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.

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.

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.

Taxing Humor

The Israeli government does not take VAT for calls made abroad.

This must be based on the following Mishnah Shvi’is end of chapter 6:

אין מביאין תרומה ומע”מ מחוצה לארץ

No, it does not say that exactly. Humor.