Thank you for your reply.
The Knesset would expropriate the value of the ring of a get-refuser. That’s the whole law. And it isn’t proposing anything to the rabbis except preserving their existing authority in determining the woman’s personal status.
Best regards

It definitely is proposing something. This is a mechanism of declaring the ring’s value ownerless that many halakhic decisors would not accept (though again, I would). This is a weighty halakhic decision, and there is no chance they would accept such a decision coming from the Knesset.
As I wrote, this is not similar to privatizing kashrut supervision, which is a procedural decision. It is not setting different kashrut norms.
I’m of course willing to express support, but practically speaking this is a blessing in vain.

Michael, you told me that you are occupied (I hope among other things) with rewriting the Talmud on the basis of the thirteen hermeneutical principles and the Torah. So here is your chance actually to recreate the Talmud. Because this decision is not halakhic. The Sages did not invent the ability to render property ownerless. In their genius, which cannot be overstated, they identified that ability. Just because the Sages wrote this solution does not make it legitimate. Retroactive expropriation is legitimate because money is an abstract entity that depends on public agreement and is not a physical thing, as some rabbis indeed think. Our agreement about the value of money and ownership of it is legal, economic, social, and political, but it is not something that really exists empirically. And therefore, the “mysteriousness” of retroactive expropriation, which some rabbis do not grasp, is no different whatsoever from the “mysteriousness” of present-time expropriation. Both depend on public agreements about money.
Therefore this is not a halakhic decision but a public one, dependent on the community and nothing more. And if rabbis, unlike the Sages, prefer primitive and false explanations about the nature of money, we do not need to respect them. And we do not need to fear them.
I hope you agree with me.

I really do not agree. Not at all. First, no one disputes that the value of money is a matter of convention. The government can cancel the value of a coin, and then it has no value. These are explicit Talmudic passages that everyone knows. The problem here is twofold: 1. The government here is not canceling the value of money (all the more so since we are not dealing with money but with a ring, which is not currency and whose value does not depend on the government’s consent), but rather declaring this particular ring ownerless. 2. There is an enormous novelty here: that one can cancel the value of the object (the ring) or declare it ownerless retroactively. This is a very major innovation of the Sages, and without them no one (including me) would have thought to say such a thing. Plainly, the ability to cancel value retroactively is based on “whoever betroths does so subject to the consent of the rabbis,” but that principle was said about the agreement of all the sages of the generation or the Great Court, and therefore this is an entirely different move and is completely irrelevant nowadays. To say that the government can declare an object ownerless retroactively is a major innovation, and there is plenty of room to debate it.
As stated, I personally agree with this process, but to say that this is something trivial that everyone should agree to is simply a misunderstanding.
Beyond that, I have no intention whatsoever of rewriting the Torah in any sense. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to understand the thirteen hermeneutical principles, and even that was not in order to rewrite anything, but to continue the ancient exegetical method in our own day. But all that is unrelated to our discussion, because here we are dealing with interpretive reasoning, not hermeneutical derivations.
And all this is only on the substance of the issue. Beyond the question of whether it is correct halakhically, in terms of my political assessment, this move does not have the slightest chance of succeeding.

They expropriate the man’s ownership: “You thought you were the owner, but you were mistaken. You were not the owner, because we are removing the original consent regarding the ring.”
But no matter. I see and understand what you are saying.
Thank you

He was not mistaken. He really was the owner. Now we have removed the consent retroactively. That is what is called in yeshiva-style conceptual analysis, “from now on, retroactively.”