Q&A: Anarchism and Constitutional Validity
Anarchism and Constitutional Validity
Question
With God’s help,
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask about anarchism on the political level, because I saw approaches on your site that seem contradictory to me.
If, on an isolated one-way road in the middle of nowhere, a red traffic light appeared while you were driving, would you stop for it?
And mainly, do you see the laws of the state as having binding validity at all? And in a democratic state in particular? (And this would have practical implications for a citizen of one country who went to a country overseas.)
In your view, what is the source of that validity? Is it only on the religious plane, such as “the law of the kingdom is law” (where, as far as I recall, there is a dispute regarding a secular state in the Land of Israel), or is there some additional validity?
Or perhaps you are entirely pragmatic and would even drive through the light when no one sees?
Answer
There is social validity, and there is halakhic validity by virtue of “the law of the kingdom is law” and the agreement of the townspeople. Still, one should not exaggerate in orthodoxy, and should behave as any reasonable citizen does, secular or religious. Not like the Haredi contempt, and not like statist punctiliousness. Like a normal secular person.
Discussion on Answer
“The law of the kingdom is law” is binding regardless of whether you identify with it. You are part of the state, and therefore subject to its laws. Did everyone identify with King David? Or Ahab?
Yes, that is indeed what I meant.
The question that naturally comes up is: what is the definition of being part of the state?
Is it because the state defines me as under its authority, or because I define myself as part of it? If it is like the latter, then it is close to a tautology. Or can one say that insofar as you define yourself as part of the state, you must accept all its laws—you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
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 wicked accursed Zionists, so can one say that they are morally obligated to accept its laws?
[Though even among them this divides into two types: there are those who also try to avoid receiving anything from the state, such as stipends and even medical care, but there is also the type for whom it is permitted to take from the state because, in its own view, it is democratic, and so on.]
The question from the Hebrew Bible is indeed a point that is unclear to me. At the time, when I searched in the Hebrew Bible, I found a city named Libnah, and some explain that it was a Jewish city that rebelled against King Jehoram of Judah: “Then Libnah revolted at that time.” Apparently this was because he had drawn close to the ways of the kings of Israel… But still, it is strange that there is so little reference in the Hebrew Bible to such an approach, even though we find zealous people like the sons of Rechab; as far as I know, they did not dispute the whole concept of a state.
The great statists turned the laws of the state into almost the laws of Jewish law (famous for glory is their little Hersheleh, who came to his commander mournful and downcast and said to him: I went to relieve myself and forgot my weapon in the room, and now please inform me of my punishment and I will bear it), and then Rabbi Michi came and turned the laws of the state into the laws of morality. And in his view, God’s will is that we keep the laws of the state. And according to his approach it would seem one should say that the chief of staff, seven days before Yom Kippur, is separated off to the Chamber of Parhedrin, and all the people are seized with trembling and terror, kneeling, bowing, and falling on their faces. But the truth is that there is no metaphysical obligation here at all, and whoever wishes may do whatever is in his heart, except that they will fine him and punish him. And even if there is a metaphysical obligation, then it is neither Jewish law nor morality, but some sort of third thing whose nature cannot be pinned down except as ‘obligation to the laws of the state’—and that is all.
How does social validity obligate someone who does not identify with the state? Suppose because it is secular.
(Leaving aside, of course, the religious factors such as “the law of the kingdom is law”—especially since according to those views he does not accept them.)
And regarding the continuation: do you mean that because all the validity from a moral standpoint comes from public consent, it follows that they never absolutely consented to be strict and uphold the laws with full force, but rather to take the laws in a reasonable and convenient way?
If so, then in practice you would not go through the red light, because a secular person presumably also would not go through it—or would you go through, because it is not really binding in the same way as, say, statist punctiliousness?