It took the Secret Service Four Days to Figure out the White House was Fired on

This is more proof that the myth of government “elite forces” is just that – a myth. The FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Secret Service, are all a bunch of stupid bureaucrats that couldn’t get a job in the actual economy producing anything of value. The difference between them and an everyday bureaucrat is that the Secret Service bureaucrats have fancy tools and gizmos and gadgets all made in the private economy by people that produce things. Then Congress takes money from you and buys toys for the Secret Service, whose job it is supposedly to protect the President.

And it took them 4 days to figure out that the White House had been shot at 7 times. They had to be told by the housekeeper who noticed broken glass and a chunk of cement on the floor, because they couldn’t figure it out for themselves, what with the bullet holes and all being so small. I wonder if the White House housekeeper is an illegal immigrant. From the Washington Post:

It took the Secret Service four days to realize that shots had hit the White House residence, a discovery that came about only because a housekeeper noticed broken glass and a chunk of cement on the floor.

If a private security force made this kind of mistake, the whole company would be fired. But remember, none of these people were smart enough to get a real job, either that or they were stupid enough to want to work for the government in the first place.

Why sales taxes do not affect prices directly

This is a continuation as to why Feiglin is wrong when he says that zero VAT on newly built homes will benefit the rich more than the poor, thereby widening the gap between rich and poor. (For people new to this blog, I still support Feiglin for Prime Minister enthusiastically. He’s just wrong on this issue.)

This is a very important point that few people understand, precisely because it is so counterintuitive. Consumption taxes like value added taxes, in Hebrew מע״מ for מס ערך מוסף, do not have a direct impact on the prices of goods that are taxed. If you search this blog, you’ll find that earlier posts from several years ago have made the same mistake in assuming that VAT is simply passed on to the consumer. It never is. It is impossible to pass on a consumption tax to a consumer. It is always passed backward onto the retailer, never forward on to the end consumer.

Murray Rothbard wrote about this in Man Economy and State, Chapter 12, section D, paragraph 4. Here it is: (I finished the 1,369 page book two months ago. Yay for me.)

In considering the general sales tax, many people are misled by the fact that the price paid by the consumer necessarily includes the tax. If someone goes to a movie and pays $1.00 admission, and if he sees prominently posted the information that this covers a “price” of 85¢ and a tax of 15¢, he tends to conclude that the tax has simply been added on to the “price.” But $1.00 is the price, not 85¢, the latter sum simply being the revenue accruing to the firm after taxes. The revenue to the firm has, in effect, been reduced to allow for payment of taxes.

The general sales tax Rothbard refers to is the VAT, or the מע״מ. So if we translate that to houses and use Feiglin’s flawed analogy, a house that costs 1.6M NIS, does NOT actually cost 288K less than that on the free market because of the VAT which is supposedly tacked on to the end. The house costs 1.6M, period, regardless of whether there is a VAT or not. Why must this be so?

Because a price is not just a number that a seller sets in order to make a certain profit he feels like making. If that were true nobody would ever sell at a loss. A price is what the seller can get on the market regardless of the profit he makes or doesn’t make. In other words, it’s not like the seller of a house or the builder of a house who is selling it feels like he has to make X profit on the house and therefore sells it for 1.6M assuming a VAT, but would sell it for 288K less if he sells it without a VAT and get the same profit. It doesn’t work that way.

A price is a finely tuned level where buyers and sellers equal out. It is the point where supply and demand meet, not the point at which the seller feels he has made enough money. If by divine intervention the VAT were abolished tomorrow, the price of housing would NOT suddenly shrink by 20% or whatever the VAT is. If it did you’d have a rush of demand that would immediately bid the price back up to the current levels.

A clear illustration of this is what happens at a supermarket sale designed to get you interested in a product. The supermarket often sets something at below a market price and then limits you to a certain amount of it. Say tomatoes are on sale for a shekel a kilo when the real free market price is 3 shekels a kilo. The store will inevitably limit you to, say, 3 kilos. Why the limit? Because by going below the free market price, it has voluntarily introduced a shortage, necessitating the limiting. If it were at the free market price, there would be no limit on any customer, because the free market price IS ITSELF the limit.

The current price of housing is the equilibrium point between supply and demand. If VAT were gone tomorrow on everything, the prices of everything would stay the same because the equilibrium point between buyers and sellers of anything has not changed overnight. If suddenly the price of housing dropped by the VAT amount, then you’d have more buyers willing to buy than sellers willing to sell, and the price would quickly jump back up to the current market price. Perhaps a few sales would be made at current prices minus the VAT, but they would be made so fast that the competitive bidding would very quickly push the price back up within days or hours to reach equilibrium again.

Therefore, there IS no benefit to rich people of 288K on a 1.6M house, because the price WOULD NOT CHANGE. Neither is there any direct benefit on any other buyer of any house no matter how rich or poor he may be.

Where there IS direct benefit is on the SELLER of the house, or the builder of the house who is the seller, in that he gets to keep the amount of money previously stolen from him by the government. The SELLER of a 400K house and a 1.6M house could be the same person. In fact, the seller of a 400K house could be rich while the seller of a 1.6M house could be poor. The benefit to them of getting rid of the VAT is that they no longer have to pay 20% (or whatever the VAT is) to the government, so they can keep that and reinvest it in say building more houses instead of buying more $60K Iron Dome missiles to swat flies out of the air from Gaza.

That eventually ups supply, gradually bringing the price down on everything. So yes, getting rid of VAT does lower prices INDIRECTLY, only by increasing supply through reinvestment of profits that would have otherwise been taken by government and spent on some inner city school prison. But in Israel, since the government owns 93% of the land, there is no way to up supply even if the VAT is obliterated. So housing prices would continue to rise, as Feiglin says in his post. However, even so getting rid of the VAT would lower prices on whatever the bigger profits were reinvested in, so we’d be better off on net anyway even if housing prices are not affected because of the government land monopoly restricting supply.

Conclusion: It’s not that buyers of more expensive houses will get a greater benefit. They won’t. It’s that sellers of more expensive houses will have less stolen from them. Those sellers could be anyone. Stop with the class warfare, I don’t want to hear anything about Rich vs Poor and the supposed battle between them. The battle is between taxpayers and tax receivers. The battle is between rich and poor taxpayers vs rich and poor tax receivers.

We need to fight the tax receivers until they no longer receive anything. (Yes, this includes Feiglin himself as a Knesset Member, and the only reason I give him an exception is that he is leading the fight from within the government, and there is no other way I see of taking them down legally and nonviolently.)

Moshe Feiglin Makes a Mistake on Zero VAT מע”מ אפס

This is for all the people who think I’m a mindless follower in a personality cult. I have criticized Feiglin in the past and I don’t agree with him on everything. Well now I’m going to do it again.

In his last Facebook post, he writes:

מע”מ – אפס פיתרון.

מע”מ אפס – פתרון למצוקת הדיור או העמקת הפער לטובת העשירים?

כבר מזמן פרסמתי את דעתי כי השורש של מצוקת הדיור הוא במצוקת הקרקעות לבנייה. כל עוד מדינת ישראל תחזיק ברוב הקרקעות ותספסר במכירתם מחיר הדיור ימשיך לעלות.

יש לחלק קרקעות לבניה לכל מי שסיים שרות צבאי או אזרחי באזורי הפריפריה בתנאי שהוא אכן יממש את הבניה בתוך פרק זמן סביר. יש להקים ערים כדוגמת מודיעין בשיפולי השומרון והרי יהודה. הגדלת מצאי הדירות תוריד את המחיר.

ברור שהצעתו של השר לפיד למע”מ אפס לא תייצר אף דירה חדשה ורק תעלה את המחירים. אך יחד עם זאת, פתאום הבנתי שהצעה זו חמורה פי כמה באמירה החברתית שלה היות והיא מגדילה את הפערים בין העניים לעשירים באופן מובנה.

לדוגמה: זוג בעל אמצעים שיקנה דירה ב-1.6 מליון שקל יזכה להטבה של 288,000 ₪. לעומת זאת, זוג בפריפריה שיקנה דירה ב- 800,000 ₪ יזכה רק למחצית מהטבה זו וכך השר לפיד יתרום באמצעות הכסף שלנו להגדלת הפער בין המשפחות בעוד 144,000 ₪.
יתרה מזו, ההטבה היא רק למי שקונים דירות חדשות, אבל מי שאין בידם אמצעים לקניית דירה חדשה ומסוגלים לקנות רק דירה יד שניה ב-300 או 400 אלף שקל לא יזכו לשום סיוע וכך הפער יגדל בין משפחות אלו לבין המשפחות שיקנו דירה ב- 1.6 מיליון ב- 288,000 ₪.

בקיצור, השר לפיד, אם אתה רוצה לחלק הטבות לזוגות הצעירים שאין להם דירה גם בלי לפתור את בעיית הדיור לפחות תעשה זאת בדרך הוגנת שלא מגדילה את הפער בין עניים לעשירים.
תקבע שכל מי שעומד בקריטריונים שקבעת יקבל בעת קניית דירה שתעלה לא יותר מ- 1.6 מיליון שקל, מאה אלף או מאה וחמישים אלף או כל סכום אחר שתחליט.
בדרך זו לפחות תעזור לכלל הזוגות הצעירים ממעמד הביניים ומטה באופן שווה, אף על פי שסביר להניח שתגרום להקפצה של כלל מחיר הדירות.

.ותודה לחבר מרכז הליכוד עובד חוגי שהעיר את עיני בנושא זה.

Translation, and I will put in my notes in italics:

VAT = Zero Solution

Zero VAT – A solution for the housing shortage, or a deepening of the divide in favor of the rich?

Immediately he starts off here on the wrong foot, talking in terms of class warfare between rich and poor, in a classic Marxian antagonistic sociological setup.

I have already made clear my position that the root of the housing shortage problem is the shortage of land for building purposes. As long as the State holds 93% of the land and will not sell it, the price of housing will continue to rise.

Spot on, nothing wrong with that sentence.

It is clear that Lapid’s proposal for zero VAT on new housing projects will not  create a single new apartment and will only raise housing prices.

Right on the first part, wrong on the second. Getting rid of the VAT will not create any new apartments than otherwise would have been built because consumption taxes do not affect the price of goods directly. Only supply and demand does, and taxes are never passed down to the consumer. They can only be passed up to land and labor factors, ultimately. Will zero VAT raise housing prices? Certainly not. Housing prices will be unaffected because VAT has nothing to do with supply or demand directly.

We must parse out land for building for free to anyone who completes military or civil service on the periphery on the condition that he builds on the land within a reasonable time frame. We should build cities like Modi’in in the Shomron Valley and the Judean Hills. Raising the supply of apartments will lower the price.

Mostly good, except I wouldn’t condition it on the completion of any service to the State. To hell with serving the State. Anyone at any age who wants to build anywhere should build there, anything, anytime, on any virgin unsettled land, period. Just announce that this is now legal, and you’ve solved the entire problem.

It is clear that Finance Minister Lapid’s  proposal for zero VAT will not create a single new apartment and will only raise prices. But together with this, I now understand that the proposal is much worse in what it says socially since it broadens the gap between rich and poor substantially.

Oh no! Moshe is talking like a politician now. Anyone talking about “the rich” and “the poor” and “the gap” between them is trying to be a social engineer through tax policy, and that is not good. But here’s where it gets bad:

For example, a couple with the wherewithal that buys an apartment for 1.6M NIS will get a benefit of 288,000 NIS from this bill. That’s compared to a couple on the periphery that buys an 800,000 NIS apartment and will only get half of the benefit, and so Lapid widens the gap between rich and poor by another 144,000 NIS. Worse, the tax benefit is only for those who buy new apartments, but those who cannot and only buy a secondhand apartment for 300 or 400,000 will not get the same benefit and therefore the gap between these families and the ones that buy a new apartment for 1.6M NIS will be 288,000.

Wow. That sounds like it came right out of Shelli Yechimovich’s textbook, or one of Amir Peretz’s stump speeches. It is quite bad. Here’s a reductio ad absurdum: Lapid proposes to get rid of all VAT for everyone on everything. No more sales tax on anything period. Now, a couple that buys an apartment for 1.6M will get a benefit of 288,000. Compare that to a couple that buys a house for 800,000. That couple only gets 144,000 in tax benefits. Worse, rich people buy a lot more stuff than poor people, so getting rid of sales taxes will widen the gap between rich and poor.

The basic fallacy here is taking the post tax status as the natural one, and then treating the tax-free status as some artificial benefit. Worse, it is assuming that VAT affects the price of goods directly, and Feiglin contradicts himself. He says it will raise the price of houses, but that the rich couple will get a benefit? How can it be both? Either the price will rise, or the price will fall and there will be the benefit. You can’t have it both ways. The price will not fall, there will be no benefit in terms of prices, only in terms of the amount of profit that the homebuilder can take home, and then use that to build more houses, which would in theory lower the price if the government didn’t own 93% of the freaking land supply. 

The price is the price regardless of how much the government rakes from the top. It will not change if you take away VAT. so there is no direct benefit for anyone except the home builder, not the buyer. Backward, never forward. 

Cutting taxes in any case is not a “benefit”. It is not a benefit. It is JUSTICE.  If someone steals less from you, that doesn’t widen a “gap”. All it means is that overall, less theft is going on, and that’s good. The government’s job in a miarchist society is not to maintain a gap at a certain maximum level. If that were true one could just steal money from anyone above a certain income and subsidize anyone below a minimum. That would at once maintain a gap and destroy the country pretty quickly at the same time.

The richer people are, the better off everyone is, assuming the money did not come from the political means, meaning direct government money taken from plunder. The richer people are, that means the more they are providing for people’s needs, which means the richer EVERYONE is. A profit means there is a demand for something, so keep making it until the supply grows to the point where there is no more profit, and then move on to something else. Screw the gap, the gap doesn’t matter, and it should not be Feiglin’s goal to engineer a gap to a certain size. What matters is how much money is kept by the people who work, versus how much is stolen by the people who rule over them. 

Lapid’s proposal for zero VAT on ANYTHING should be supported. Whenever a government official wants to lower taxes for anybody at all, that is a good thing. It doesn’t matter for who. Is it a perfect proposal? Absolutely not. But it lowers taxes, and therefore Feiglin should support it. If we start nitpicking that we don’t like a tax lowering proposal because it doesn’t lower taxes the way we want, we will never shrink the state. 

Final note: Feiglin makes mistakes sometimes. It’s OK, he doesn’t make many, and a few here and there is understandable. But everyone should know that I am no cult follower of anyone whatsoever and I will point out when the people I support make mistakes. It is actually a source of relief to know that despite my fire about these things, I am no true believer.

I have contacted him on the matter and he answered that he was writing from within the conceptual framework of Lapid, not his own. Well, OK. But to me that wasn’t 100% clear from the post. 

Scottish Independence from the United Kingdom: Unbaffling the Bullshit

There really is a lot of inane nonsense being spouted by all sides about tomorrow’s independence referendum vote in Scotland. It’s all rhetorical bullshit and nobody is getting at the heart of the matter.

The No side (the ones against independence) speaks in terms of “unity” and “shared values” and the UK as some Godly project that was divined out of the silver mouths of Saints to further Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Men.

It was nothing more than a bailout for a failed Scottish colony in Panama called the Darien Scheme in the late 17th century, where big banksters went bankrupt trying to settle a freaking wasteland and failed miserably. These losers were in the hole for lending out other people’s money just like fractional reserve bankers always do, and Britain promised them £398,085 if Scotland signed the deal.

The banks got their bailout, and England got a whole new tax base to loot. That was it. No shared values other than bank bailouts, no divine intentions here, nothing holy, just a bunch of bullshit. That’s all it ever is with states. They make dirty deals to satisfy their banker funders who get in trouble loaning out other people’s money and losing it, then they spin it as some kind of progress for the human race and “shared values”.

What about the Yes side? We have this nice article from Sean Connery who, while it is nice that he’s supporting independence and I commend him for that, doesn’t say anything of substance and just goes on about “exporting culture” and “investing in culture” and how Scotland will have more money for cultural activities like sheep shearing or something or kilt wearing or film or whatever Scotland does when it declares independence.

And there’s the No side again going on about how it will be an economic catastrophe if the State breaks up, just like it’s been everywhere else that declared independence from Britain, like AMERICA and ISRAEL and CANADA and AUSTRALIA. Yeah, all of those are catastrophes. Maybe they should have all stayed part of the UK.

Notice who's missing on the map? הן עם לבדד ישכון, ובגוים לא יתחשב
Notice who’s missing from the map? Israel, 1948? הן עם לבדד ישכון, ובגוים לא יתחשב

What will be a catastrophe? That they won’t use the Pound? Who wants to use the damn pound? Printed fiat currency that keeps depreciating and stealthfully stealing your wealth. All you need to do is allow the private economy to start producing money and compete, the best money wins, that’s it, screw the pound!

Here’s the issue: Will Scottish people decide to keep paying taxes to politicians in England, or not? Do they want to be slaves, or not? Will they be tempted to stay and eat from the government pig trough or not?

It has nothing to do with cultural pride or shared values. The question is, do you want to move on with your life and stop acting as if you need a political guardian who does nothing but steal from you?

The vote will be a rough approximation of tax payers and tax receivers in Scotland. The tax payers generally want independence. The tax receivers want to stay on the couch watching kilted rugby players or whatever Scottish tax receiver deadbeats watch, excuse my cultural ignorance. (No offense to the Scottish tax payers, only the tax receivers.)

Break up the UK, Be independent. Get rid of the politicians, live free, be responsible for yourself, and don’t pick a new political sugar daddy.

Adventures on the Temple Mount, Elul Edition

We’re circling. Even HaShtiya, the Foundation Stone, the Holy of Holies, the Kodesh HaKodashim is just a few feet in front of us. Huge heavy double doors are the only things standing in our way to the very center of the Jewish People’s soul. The doors must be extremely heavy, but a child could push them open on their hinges.

As we circumambulate the Dome of the Rock, we keep our faces towards it. It’s a building that only once you get close enough, you notice that it is completely covered not in Muslim crescents, but in Stars of David. All over the walls in blueish patterns, hexagons surrounded by triangles on every side, so many of them you don’t even know what to think.

Notice the Stars of David on the Sides
Notice the Stars of David on the Sides


But we’re not going in today. Something is keeping us out.

When I first started going to Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount) with Moshe Feiglin about two years ago, nobody thought of approaching the Dome of the Rock itself. We would do a lap around the Herodian extensions of the Temple Mount, stare in silent prayer at the building in the center, and then we’d leave.

Two years ago, few people knew about Feiglin or what he stood for. He was just some “right wing guy” from Likud that fought with Netanyahu in a comic perennial quest to unseat him as Likud Chair and in some wacky world, become Prime Minister. It was a fun political game that people could enjoy watching on TV every election cycle, but the Jewish People were not yet acquainted with him otherwise. And nobody went up to the Dome of the Rock back then. We all stayed back.

Then Moshe made it to Knesset, that dirty, disgusting place filled with all the scuzzy politicians that eat our money and run our lives, tell us how much and how little we are allowed to work for, in what industries, for how many hours, and how much we have to pay them for the privilege of barely earning a living that they so gracefully bestow on us.

But the Knesset, as gross as it may be, is the only place you can talk to the Nation as a whole and reach its soul.

Soon after he was elected, we went up to Har HaBayit again, but this time Feiglin, alone, approached the Dome itself. We did not follow him. He approached it under the Halachic purview of Din Kibbush, that one may enter even the Kodesh HaKodashim itself for the purpose of conquering it from a hostile enemy.

But conquering from whom?

He tried to enter the building itself that day, but he was stopped. Not by Arabs, but by the Jewish State, represented by the Jewish police force. The ones with the real weapons.

After trying to get past the police once, Feiglin was not allowed on Har Habayit for six months, until by some miracle he was able to cut a deal with the police, and we all started going up again with him. This time, however, the routine was changed. We would all go up and approach the Holy of Holies, the outside of Dome of the Rock, and so we did, m’Din Kibbush, conquering it…from something.

Month by month it began feeling like a real war, complete with an advance and retreat. Yes, the Arabs would scream every time, but the screams reached a peak and then died out as the months went by. They know they have no power to stop us. Only the Jewish police do. The ones with the guns, stopping us from going in.

We would advance up to the Dome, conquer the area we tread on, and then retreat when we could go no further according to the Officers of the Jewish State, the police.

Conquer it from whom? The Arabs? Not a chance. They are not stopping us. The proof is that during the discussion on Har Habayit in the Knessetthe ones threatening World War III if the Jews declared sovereignty were not the Arab Knesset members. They didn’t even show up to debate. Only the Jews threatened war. The Arabs MK’s said nothing.

We’re conquering Har HaBayit from ourselves, in a war with ourselves. It’s the Jews that are preventing us from going in, and it is the Jews threatening war if we do. In order to go in, we have to conquer the Jews, not the Arabs. The Arabs are just noise.

I began to notice a pattern. The Kodesh HaKodashim is the soul of the Jewish Nation. It always has been. And the closer Feiglin gets to the minds of the people, the more they understand what he stands for, the closer he gets to the Holy of Holies, physically.

Yesterday there were some Arabs screaming, but it was sheepish and pathetic. It was led by a shrieking woman covered in black. Shrill and angry, more pestering than threatening. The Arab men were mostly silent, just glaring. Yes, we are conquering Har HaBayit mi’Din Kibbush, but not from a few shrieking women. They’re not stopping us. We are conquering it away from Jewish self-denial. It’s the Jews that are stopping us from entering the building, not a few shrill Muslim women, hiding behind their burqas in shame, too scared to even show us their faces.

In order to conquer Har HaBayit physically, Feiglin has to conquer the minds of the Jewish people first. The closer he gets to that objective, the closer he gets to the Kodesh HaKodashim physically. And that is happening, and it’s happening fast now.

Here is a Facebook post being passed around, written by a secular leftist named Omry on September 15, 2014. I have kept the curse words intact for the sake of authenticity. They are not mine:

OK, I give up.

We now have a situation where the only human being saying anything logical in the Knesset is Feiglin. Fucking Moshe Feiglin. Do you understand what depths of insanity, immorality and stupidity Israeli politics has fallen?

Understand that this is no longer merely the level of “Oof, I can’t believe I’m giving him a like,” but that I’m actually considering voting for him. Me. A leftist. A Meretz Member. A former Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) activist.

I am considering voting for Feiglin.

What have we come to?

But the doors to the Foundation Stone are still closed. A few more advances are still required. Feiglin will only be allowed in M’Din Kibush, halachically and in reality, after he conquers the soul of the Jewish People and they are ready to elect him. Only then will he be allowed to enter. The screaming Arabs are just noise. A distraction. Shrieking women. Nothing more than that.

The ones stopping him from going in are the police. The Jews. They still own the soul of the people and they are keeping us out. But not much longer. We’re getting closer, both to the minds and to the place itself, circling it, advancing and retreating, like an ideological battering ram, powered with a full tank that does not get consumed.

Once we reach critical mass, once those Facebook posts like the one above start coming out of the woodwork, the police will not stop Feiglin. Once he steps through those huge doors, the Muslim women can scream as much as they want, it won’t matter. The war over the soul of the Jewish nation will be won.

But for now, we’re circling the Holy of Holies, Mi’Din Kibush, conquering it. Slowly at first. Faster now.



Chaim S. Responds on Circumcision and the Non Aggression Principle

In response to my post on circumcision being a violation of the NAP with accompanying Halachic proof from the case of a baby born circumcised, Chaim S. writes the following, references at bottom. I don’t agree with it all, but Chaim is obviously a knowledgeable libertarian and knows a bit about the halachic system. I make a few notes in bold. I think the core difference between me and him is that he believes, as I once did, the Platonist version of the Halachic system, which believes that there is an ultimate system at its peak and that we need to reconstruct it. I am more of a constructivist, which does not mean I am Conservative or Reform, but I do believe that Halacha is more bendy than he makes it out to be. My tendency is that anything in Halacha that violates the NAP I bend away, unless I really, really can’t, like circumcision. I believe this is legitimate halachically. He may not.

Anyway, here are his words:

Rafi says God commanded us to “violate it [the NAP] in the case of circumcision” [6]. On EPJ [2] you add: “I believe God has commanded me to follow the NAP in (almost) every other case I can think of”. I agree. But this cannot be compared to “Minarchy” – which you started off with [3].

The only acceptable Torah model is a zero state! There is a senate (Sanhedrin) and constitution (Torah), whose members must be accepted by the public, but these are purely religious, and so have delineated duties of ensuring the public welfare (physical and spiritual). This is equivalent to membership in a community with its own rules. I disagree with the nascent Sanhedrin’s political model [4]. There is no parliament nor mob rule, no congress nor dictatorship. “Theocracy” (as put by Josephus) is a neat description, but not in the Iranian sense of a clericalist dictatorship. See more on the democratic nature of criminal justice in Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2:16 (end). Law enforcement, to exist, must be regarded by all as excessively lenient.

By the way, while we suffer from a state in the meantime, we ought to fight to separate religion and state [5], for many reasons, but mainly so as to free religion from outside control (Yeshayahu Leibowitz).

The king (or quasi-king, like Moshe and the Shoftim), too, is but a religious figure (as proven by Hak’hel, etc.). His sole purpose is to ensure the Jewish people do not sin. Of course, a king is a necessary evil, anyway, including Moshiach, and his monarchy is a limited one. God forbid any secular statehood be considered legitimate, even after the coming of the Messiah, contra Satmar. Yes to Jewish sovereignty, as an autonomous society (Yad Yisrael tekifah); no to any form of coercive state.

Note, I am not saying one form of government is more prosperous or peaceful than another. We accept the yoke of the Torah with its obligations and prohibitions, and coercive taxation is always theft.

Rafi says [6] he will deviate “Up to here, and no further”. But Judaism and libertarianism diverge in other areas, as well. Both Judaism and libertarianism are prescriptive. How can they not be contradictory at times?

Indeed, there is a huge chasm between Natural-Rights (or Hoppean) libertarians and Jewish Libertarians. Our point of departure is that Judaism assumes freedom and non-aggression only as the approximate default position, to be continually re-examined on a case-by-case basis. The freedom philosophy must be subsumed under the “Derech Eretz” categorization of Torah law to have any validity whatsoever. Our Rabbis have many legalistic explanations as to why one may not trespass, steal or damage property. The non-aggression axiom or negative rights is the axiology behind much of monetary and war jurisprudence, but with many exceptions and divergent applications.

Property rights in one’s own person conflict with prohibitions against harming oneself (“את דמכם לנפשותיכם”), because the body is considered to be partly owned by God. God owns us, therefore we may not own Jewish slaves for too long, we may not commit suicide, “Evictionism” is even more wrong for Jews, and more.

Even our national ownership over the land of Israel is not without caveat, see here [7]. In truth, we are not “plumb-line libertarians” at all, but Jews who believe we have uncovered more of the true meaning of Judaism with the help of libertarian insights (as “Chochma” permissible for us to accept, but not as “Torah”).

[Why the "chauvinism" regarding the non-Jew? One may not remain a non-Jew. (Rafi's note: I do not understand this point. One may of course remain a non Jew.) The courts try to discourage conversion, yes, but only because one must convert for the sake of Heaven. I stand with Yeshayahu Leibowitz in rejecting the supremacy of any manmade morality over the Omni-supremacy of Torah law (which has what to say about everything!).]

I am somewhat unsure about the conclusions of Walter Block’s essay, even for non-Jews, as I will explain below. But no matter. Arguendo, Bris Milah is the perfect proof that Block is wrong when he claims [8], with Rothbard, that it doesn’t matter at all how one came upon libertarianism, only that one did. He further wrongly asserts [9] that any religion is fully compatible with libertarianism. As Rafi justly pointed out, what about Milah?

Here [10] is another illustrative example, straight from Block: “Suppose that Martians beam down a message to us earthlings: “Kill innocent person Joe, or we blow up the entire earth.” (Stipulate that they have the power to do this, and we are unable to stop them.) One would hope that a hero would arise to murder Joe, so as to save the planet. We would then hold a ticker tape parade in his honor. Afterwards, the heirs of Joe would have the right to exact full punishment against our hero.”

In the Torah view, one may not kill Joe at all. Instead they should all give up their lives. Joe’s murderer would be treated the same as any other murder (and parades are “Innui Hadin”, of course…). I assume Joe is Jewish (Yerushalmi Shabbos p. 77a).

Let us continue. Judaism disallows the free market choosing its own medium of exchange (seashells, rocks, prison cigarettes, etc.), obligating a national gold standard so as to observe the obligations of Ma’aser Sheni, etc., see Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 72. (Rafi’s note: I’m not so sure about that from my own study of Perek HaZahav, but do not know enough yet to rebut. Just because the Chazon Ish said something doesn’t mean it’s הלכה למעשה)

Many believe [11] that “The Biblical maxim to ‘love your neighbor’ and the libertarian principle of non-aggression are essentially synonymous.” To Xtianity, perhaps this is so, but the true Torah admits no such thing. The verse refers to Jews alone, and this stems from love of God leading to love for fellow co-religionists.

Finally, Austrian economics seems to be simply more accurate scientifically. Our scriptures and history are laissez faire capitalistic, too. Judaism is concerned with the real world, so, obviously, we are partial to real science as opposed to Keynesianism.

An additional value of libertarianism is in its being a great beginning foundation for the laws non-Jews are commanded to write for themselves (in the seventh Noahide commandment).

[For the record, current mainstream Judaism is lost in stygian interventionism, antinomianism, etc. I speak here of Judaism as it used to and ought yet to be, not as it is currently construed.]

As pledged, I will now comment on circumcision, as regards libertarian legal theory. This will become relevant when libertarians “rule” the world.

First to Rafi [6]:

Yes, the act is necessarily violent. So what? If it can be established that it is a “clear benefit to the child”, the NAP is cancelled out by the guardianship rights of the parent (as Block explains). As I wrote in my previous comment regarding the NAP, “it is a theory of punishment”. Again, there is no just cause for compelling [2] war against religious Jews, only meting out punishment, if the child (who is the sole victim) actually demands it when he matures, no more.

Incidentally, Jews aren’t the worst offenders of the NAP. Blockian Libertarian Nuremburg Trials will be plenty busy with other “criminals”… Clean your own backyard first!

Now to Block [12]:

Before I start, let me echo Rafi, Shimshon Weisman (in comments on the EPJ) et al. in affirming loyal Jews will forever flout the NAP in this regard (as explained above).

As for the legal question, firstly, I restate what I said before [1]. Aside from societal conformity being a sufficient justification for surgery for Polydactyly and the like, which are done routinely, the legitimate Jewish ערל (as in his two younger brothers died after Milah and he is left uncircumcised legally) is forbidden from eating the Korban Pesach, prevented from prophesy, etc. Also, yes, he may indeed regret the circumcision later (as apostasy, likely, but not simply for lessened sensual pleasure!), but the pain endured should he later wish to circumcise (highly likely) is severely more than that of an infant. Circumcision reversal without surgery, which Block pays no attention to, is usually painless [13]. The acceptable boundary of aggression probably suffers from ye olde “Continuum Problem” (a neonatal lack of intellect lessens the pain, “Veyosif da’as yosif mach’ov”).

Second, the data assembled suffers from selection bias. The core medical evidence presented does not overwhelm; some of it is tentative or based on procedurally faulty statistics, which are also quite dated (medicine has gotten a lot better since 1950, and this will continue). Expert Mohalim (solely for Jews) vastly reduce the dangers he mentions, too, which the numbers overlook.

Enough said,

Chaim S.

11. Ron Paul thinks so, too: