey (Fig. 9).

Some historians suggest that the menorah’s idolatrous addition was constructed during the rule of Herod, who, having deposed Mattisyahu in 37 BCE, possibly added the abominable base in order to find favour with the Romans. Josephus writes that Herod placed images of eagles atop the gates of the Beis Hamikdash against the will of the populace. Quite possibly he made this change to the menorah as well.

Alternatively, one could suggest that the Romans themselves made the alteration. The Romans saw the capture of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple as perhaps their greatest achievement. 12 The Arch of Titus was erected to immortalize this victory and to perpetuate the degradation of the Jews. 13 It is quite possible, therefore, that when the Romans plundered the menorah, they themselves fitted it with the idolatrous base illustrated in the Arch, or indeed, simply depicted the menorah with the altered base (without actually modifying the menorah itself), to demonstrate the subjugation of the Jews and Hashem, to their idols r’l. 14

The menorah as the emblem of the State of Israel

In July 1948, months after the establishment of State of Israel, the agenda of the tenth Parlimantary meeting included deciding on the emblem of the new state. Most of the suggestions were to use the motif of the menorah of the Beis Hamikdash. The graphic artists entrusted with producing the design originally used a modern image of the menorah. (Fig. 11) However, when the design was brought before the committee, its members felt “their hearts were torn.” “How can we use a modern image?” they lamented. “Let us go back to the ways of the past, and use the image of the menorah as we have from tradition, from the ancient archaeological drawings!” 15

The Committee chose to adopt the menorah as it appeared in the Arch of Titus. (Fig. 12) Rabbi Herzog z’tl, then Chief Rabbi of Israel, noted how unfortunate it was that the committee chose the menorah on the Arch of Titus, over the profusion of archaeological evidence from Jewish sources. Indeed, the countless ancient mosaics and engravings of the menorah found in catacombs in Jewish cemeteries and the ruins of ancient synagogues, both during the Temple period and immediately afterwards, all depict a base comprised of three legs, which fully corroborate the view of the Talmud in Menachos 28b. 16 The committee’s choice showed an unfortunate disdain for authentic Jewish sources, in favour of a pagan structure constructed to mock the Jewish people. It is also a pointed twentieth century illustration of the spiritual conflict that we commemmorate on Chanuka.

May we merit to possess the true menorah, in its full height and splendour, with the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash speedily in our days.

1 Menachos, 28b.
2 Bamidbar 8:2.
3 According to this view, the menorah appeared similar to the Judenstern, (literally, “star of the Jews”) a circular lamp in the shape of star, which typically had six or seven lamps. Centuries ago, Jews had the custom to suspend a Judenstern from the ceiling, and light it for Shabbos. Hundreds of these lamps still exist in museums, and in Judaica collections around the world. (Fig. 1)
4 Yoreh De’ah 141:8
5 Shemos 25:31.
6 Menachos, 28b.
7 See letters from the Stiepler Gaon, Vol 2 p. 154
8 Menachos, 28b
9 The Ramban (Bereishis 49:10) writes that the Chashmanaite dynasty sinned by taking the mantle of royalty, a crown reserved exclusively for the tribe of Yehuda. For this indiscretion they were punished in that Herod usurped the throne and annihilated every last vestige of their family.
10 It is interesting that the shape of the branches is clearly curved, unlike the opinion of the Rambam.
11 Avodah Zara, 3:3.
12 The Romans even minted a coin that proclaimed Judea Capta – “Judea is captured!” – that depicted a Roman soldier standing over Judah portrayed as a maiden, sitting on the ground in mourning. (Fig. 10)
13 In fact, the Romans would force the Jews to visit the Arch regularly in order to publicly humiliate them.
14 This would also explain why the base was not built in proportion to the upper half of the menorah, but is glaringly ostentatious.
15 As quoted in Sefer Minhagei Yisrael vol.5 P 206
16 In Rome, for example, after the building of the arch of Titus, the artisan of this glass plate drew the menorah, not as found on the well-known arch, but with three legs. (Fig. 13)

The author is indebted to the author of Sefer Minhagei Yisrael , upon which this article and the illustrations therein are largely based.

Continue reading…

From Moshiach.com, here.

Of Interest

AN INTERESTING ACCOUNT

 

27.10.10
BY RABBI TZVI PRICE

“So how was it?” asked Yoni’s wife, Miriam, as soon as Yoni had walked through the door. She had wanted to appear calm and relaxed, but her nervousness had gotten the better of her.

“How was what?” Yoni replied, grinning mischievously.

“Oh, Yoni! Can you be serious?” pleaded Miriam, trying not to laugh. “You know perfectly well what I’m asking about. How was your first day at the office? Did it go well? Did you see Uncle Viggy? Did he say hello to you?”

“Oh, that’s what you meant!” said Yoni, feigning ignorance. “At the end of first seder, I was arguing with my chavrusa about a Tosafos and I lost track of the time. But you know what? Even though I left the kollel about fifteen minutes late, I still arrived at the office on time, baruch Hashem! When I got there, Uncle Viggy’s office manager gave me a nice welcome and showed me around, and he gave me a quick lesson in the different lines of jewelry they sell. And, yes, I did see Uncle Viggy. He always keeps the door to his office open, so I saw him sitting at his desk, but I didn’t get a chance to say hello. He was too busy making deals on the phone.”

“How do you know he was making deals?” Miriam asked. “You could hear him?”

“Hear him? With Uncle Viggy’s booming voice, his excitable nature, and the door being open, I’m surprised you didn’t hear him!” Yoni said with a chuckle. “Don’t get me wrong, Miriam. I think your uncle is a wonderful person. He did hire me, after all, didn’t he? It’s just that he’s so big and brash! I feel so terribly intimidated by him. To be honest, I’d be happy if I could do my job at Regency Jewelry without Uncle Viggy ever noticing me.”

*  *  *

“I hear you, Norm, I hear you,” Viggy belted out in his baritone voice. He was in his office talking on the phone to one of his oldest customers, Norm Sacks, the owner of Genuine Gems, a Los Angeles jewelry store. “Listen, we all got hit hard last year. What can you do? Hey, it’s got to pick up sooner or later, right, Norm?”

Viggy stopped talking for a few moments and listened to Norm. Then he replied, “Sorry, Norm, I just can’t do it. I just don’t have the cash available. I know that when you placed the order originally, I said you could return the merchandise if it didn’t move and I’d give you your money back, but, Norm, listen to me. The fact is that when you called in January to give back almost $30,000 in merchandise and I begged you to go easy on me, you agreed. I think we worked out a very fair deal. I took back all the merchandise and refunded you $15,000 on the spot, and the rest I said I would give you by this coming January. Norm, it’s not January yet!

“Listen, Norm, you know you have the rest of the money as a $15,000 credit posted to your account. Why don’t you take some merchandise now and get paid back that way? Please, Norm, I also have a business to run. Do you know that this whole year I barely made payroll?”

Viggy listened to Norm some more. After a few uh-huh’s and a couple of yeah’s uttered in response to what Norm was saying, Viggy finally offered,

“Listen, Norm, I do feel bad that I’ve been sitting on your $15,000 for the whole year, even though you did agree to it. So I’m really going to go the extra mile. I’ll send you a check right away for $5,000, but the last $10,000 you’ll have to take in merchandise. And I’ll do one more thing, because I feel so bad that I haven’t paid you. When you use the credit that’s on your account, I’ll give you an extra 10-percent discount on your order. Is it a deal?”

It seems that Norm must have been desperate for cash because he grudgingly agreed to Viggy’s offer.

“I’m glad we could work something out, Norm. I’ll talk to you later,” Viggy said and hung up.

As he sat working at his desk, Yoni had tried not to eavesdrop, but he couldn’t help but hear Viggy’s entire conversation with Norm Sacks — and by the time Viggy hung up with Norm, Yoni had broken into a cold sweat.

*  *  *

“You’re sure it’s assur?” Miriam asked in astonishment.

“Absolutely,” answered Yoni. “All last year the kollel was learning hilchos ribbis, and the Rosh Kollel made a big deal about how cases just like this come up all the time. There’s no question about it. He may not have realized it, but when Uncle Viggy told Mr. Sacks that he would give him a 10-percent discount on his next order, he was offering to pay him a kind of ribbis.”

“But I don’t get it,” said a puzzled Miriam. “I thought ribbis is when you pay interest on a loan, but what kind of loan did Mr. Sacks give to Uncle Viggy? All he did was return some merchandise.”

“That’s one of the tricky things about hilchos ribbis,” explained Yoni. “It’s not always easy to identify the loan that’s occurring. In Viggy’s case, when he took back the jewelry that he had sold to Mr. Sacks, what he was really doing was buying back the jewelry at the   same price that he had charged Mr. Sacks. Normally when you buy something, you’re supposed to pay for it at the time of the sale. So when a seller allows the buyer to pay for the delivered merchandise at a later date, what’s really happening is that the seller is giving the buyer a kind of loan. Halachah has a term for this kind of loan — a loan derived from a sale.” “So let me get this straight,” said Miriam. “By not receiving a full refund right away, Mr. Sacks was in fact lending Uncle Viggy money, and when Mr. Sacks uses the credit on his account to purchase merchandise, what’s really happening is that the loan is being paid back.” “Exactly,” Yoni confirmed. “I couldn’t have said it better myself.”

“And the 10-percent discount that Uncle Viggy offered Mr. Sacks is the interest on the loan, right?” Miriam asserted.

Yoni nodded.

“So let’s say I return something to a store and I’m supposed to get my money back, but instead I agree to accept a store credit. According to what you’re saying, I’m not allowed to be given a special discount when I buy something with the credit,” Miriam posited confidently.
“Well, not exactly,” responded Yoni. Miriam shrugged in frustration. “But you said—” she began to protest.

“Let me explain,” Yoni interrupted. “You have to understand that since Uncle Viggy committed himself to the discount only after the loan had already been made, the kind of interest he offered to pay is not forbidden according to the Torah. The Torah forbids ribbis only when the actual terms of the loan require the ribbis payment. It is, however, considered ribbis d’Rabbanan.

“Since this kind of interest payment is not forbidden according to the Torah, we find a number of leniencies related to it. For instance, in Yoreh Deah 160:4, the Rema quotes the talmidei haRashba, who actually allow one to pay back a ‘loan derived from a sale’ with merchandise that has been discounted voluntarily — just like Uncle Viggy wants to do.

“But even according to the talmidei haRashba, there are two situations when such a transaction would be forbidden. The first is when the discount is so large that it’s obvious it was given because of the loan; but the 10-percent discount that Uncle
Viggy offered Mr. Sacks would probably not fall into this category.

“The second case is when it is stated explicitly that the discount on the merchandise is being offered because of the loan. And that is the mistake Uncle Viggy made. He told Mr. Sacks clearly that he was giving the 10-percent discount because he felt bad that he had not yet refunded all the money. So in your example of returning a purchase to the store, you would be allowed to accept a 10-percent discount as long as no one said anything connecting the discount with the agreement to accept a store credit. Now you get it?”

“Yeah, I do,” Miriam assured her husband. “And I also get that we have a pretty big problem on our hands.”

A few moments passed in silence. Both Yoni and Miriam were lost in thought about how Viggy would react if Yoni actually told him that his deal with Norm Sacks was forbidden because of ribbis. They were both imagining roughly the same scene — big Uncle Viggy getting up from behind his desk and bellowing in that voice of his, “How dare you tell me how to run my business? You’re fired!”

“What are you going to do?” Miriam finally asked her husband.

“I’m not sure,” answered Yoni, “but I’ve already made an appointment to meet with the Rosh Kollel tonight after Maariv. When I told him the problem, he told me not to worry, that if he and I sit down together and brainstorm, we’ll probably be able to come up with a way to tell Uncle Viggy that won’t upset him.”

“I sure hope so,” said Miriam. Yoni’s worried look lifted and a smile spread slowly across his face. With a gleam in his eye, he said, “You know what else the Rosh Kollel said to me? He said, ‘Halevai everyone should know hilchos ribbis so well that they get into this kind of predicament. I’m proud of you, Yoni!’”

“Yoni, I have to tell you something,” Miriam said softly. “So am I.”

From Business Halacha Institute, here.

Anarchy of the Next World

On the radical incoherence of statism, reasons for its near-universal acceptance, and effective ways of getting rid of it

Statism is the doctrine that the foundation of every well-functioning society is its subjection to a territorial monopoly of violence. Non-statist doctrines, on the other hand, claim that any given society is able to function really well only when it is free from the influence of such monopolies.

Upon encountering in this context the claim that non-statist doctrines are practically unsafe due to their radical character, it is worthwhile to point to the glaring radicalism of every form of statism. Having thus suggested, however, that it is not radicalism per se that is a problem with any given socio-economic doctrine, it is even more worthwhile to underscore that statism is not simply radical, but radical in its incoherence. It seems a very fitting description for the theory which claims, among others:

1. That the only sure way of protecting oneself against violence, aggression and coercion is to help institute and continually support a vast, monopolistic apparatus of institutionalized violence, aggression and coercion.

2. That the only sure way of protecting one’s private property rights is to help institute and continually support a coercive entity whose representatives do not own any of the said entity’s assets, and yet arrogate to themselves the right to expropriate any private property owner for the purposes whose utility it is up to them to appraise.

3. That the free market economy, whose participants – in order to prosper – have to supply one another with productive goods and services, as well as bear the full financial responsibility for the potential failures of their actions, can survive only when subjected to the regulation of a monopolistic group of non-producers, who can always shift the costs of their failures onto the shoulders of producers.

4. That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.

5. That the wielders of any given monopolistic apparatus of compulsion and aggression use it out of altruistic motives, but if they were to stop using coercive methods (political activity) and instead turn to voluntary methods (market activity), their altruism would be immediately supplanted by base, greed-driven egoism.

6. That states, institutions responsible for some 200.000.000 cruel deaths in the 20th century alone, are supposed to offer protection from “private criminals”, who even in their most organized form of international mafia networks never managed to take even the tiniest fraction of the statist death toll.

7. That the state of anarchy among individuals, each of whom can generally finance his activities out of his private pocket only, would lead to an intolerable escalation of violence and bloodshed, but the state of anarchy among states, each of which can impose the costs of its activities (including warfare) on private individuals, is at least a tolerable and relatively peaceful arrangement.

8. That the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among individuals would lead to endless conflict, but the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among various organs of the state does not prevent them from cooperating effectively and even benevolently.

9. That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor.

10. That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine.

11. That the ruled are wise enough to choose their rulers, but not wise enough to choose the way to use their own money.

12. That a pair of travelers bumping into each other in the middle of a desolate forest do not immediately get at each other’s throats only because they fear being punished by the state.

13. That an institution which forcibly imposes its protective services on others, unilaterally determines their price and excludes all competition in this area will not attempt to benefit from initiating conflicts or letting them develop rather them resolving them or preventing their occurrence.

14. That compulsory expropriation of an individual’s private property need not be considered as a violation of anyone’s rights (given unilaterally determined “due monetary compensation”), but refusing to give up a portion of one’s independently created or contractually acquired belongings is a straightforward violation.

15. That political rights precede property rights, which presumably means that the supposed original social contract was concluded by a bonfire in a cave and written down on the cave wall, or else that the conditions of the pre-contract world allowed for creating the capital necessary to (at least) house the social contractors and provide them with ink and paper in some mysterious, propertyless way.

16. That having a sufficiently large clientele turns what is normally considered a robbery into what is commonly accepted as part of a necessary social service.

17. That a relatively small group of people is capable of possessing more knowledge and making more informed decisions with regard to directing the activities of any given society than the whole rest of the society in question.

18. That the notion of equality before the law leaves place for functional privileges.

19. That unconditional respect for the principle of non-aggression is ‘absolutist’, but unconditional respect for state-legislated law is not.

20. That the prevalence of statism indicates the advantageousness of statism, as if the same could not be once said about astrology, witch-hunting, slavery and legal racial discrimination.

21. That each of the above assertions is solidly justified, both theoretically and empirically, while the negation of any of them lies essentially beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

Having enumerated these (or other) reasons, it is worthwhile to confront the statist with the task of defending the allegedly moderate character of the doctrine he espouses. And even if he bites the bullet on this one and acknowledges statism’s radicalism, one should unhesitatingly confront him with another, equally difficult task – that of defending statism’s putative coherence. If he admits failure on this score as well, we should not be intellectually surprised, but we might at least feel tactically satisfied.

However, despite feeling thus satisfied, one should not forget that it seems scarcely an exaggeration to say that today’s inhabited world is almost universally statist. Thus, the task facing libertarians remains comprehensive and formidable. Since the shape of social reality is ultimately determined by the ideas people hold, undermining the influence of any given doctrine requires prior understanding of the reasons for both its active espousal and its passive acceptance. Consequently, in order to oppose statism effectively, it is necessary to get a grasp of the factors that make the societies of the world endorse or at least consent to the existence of centralized monopolies of aggression, violence and coercion. What follows is a succinct list of what appear to be the main driving forces behind the phenomenon just described:

1. Intellectual propaganda. The statized education system managed to accomplish a formidable task of creating a number of very potent mental viruses – the theory of social contract, the theory of public and collective goods, the theory of political obligation, various theories of monopoly and other “market failures”, various theories of “positive legislation”, the doctrine of the divine right of kings, etc. The examples could be multiplied ad infinitum. To non-intellectuals these propagandist concoctions oftentimes seem to be serious, rational justifications for obeying the dictates of monopolies of force. To intellectuals, on the other hand, even if they see the (quite flagrant) logical inadequacies of these sophistical constructions, their adoption and propagation usually appears to be one of the safest ways to secure permanent, lucrative and influential job positions.

Continue reading…
From Jakub, here.

Moshe Feiglin on Duma – Always Relevant

Framed in Duma: By Moshe Feiglin

I opposed administrative detention – of both Jews and Arabs – when I was in the Knesset. I also opposed forced feeding. I believe that the continued occupation of Judea and Samaria causes Israel to consistently violate human rights, which in turn brings about the deterioration of the standard of liberty in the entire country. Israel must declare sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, thus ending the occupation in the same manner it did in the Golan Heights. All options must be opened for the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, while safeguarding their human rights.

I have already written that it really does not interest me if those who threw the firebombs into the (Arab) home in Duma were Jews or Arabs. Whoever did it must be punished. But as of this point, it is not at all clear that the Jewish youths in administrative detention were connected whatsoever to the case.

Even if they admit to the crime and re-enact it 100 times.

Even if they will be convicted and all the rabbis will condemn them roundly, as is standard procedure – I will not believe they are guilty.

Because when teens are held for many long months in the Shabak cellars, when their right to meet with a lawyer is taken from them – they are liable to say anything. The pressure that the security apparatus felt from the Left’s “Why haven’t you arrested anyone yet?” sobbing festival has driven them to perpetrate a long string of indecent acts, under the auspices of (Arab) Supreme Court Justice Salim Jubran. Yesterday he authorized the continued negation of the rights of the detainees.

I once heard an evaluation from the President of the Attorney’s Association, who said that approximately 15% of those convicted of murder in Israel are not actually guilty of the crime. So how can we relate seriously to this ridiculous ‘investigation’  – in which all the human rights of the detainees – all of them juveniles – are seriously abused ? Soon their half year of administrative detention will be up, and then, of course, an extension will be requested. After all, Defense Minister Ya’alon will not want to lose face and admit that there is no evidence against these boys.

Our enemies already know that all they have to do is to vandalize their own property and write ‘Price Tag’ in order to implicate Jews in the crime. They cut down their own trees and write ‘Price Tag’. They set fire to carpets in their mosques and write ‘Price Tag’ on the walls. That is what they did in Tuba Zangaria. Even in Tel Aviv, a terror cell planning precisely the same act in the Hassan Bek Mosque was caught before they could put their plans into action.

So why shouldn’t they do the same thing in Duma? The police and Shabak know that better than I do. But they work for the media and the ‘Peace Industry’ nobility. They do not work for the State of Israel. And they certainly do not work for the truth.

It’s already been two months that not a day goes by without stabbings, car rammings or shootings. For some reason, we do not see a hint of the same holy ardor to find solutions at any price – even at the price of all the rules of liberty and democracy. Not a hint of that from the peace nobility. For some reason, you do not hear anything in the media about expelling the families of the Arabs terrorists who stab Jews – even when time and again it turns out that today’s terrorist is the brother of yesterday’s terrorist. After all, it’s not democratic, it is not in keeping with human rights, it will upset the delicate balance of relations between Jews and Arabs, it is absolutely unthinkable…

So on Monday, a one year old baby was run over by a terrorist and lost his leg. He will not be crawling or playing soccer. But never fear: Netanyahu ordered the Jerusalem municipality to erect more cement blocks by bus stops to prevent Arabs from ramming their cars into unsuspecting people. And the Defense Minister is busy chasing after the wind on the hilltops of Judea and Samaria.

In the past, there were a number of cases of arson in Duma – internal strife. Even a novice graphologist would testify to the fact that the graffiti left on the walls there was a drawing, not actual writing. And furthermore, do you think that a Jewish boy who would decide to throw a firebomb into an Arab home would choose a home in the center of the Arab village and not on its outskirts?

Sorry, friends. With this hallucinatory investigation and trampling of every possible human right, you have completely lost me. At this point, all the detainees should be released, the investigative team should be replaced and the Shabak and police should stop drawing the target around the arrows outlined by the media.

From Jewish Israel, here.