vaterland

"The degree of justice in a country is measured not by the rights accorded to the native-born, the rich, and the well-connected (whose connections stand by them and represent them in their time of need), but by the justice meted out to the unprotected stranger. Complete equality of the native-born and the stranger is a basic characteristic of Jewish law. In Jewish law, the homeland does not grant human rights; rather, human rights grant the homeland! Jewish law does not distinguish between human rights and citizen's rights. Whoever accepted upon himself the moral laws of humanity- the seven Noahide laws- could claim the right of domicile in Judea."

-- Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, commentary to the book of Exodus, Chapter 1, Verse 14 [Amazon link]

I'd love to try and squeeze his statement about morality granting property rights into an argumentation ethics framework to defend not the illegitimate, incoherent concept of "homeland", but rather one of property rights. It's clear that the good rabbi didn't hold that the land of Israel is the birthright, or that it belongs in come collective manner to the tribe of Israel, but to the contrary- it's a land that is open for acquisition to potentially anyone so long that they behave toward others in a moral fashion.

According to some libertarians, the concept of property is derived via argumentation ethics [link]. Roughly speaking, a presupposition to the concept of an argument requires individuals to recognize the property rights of others to their own bodies and the use and/or possession of scarce goods, or what is then called property.

Why I'm not voting

There are a few reasons why I will not be "expressing" myself at the ballot box come this next election.

Primarily so, because the very process disgusts my sensitivity to the ideals of individual liberty. What I mean is that the gross act in playing a very small part in selecting our next overlord should make every egalitarian cringe- if equal liberty is truly their goal, this could only be realized when there are no masters lording over us any longer.

Secondly, because voting is a farce if you are given extremely limited options and no option for exit. The very concept of choice requires the ability to reject and so long that one cannot "express" this choice at the ballot box the only way to do so is to abstain from beans.

Third, because I think it borders on immorality to play even a minor a role in the perpetuity of the institution of mass enslavement. I won't argue that voting in presidential elections is per se immoral (a violation of rights), after all one may feel inclined to vote for pragmatic and strategic purposes. What I do have is a very strong preference of being averse to any situation through which my participation can be viewed as my lending moral support to such a rights-violating institution.

Some people may question my hostility to democratic institutions- I will not deny this charge. I do not see the logic in being imposed upon and having my liberty infringed by the majoritarian opinion no matter the excuse. Whether or not it is better than the alternative (monarchy, oligarchy, communism) is to limit yourself to of a determination of rulership and to not admit the possibility of self-determination.

paramnesiastic

That is how a verbaholic such as myself would describe the sensation commonly referred to déjà vu.

For a while I was secretly embarrassed to think that although I've read most of Neal Stephenson's books, notably the Diamond Age, Cryptonomicon, and the enormous Baroque Cycle trilogy, I never got around to reading his first major, coming-of-age novel Snow Crash. Or so, that is what I thought to be the case.

You see, I remember reading the Diamond Age when it came out back in 90's when I was still in grade school; to be technical, while I summered at a sleepaway camp. To this day I cherish the memories of reading it, vaguely recalling the basic storyline and some of the more remarkable elements which still reside deep in my neurostructure.

But I had no recollection whatsoever of ever reading Snow Crash until I bought a fresh copy a few weeks ago and finally read the damn thing.

And boom!, just like that, memories came flooding back-- the metaverse, the dentata, the rat thing. Even the parts about glossolalia.

I think I was 11 or 12 when I first read it. Hands down I think I've enjoyed it much more this time around.

To recap a paragraph sure to bring a smile to fellow anarchonomists;

"It's always been a mystery to Hiro, too, but then, that's how the government is. It was invented to do stuff that private enterprise doesn't bother with, which means there's probably no reason for it;"

Well said, Mr. Stephenson.

zoning for death

A NY Times editorial published today insinuates that the heady sin of avarice is alive and thriving in the real estate industry, to the detriment of public safety. The article speaks of various regulations that Department of Buildings has tried to implement in the wake of the tragedy at ground zero, among them the widening of and the increase of required staircases.

The main force against such safety precautions is said to be the real estate industry, who are stalwart against the maximization of 'dead weight', space which is neither rentable nor salable, and hence unable to be capitalized.

As usual, what we have here is a few bureaucrats attempting to supplant the will of the people, to try to overrule their desired level of safety, to force them to pay for more safety then what they are willing to voluntarily part for by themselves.

[Monetary] greed, the most maligned, misunderstood characteristic is bandied here as though it simply were a destructive life force of its own. Say what you will of morality in general, but scratch an avowed amoralist, and you should find his instinctual hatred for avarice right there for all to see. I certainly can recognize the presence of greed, but I try to avoid ascribing to it the power of causal explanation.

In this case, it would be far more fruitful to state that the prior intervention of zoning regulation has come at the expense of public safety. Zoning, by arbitrarily and artificially constraining the natural growth of the human habitat has upset the delicate balance of market preferences into favoring space-maximizing strategies at the cost of public safety. It is a safe bet to say that in the absence of such well-intentioned intervention, society will have a better chance at working to obtain an optimal admixture of safety, and pleasant cages than it would otherwise.

Instead of pettily focusing on the motive of greed, it would be more mature (and productive!) to recognize it as an immutable nature of what it means to be human, and to let institutions and relations develop anarchically around that natural formation how they will.

dinah demalkhuta dinah

Among Orthodox Jews there is a consensus that government is a necessary institution, and which is legitimated by our religion. Furthermore, leading rabbis often urge that it is an obligation upon each and every eligible citizen to register and vote, for the purpose of having "our voice" heard loud and clear, in order to acquire via political means our fair share of the loot which we ought have coming to our neighborhoods maintenance and pet causes[1].

The Jewish principle which justifies and legitimizes governmental terrorism is known as 'dinah de'malkhuta dinah', which literally translates to "the law of the kingdom is the law". Most laymen are familiar with this halachic maxim, and a overwhelming majority of them take it as gospel, without understanding its applicable parameters, and make even less effort to understand the underlying principle.

A short while ago, I came across the sugya (section) in the tractate Nedarim on pages 27b-28a which discusses cases in which one is permitted to falsely declare a neder, a vow forswearing the benefit from either an activity, an object, or from a person. The three cases where one is permitted to falsely swear is to a brigand, a murderer, and a tax collector. [The purpose of the neder would be to bolster another false claim that the property they are looking to loot either belongs to the temple, or to the royalty which will dissuade them from taking it.]

In those three cases, it is permissible to make such a vow to forswear the benefit of his wife and children if he were to be lying about the ownership of the goods in question, which is of course the truth of the matter.

The commentators ask, and in regard to the tax collector, isn't the collector fulfilling a legitimate role to raise taxes for the king based on the principle of dinah de'malkhuta dinah? (Henceforth shortened to DND) So why is one permitted to lie, and on top of that to declare a false vow?

The commentators come up with an answer along the line that if taxes are not being collected equitably from the population, one is permitted to protect his property from that excessive plundering[2].

In any case, where did the commentators come up with this concept of DND?

To some commentators, DND isn't a groundbreaking rule of unique halachic origin, but one simply based upon the principle of ownership. To them, the power to tax derives from the fact the that the sovereign is the landlord, and by that right can demand payment allowing you on his land. Exactly how he comes to own the kingdom isn't discussed, but this explanation will at least frame the boundaries of what DND would entail, contrary to the all-encompassing principle some would have you believe.

Other commentators disagree and instead would like to base DND upon a social compact of sorts, that people are effectively giving their consent to abide by the law of the land by choosing to settle in that certain region. Perhaps this is a more fashionable explanation to the democratically minded who like to think that they live in a contract society, but excuse me if I feel that it's a horrid justification for democracy in search of a halachic source.

The one thing that the commentators are in agreement is to the extent which DND would require of the individual in regards to compliance with positive law. In short, it is limited to 'roads and taxes' which is to say that one is obligated to pay the tolls to use the roads and bridges, and to pay the taxes of their respective jurisdictions. Other than those two categories, a person is permitted to follow the mandates of positive law, but is in no way obligated to. Furthermore, any positive law which to fulfill would necessitate a violation of Torah laws is forbidden.

Most people I know are either unaware of these facts, or simply would like to forget them. To them, DND says what they want it to say so that they can go on accepting the statist quo in their sheeplike existence. To myself, DND does not sanction grand larceny to the tune of 25%-39% tax brackets, even as I acknowledge that yes, there are some lunatics out there who would defend a 150% income tax in the name of DND. The one thing I truly wish to accomplish with this post is to stop the bandying about of DND as a halachic principle justifying any absurdity one can dream up.

---------------------
[1] Thankfully the pet causes I'm talking about are not local tennis and swimming instruction, or banal theater productions, but causes such as senior citizen foster care, food pantry programs, etc. This is no way forgives the original sin of robbery-via-taxation, but hopefully it can be viewed as a lessor evil in light of the thick-thin prism of dialectical-libertarianism.

[2] What makes the taxes inequitable in this case according to the commentators is that the tax collector is trying to burden the rich with the bulk of the taxes. It's not yet clear to me if their distaste was with a proportional or a graduated (progressive) tax rate or perhaps either one, but I think that anything other than a poll (head) tax was considered an odious tax, one which permits the victim to not tell the truth or to take upon vows which he does not intend to keep.

maybe credits

Here are two F for Fake screen captures from Robert Anton Wilson's Maybe Logic. Click the images for more info.

Note: I think the "Dubya" one needs no further linkage, unless it's for google-bombing purposes.

the left hand of.. something

"Wrong had been done and it had to be balanced out and accounted for personally. But humans were full of rights, and very short of responsibilities." -- Karen Traviss, City of Pearl

City of Pearl is the first book in Traviss's six-part series called the Wess'har Wars. To be candid, I found this book on the formulaic side, one which failed to capture my imagination or blow it to smithereens in the process.

To be fair, it could be my disliking of Traviss's confusing political philosophy which put me off given that her universe is one in which the evil corporations (sigh!) on Earth have eliminated most natural growing foods and have replaced them with genetically-modified and patent-secured replacements to reap monopoly profits with the side consequence of mass starvation for the rest of the human population (::rolling eyes!::)

Or that the protagonist is a former cop, once an environmental hazard protection goon whose past was mired in a conspiratorial battle against eco-terrorists in the highest rank of industry and government.

Then there was the repeatedly mentioned "Government's work is God's work" and other similar endorsements for institutionalized mass servitude, which at times was bewildering because you knew that Traviss had it in herself to transcend from the socialist-leftist memeage into the more mature left-anarchist/left-libertarian tradition. Though to her credit it, I sometimes felt as though I was holding a book by Ursala K. LeGuin, as witnessed by this post's opening quote, by far my favorite line in the entire book.

we-know-whats-good-for-you

In an affront to individual sensibilities, NYC has now decided to usurp your right to live in an "unlivable" city just as I have thought would eventually happen.

(Heh, that's almost as funny as asking for animals to be treated "humanely".)

"Mr. Washburn, 44, is charged with making sure the parks get the right amount of sun, buildings aren't too bulky, and the skyline stays coherent. He will act as Ms. Burden's eyes for the incredible number of projects now under way in the city"...

"Senator Moynihan believed that good design is not just about aesthetics, but that the look of a city expresses the values of the people who live in it," he said.

Now where exactly do these folks get off dictating the "values" that the city-people want? And in any case, to what relevancy does it matter what some third-party pretends to want for everyone's values?

"It's really the citizen that will be the measure of our success," Mr. Washburn said. "How do you make sure New York doesn't become dull, but has the greatest streetscape with the greatest variety and the greatest texture? To keep everything vibrant and authentic with new projects is really tough. You have to calibrate everything very finely. Every time you change something in the city, you affect another constituency."

Which is exactly why central planners should be kept as far as possible from urban development. I mean just look at Brasilia, or ask yourself why Robert Moses is one of the most despised man in NYC urban development history.

But the sheer amount of haughtiness and conceit is astounding considering all the misplaced faith put into the past anointed guardian saints for urban aesthetics. This should be a fine example to those planners of how aesthetic expectations are valued both ex ante and ex post, thus making the goal of aesthetic perfection for posterity at best a Sisyphean task.

On a positive note, most people who are concerned with urban aesthetics usually prostrate to the altar of the Jane Jacobs goddess and her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Since Jacobs ideas were inspired in part by F.A. Hayek and his aversion to central planned economies, one has hope that they can transcend from the position of merely recognizing the beauty of unplanned, and 'chaotic' order, and to come to the realization that utilizing the violence of the state is the furthest thing from affecting the spontaneous communal life that they so very much desire.

pseudos etumos-logos

Wherein I pretend to dabble in the dark arts of etymology, I tend to discover inner meaning when there really isn't any. For example, a common slur against Iranian Jews is to stereotype their frugality. Hence, the term parsimony has special meaning to me as it may be broken down to the [false] roots 'parsi' + 'mony', 'Parsi' being the Hebrew word for "Persian".

Another such example would be to relate the word "Hasidic", which in its original Hebrew sense did not depict a Jew wearing a funky hat, curly sidelocks and a black frock. Instead, in Mishnaic terms it referred to a person who refrained from the pleasures of the world, choosing to live the most basic, ascetic life.

Where am I going with this? Well I wanted to devise an explanation for the division of man-made law into two categories:

1) common law
2) private law

The difference between the two is lies in it's origination. I reckon that the typical origination of common law was a spontaneous arrangement of acceptable, universalized principles which civilized society could easily agree to, such as prohibition against murder, enslavement and robbery. These are such prohibitive laws that from the viewpoint of the individual are obvious (since the prohibited action is clearly harmful to another party), and need not to be instilled for one to be aware of them (and I stop short of referring to these as 'natural laws'.)

Private law, or positive law on the other hand, is comprised of laws which are many times non-obvious, and therefore to be known must be learned (although one will be found guilty in unknowing transgression, since ignorance of the law is not an excuse.) The law's prohibited action might be seemingly or truly harmless, and one might be found guilty in the nebulous sense of committing a "crime against society". These laws, even if well-intentioned, will favor the interests of a private few, required active legislation to define them, coercion to gain their employ, and in effect lead to the breakdown of, and de-civilize society.

R.A.W. (and R.S.) said it squarely, or rather, Hagbard Celine did:

PRIVILEGE: From the latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

With this historical background, we can better grasp the typical hurdle often encountered by many an anarchist in the conflation of these two types of law. It is the difference between the two law types that anarchists object to when they object to rulers, but not rules.

What anarchists may or may not realize, privilege-private laws are those "rules" which beneath the print are just rulers disguising themselves in the rubric of rules in order to demand obedience and/or enslavement. These pseudo rules do not arise from conflict-reducing norms, and in fact create more conflict.

Private laws are those which anarchists are most confident will not arise in a market-anarchy, whilst the common law they hope will be rigorously obeyed, whether out of a sense of common decency (in my belief), or because of an expectation that the market institutions will have a much better replacement to the state's pathetically useless enforcement agencies.