Anarchism and constitutional validity
In the SD
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask about anarchism in the political sphere, because I saw methods on your site that seem contradictory to me.
If you were driving on an isolated single-lane road in the middle of nowhere and a red light appeared, would you stop because of it?
And most importantly, do you see binding validity in the laws of the state in general? And in a democratic state in particular? (And a state employee who went to a country overseas).
What is your opinion on the source of the validity? Is it only from the religious level, such as Dina Demalkuta (which I believe is controversial regarding a secular state in Israel) or is there another validity?
Or are you generally pragmatic and will even pass through a traffic light when no one is looking?
There is social validity and there is halakhic validity by virtue of the royal law and the consent of the city’s citizens. Still, one should not exaggerate in Orthodoxy, and one should behave as any reasonable citizen behaves, secular or religious. Not like the ultra-Orthodox disdain and not like the state strictness. Like a normal secular person.
How does social validity oblige someone who does not identify with the state? Let's say because of its "secular" nature.
(The religious elements of course are not necessarily of the Dina Demalkhuta, and in particular that he does not accept those methods).
And as for the continuation, do you mean that because all validity from a moral perspective is from the consent of the public, then in any case they did not absolutely agree to strictly observe and uphold the laws in every respect, but rather to take the laws in a reasonable and convenient way.
If so, then in fact you will not pass the traffic light because even a secular person probably will not pass, or maybe you will pass it because it is not really as binding as the state's strictness, for example..
Dina Demalkuta is binding regardless of your identification. You are part of the state and therefore you are subject to its laws. Did everyone identify with King David? Or Ahab?
Indeed, that's what I meant.
The question that arises is of course what is the definition of being part of the state.
Is it on the part that the state defines me under it or that I define myself as part of it, if it is like the second, then it is close to a tautology, or can it be said that to the extent that you define yourself as part of the state, then you will accept all of its laws (you can't eat your cake and leave it whole).
But in any case, there are quite a few people who do not see themselves as part of the state, and certainly not of the damned criminal Zionists, so can it be said that they are morally obligated to accept its laws?
[Although it is true that with them it is also divided into two types, there are those who also try to avoid receiving something from the state such as pensions and even medicine, but there is the type that is allowed to take from the state because it is democratic in its system and more..]
The question from the Bible is a point that is indeed not clear to me. Although at the time when I was looking in the Bible, I found a city called Livnah, which some interpret as being a Jewish city and which was violated by King Joram (of Judah): "Then Livnah will be violated, at the time of the Lord." Ostensibly because he was close to the path of the kings of Israel, but still, it is strange that there is so little reference to such an attitude in the Bible. Although we find jealous people like Ben-Rech, it does not seem that they disagreed on the concept of a state, as far as I know.
The great statesmen made the laws of the state almost like the laws of halakhah (it is known to the glory of the Hershel Dido who came to his commander in mourning and with his head covered and said to him, "I went to evacuate and I forgot my weapon in the room, and now please inform me of my punishment and I will accept it) and Rabbi Michi came and made the laws of the state into moral laws. And according to him, it is the will of God that the laws of the state be observed. And according to him, it seems to say that the Chief of Staff seven days before Yom Kippur is sent to the Palhedrin office and the whole people, with might and main, will kneel and bow down and fall on their faces. And the truth is that there is no metaphysical obligation here at all, and anyone who wants to can do whatever he wants, except that they will fine him and punish him. And even if there is a metaphysical obligation, then it is neither halakhah nor moral, but rather a kind of third thing whose nature cannot be determined, except for "commitment to the laws of the state" and nothing more.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
