Trump's Declaration - Too Good to Be True? Probably.

President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel was met with jubilation by the State of Israel, and most of the Jewish people.  And for good reason.  For seventy years, in the eyes of the world, Israel was the only state whose capitol wasn't recognized by the majority of the world powers.  International law applies equally to every state, except when it involves Jews.  As Trump pointed out, every nation has a right to name its own capitol – on the surface, the recognition of Israel's own choice for a capitol should be business as usual for the community of nations.  In fact, it has been - in practice, if not in name.  So, it seems only natural that Trump's declaration, the U.S. recognition, would be met with satisfaction, and a sense of finally – it's about time the world stopped holding a double standard for the Jews. 

To support those who greet this recognition with celebration, we should note that usually when those condemning the declaration include Israel's and the Jewish people's most ardent haters, then obviously this must be good for the Jews, right?  So, considering the reaction.  It must be.

Well, maybe.

The Jewish people certainly do not need any outside validation to know that Jerusalem is our center, our heart – our capitol city, for all eternity.  This was the case even when the Romans renamed it Aelia Capitolina, when the Jews were expelled or banned from the city under successive Roman, Christian and Muslim rule.   Jerusalem was and is the focus of the Jewish People's prayers, even when there weren't enough Jews in the city to form a prayer quorum.  Jerusalem is and will be the center of the world for the Jewish People for all eternity.

So, as much as we should appreciate President Trump's recognition of reality – something are indeed necessary on the political stage, there are reasons why, when examined carefully, it might also give us pause.   There are many hidden implication to his statement; implication which even he may not have considered.

It should be noted that Trump was only recognizing West Jerusalem as Israel's capitol – a fact reinforced by, among others, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikky Haley.  The United Capitol of Jerusalem (which includes the Temple Mount and the Old City) is only united in the eye of the Jews.

And, if one were to take Trump's central reason – that each state has a right to name it's own capitol – then what's to prevent the Palestinians from declaring Jerusalem, or if you prefer Al-Quds, their capitol.  And, if they did, there would be no reason for the US, or any country  to not recognize it as such. 

Jews do not need validation from the rest of the world.  In fact, we are told quite clearly in Numbers (23:9) - “Lo, it is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations.”  This has been interpreted as both a curse and a blessing – and in fact it is both, but that is entirely dependent as to how we choose to see it.  When we chase after the world's blessing, then we will be reminded. the hard way, that we have no place among them.  We will be chased and pursued.  However, when we stop looking over our shoulder, accept our birthright and march forward under the banner of truth, the rest of the world will follow our lead, and acknowledge our lone status as the Firstborn.   

Remember, any time there's a performance on the world stage, all the players will dutifully perform their role, full of sound and fury, but the only true significant echo will be the one from Heaven, when we, as a nation, act as a reflection of  Gd's Will.

So, is Trump's declaration too good to be true?  Only if we think it really matters.

The Other 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room - Small Parties and Government Stability

The recent elections in Israel have exposed several of those eight hundred pound gorillas that have been hanging about in the room.  But most of them, such as the potential power of the Arab vote, had been known, and conveniently ignored, for years. What amazes me, is the other eight hundred pounder, the one that people invented, which led to the birth of the United Arab Party.

From nearly every corner of Israeli society, there has been a constant call for government stability, which is political parlance for a limited number of large parties, as opposed to a collection of smaller parties which “hold the government hostage,” over their particular issues.

In fact, it was to fulfill this desperate need for eliminating smaller parties that the last government raised the threshold allowing a party to enter into the Israeli Knesset (parliament). And so, they were successful. In the last election, instead of three or four small Arab parties, Israel now has a large united Arab list, which represents more mandates than they did previously. In terms of government stability, this changed nothing. The Arab list had no intention of being part of a Likud led or a Labor led government, and therefore their unity has little effect on the executive branch of the government. Their unity may potentially help their constituency, as they will now be eligible for more seats on important parliamentary committees, but as far as forestalling early elections, it will have little effect.

In contrast, because of the raised threshold several smaller parties, principally YaHad, will not be represented, and this will surely affect the stability of the government, to its detriment. Further, the stability of Israeli society, it would seem, would benefit from the greatest plurality of representation, what we would call in any non- political venue, consensus.

But, before we talk about the stability of society, and what's best for the average citizen, I will demonstrate how small parties have the ability to make the government far more stable, though each of its constituents might have less power. This is, of course, is the eight hundred pound gorilla that no one wants to discuss. When the politicians talk about “stability,” what they really mean is more concentrated power. Stability has become a euphemism for control and rule, for the ability to push through what would otherwise be, unpopular agendas. In fact, especially in the early years of the state, the “instability” was the result of the prime minister not being able to bully his partners into complying with his will. In the early years of the state (when the threshold was at its lowest), only the fourth Knesset was forced into early elections. The dissolution of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth , seventh,eighth and tenth governments all fell due to the Prime Minister being unable to force his agenda on the other members (and, the eleventh government fell because of Ben-Gurion as well, who was not the Prime Minister at the time). Fortunately, for the most part during these “unstable” governments, the citizens were saved from early elections. In fact, many of the newly formed governments consisted of the same coalition partners as before the government “fell,” making a mockery of the concept of instability.

In fact, the instability of Israeli governments has much more to do with the various mechanization of the politicians in the larger parties to gain and hold onto their power than it has to do with small parties' demands. There is absolutely no correctional between the raising of the threshold and the stability of the government in power. In fact, it might be the opposite.

The truth is that a plurality of small interest parties requires everyone to limit their appetite, restrain action which might alienate participants and try and arrive at a common consensus of policy - policy that, while not what everyone one wanted, would be what everyone could agree upon.

To demonstrate: Likud received thirty mandates, which is less than the number necessary it needs to form a government alone. It is currently courting five parties, Kahlon, Jewish Home, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Yisrael Beytenu, which bring another thirty seven mandates collectively. Yet, each and every one these parties can hold the rest of the parties, particularly Likud, “hostage.” Without their mandates, the government can not be formed. And if it is formed, then each of them can threaten to bring down the government by leaving. This is no more stable than the last government.

However, if the threshold hadn't been raised, then YaHad would also be a natural candidate for the government, and with its three mandates, no one party (other than Likud) could threaten the government by leaving. And if the threshold was even lower to allow for Yaleh Yaroq (The Green Leaf) party to have entered into Knesset, it is possible that their one issue could have been accepted to add even more stability.

In fact, if one looks at the previous governments of Israel, that is exactly how the more stable ones remained in power. They catered to a wide consensus of the electorate's will.

And of course the most stable government would be one in which the executive branch's role was not a vehicle of power and privilege, but fulfilled its limited but vital role to execute the will of the people, either expressed directly (though various methods such as a referendum) or via a legislature. In such a scenario, the largest consensus of society could be represented on each issue, as each representative or deputy of the people would vote based on the issue and not based on their position in a power base called a political party.

Which leads us to the idea of a stable society. In truth, the instability of the government is really only a reflection of the greater fragmentation of Israeli society. Israel society has become more complex, and its issues have become more varied and nuanced. The focus of the society is less on the country's survival, the question of its existence, and much more on the quality and character of the society. Stifling that nuanced and important discussion, by limiting opinions through raising the threshold will not make the society more stable, more homogeneous. Quite the opposite, those sectors who feel that they are not represented, who feel they have no voice, may resort to other methods of expressing their will.

And again, the recent elections are a prime example. A large number of people who voted for the ill fated YaHad, come from the same sections of society accused of “nationalistically motivated crime,” actions, which come about through feelings that their will is frustrated; that their voices are stifled. Silencing more voices, frustrating more people's political will, will not bring about stability. Rather, it has the potential to create an explosion.

If democracy means that everyone has a voice, then the ideal would be a mechanism that allows for the greatest plurality of representation, as in a referendum system. The opposite would limit representation and choice to as narrow a field as possible, as we have seen in extremes, with the one party systems of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It is true that a one part system will be a more stable, efficient government. But then again, all forms of dictatorship, including an oligarchy, are. Yet, it is also true, especially in the extreme, that the less pluralistic the system of representation, the further away a government is from realizing the collective will of its citizens. A pluralistic system might be less efficient, but it will certainly arrive much closer to an approximate consensus of the people.

It's the System Stupid --- היא המערכת, טיפש!

When a system has everyone more or less playing by the rules and achieves the level of dysfunction we now have, it's time to stop looking for a scapegoat and understand that the problem is the system itself.

 

*** The English Version follows the Hebrew ***

כאשר מערכת גורמת את כולם, פחות או יותר,ל שחק לפי הכללים ומשיגה את רמת האי-תפקוד שיש לנו עכשיו, אז הזמן הגיע להפסיק לחפש "שעיר לעזאזל" ולהבין שהבעיה היא במערכת בעצמה.

            כולנו מכירים את הסיפר של "חכמי חלם" על דרך המסוכנת שעבר את ההרים.  הייתה נקודה מסוימת בכביש ש רכבים רבים התהפכו ונפלו מהצוק לעמק שמתחת.  אז, חכמי חלם החליטו שהדבר הטוב ביותר לעשות הוא לבנות בית חולים  למטה בעמק.

            כולנו מכירים את הסיפור, אבל במקום ללמוד ממנו, אנחנו מתעקשים לחזור עליו, במחשבה שבית החולים שלנו בעצם יהיה פתרון אמיתי.

            הגיע זמן להפסיק את בניית בתי חולי בעמק. הגיע הזמן לעלות את ההר ולתקן או לשנות את הכביש לחלוטין.
 

            הבעיות ידועים. בית היהודי ויש עתיד זיהו מספר בעיות בחברה ישראלית. דברים לא עובדים, כלי רכב ואנשים נופלים מהצוק, אבל הם פשוט מציעים "ספין" שונה על פתרונות "ביתי חולים ברצפת העמק".

            בואו לדבר דוגרי, רוב "הבעיות הבוערות" האלה, אף שהם פופוליסטיות מענגות הקהל, הם לא הולכים לעשות שום שינויים אמיתיים באי פונקציות בחברה הישראליות. הם לא מקדמים אותנו קרוב יותר למטרה.

            אה, מה מטרה, אתם שואלים? אולי הוא צריך להיות הדיון הראשון והחשוב ביותר שיהיה לנו בישראל.  מה המטרה שלנו? למה אנחנו משתמשים במעבר המסוכן וקטלני כזה? לאן אנחנו מנסים להגיע?

            ככל שאנו מתקרבים האביב היהודי - האביב - שבו הוא אמור להיות חודש הראשון שלנו בחודשים, אולי כדאי להסתכל מאפה באנו ומה שמצופה ממנו כעם, ואז אולי נוכל להבין לאן אנחנו צריכים ללכת.  ברגע שאנחנו עושים את זה, אני בטוח שאנחנו מספיק אומה חכמה כדי להבין איך לבנות כביש בטוח וברור לאפה אנחנו צרכים להגיע.

            כאשר מערכת גורמת את כולם, פחות או יותר,ל שחק לפי הכללים ומשיגה את רמת האי-תפקוד שיש לנו עכשיו, אז הזמן הגיע להפסיק לחפש "שעיר לעזאזל" ולהבין שהבעיה היא במערכת בעצמה.

            בית יהודי ויש עתיד כבר הוכיחו שאפשר להחזיק את הממשלה כשבויה ולאלץ עניין אם רוצים. עכשיו אולי, הגיע זמן לבחור נושא טוב יותר, שממש יעזור לנו להגשים את ייעודנו כעם יהודי.

It's The System Stupid

            Most people are familiar with the old "Wise Men of Chelm" story about a particularly dangerous and steep mountain pass.  There was a particular point on the road where many vehicles overturned and fell down the cliff into the valley below.  So, the Wise Men of Chelm decided the best thing to do was to build a hospital at the bottom of the hill.  

            Of course, we all know the story, but instead of learning from it, we insist to repeat it, thinking that our hospital will actually be a real solution to the problem.

            It's time to stop building valley hospitals.  It's time to climb the mountain and fix or change the road completely.

            Bayit Yehudi (The Jewish Home) and Yesh Atid (There is a Future) have identified a number of problems with Israeli society.  Things aren't working, vehicles and people are falling off the cliff face, but they are just offering a different spin on the "hospital on the valley floor" solutions. 

            Let's face it, most of these "burning issues," though clearly populist crowd pleasers, aren't going to make any real changes in the way Israeli society functions or fails to function.  It's not getting us any closer to the goal.

            What goal, you ask?  Ah, maybe that would be the first, and most important discussion we have in Israel.  What is our goal?  Why are we using this precarious and seemingly fatal mountain pass?  Where are we trying to get to? 

            As we approach the Jewish Spring – Aviv – that which is supposed to be the first of our months, maybe we should take a look at where we have come from, what is expected of us as a People, and then we might be able to figure out where we need to go.  Once we do that I'm sure we are a clever enough nation to figure out how to build a safe and clear road to our destination.

            When a system has everyone more or less playing by the rules and achieves the level of dysfunction we now have, it's time to stop looking for a scapegoat and understand that the problem is the system itself. 

            Bayith Yehudi (Jewish Home) and Yesh Atid (There is a Future) have already proven that they can hold a government hostage and force an issue if they want to.  Now maybe, it's time to choose a better issue, one that will actually help us fulfill our destiny as a Jewish Nation.

Excerpts from "The First Tithe"  Israel Eldad

"Thirteen years have passed since the appearance of the first edition of the First Tithe.  The name and content of that book imply a second tithe; but there is none, not yet, at least not in any coherent way.  Most of my spiritual energy has been invested in twelve volumes of Sulam L'Malkhuth Yisrael (The Ladder towards a Sovereign Israel); which was established together with my friends, carriers of the soul of Lehi, carriers of the idea of complete Israeli liberation, of buttressing the concept of Jerusalem in the face of opposing concepts, in the face of empty concepts.

Unlike the years of the first tithe, these years have been without actual combat and without an official organization.  And while this is not a positive development, still, we do not wish to be numbered among those who believe that what we do is important rather than what we say.   We are descendants of a people who have at the beginning of their Bible and in the depths of their soul the declaration," And God said, let there be light and there was light," and we believe man was created in the image of God and we believe – we know – from the experience of man and Israel and this generation, the great strength of words spoken truthfully and their power to induce deeds; for only light itself was created by God out of nothing, while since then man carries the light and flame, the light of clear thought that clarifies; and the flame of a burning soul that ignites, the eternal flame.  The flame of necessity of bodies who want redemption will come even if it is delayed, even if it has fallen with us into the coastal plain and the valley.

On this side of the mountains, of the Mountain, in the middle of the journey, it has fallen into the material.  It may have fallen because of shortness of breath, or damned up soul, or weariness, or bounty - the body's satisfaction with its bounty, or the soul's satisfaction with what has been achieved so far – or perhaps because of the natural limitations of the achiever.  It has fallen under various and sundry kinds of inaction and non-fulfillment, of dropping of the initiative, and even of an honestly felt and easily adopted attitude towards the State of Israel.

This state is an achievement only if it is viewed as a stage, meaning as a bridgehead toward Malkhuth Yisrael, the Sovereign Kingdom of Israel, with all this entails in terms of strengthening its political position, especially in light of the hatred surrounding it and the dark treason and plotting within, even among former Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, and with all this implies for the importance of maintaining the spiritual tension that desires the great things which are to come, things necessary and beautiful, which means raising high the idea of Malkhuth.

We have come to the threshold of this Malkhuth for which we are destined.  That this is true can be seen in everything that surrounds us, from the confusion and continued desert and ruins in the geopolitical region waiting for Hebrew mastery, to our continuing social and spiritual oppression and servitude to both external and internal slavery – including the spiritual confusion within Israel on questions of Judah vs. Israel, Judaism vs. Israeli-ness, all of which are a sign that the process has come to a halt at its very beginning, a sign that the revolution is in its twilight and awaits renewal.  The Almighty is signaling – with lights and with shadows, with all the colors and in all the directions of the historical and political and ideal traffic lights – what must come next in the process of redemption, and without which what has already been attained will not last, and will become a modern version of Betar instead of a modern version of Modi'in.  And the fault lies not in the length of our arms, nor any inability, but in the fat that surrounds our heart and the fog in our brain. 

For today, our arms are not short, and great is the physical power in the hands of the Jewish people in Israel and in the Exile.  This was not the case in those days that are the subject of this book.  This is not the case of the Jewish people who were for the most part in cages and crematoria, slaughtered and shocked and shoveled  and burned, and only a few took their expansive souls in their little hands and set out to act, to begin the redeeming act.  And though the deed was great and holy, this book will tell of the constant gap between the idea and the song of the great Kingdom with their powerful desires and readiness, and the arms' inability to carry through, such that breath came up short and the soul turned asthmatic and the cannon, when it was forged, was given to those of little faith.

And so we have come this far, to the physical power of two million in this little parcel of land, who are equal in ability and science and organization to all the surrounding states, whoa are equal in meaning and purpose to ten million Jews in Exile.  In the land, we have the tremendous potential to manage our national and physical and spiritual powers in a wide expanse, yet we also see so many brains and hearts reduced to a lack of vision, or even an openly professed and exhibited anti-Vision of the type now expressed in what is called literature and art; a culture of content of which is abandon and which, in boredom and plenitude, mimics the wild and disturbed West which is actualizing the anthem of the East:  No god, no king, no heroes.

Therefore let this second edition of The First Tithe come not only to meet the need of a first edition that long ago sold out, but also to fill the need to return to the great days of desire and action and action –which-flows-from-desire.

The Lehi movement published more material than other movements in the 1940s, and its publications have even been collected in two large volumes.  This book does not purport to be the history of Lehi.  It is a personal memoir.  And if a baker may praise his own wares, let it be said that it speaks well of a book of this sort that after thirteen years, its author has nothing to change in its text,  excepting minor consequential corrections.  And though the words originally came close upon the organizational demise of Lehi, and though they came from the heart, a heat which is often burning and shaken, the author can sign off today on all the judgments and evaluations inside, which he judged the events, the movements and the people then and which – not this or that detail – are the stuff of this book.

From the perspective of thirteen years, from the permanency now attached to and the calm, for better or worse, attained regarding the past events, nothing stands out that obligates the author to say:  I erred in assessing it.  And the author is only able to take this view because he looks out from the Sulam, the Ladder.  As he is neither prophet nor son of a prophet, and is able to ascertain the end of things from the beginning, still he is able to see the beginning and what followed upon that beginning, the beginning of the ladder, the ladder towards which events moved, on which they climbed, even if they did not mount it; but all their value, and the means of judging them, is on this ladder, at the top of this ladder.  From this ladder the relative importance of what happened – and what may yet happen is judged, and this is done so that it may happen again on the coming rungs, and this is my wish for those who continue to climb the ladder."

-         Israel Eldad, 5723 (1963), Introduction to the Second Edition, The First Tithe.

Some of My Best Friends Are Lawyers עורכי דין והדפסות

(The English Version Appears After The Hebrew)

כמה חברים שלי, הם עורכי דין. אפילו יש לי חבר שנכנס ללימודי משפט בשביל לעזור לאנשים שנרדפו על ידי המערכת. ואני מכבד את זה מאוד

אני גם אוהב את המדפסות/תוכניות הדפסה. השתמשתי איזה סוג מדפסת/תוכנית הדפסה מאז שהייתי בן שלש עשרה. כמחבר, איני יודע מה הייתי עושה בלעדיהם.

אבל שניהם ביחד (עורכי דין והמדפסת/תוכנית הדפסה) הביאו דֶבֶר לעולם.

אני לא מגזים. תנו לי להסביר.

נתחיל עם ההוא היותר התמים הנראה משניהם. לפני המדפסת, החוזה היה בדרך כלל באורך של דף או שתים. בתקופה ההיא, שהיה צריך לתקתק את החוזה מחדש בכל תוספת וכל שינוי, כל אחד תמך בחברו להיות הגון וישר. החוזה היה הסכמה על העקרים שהיה בין שני הצדדים, לשניהם היו כוונה טובה לשמור אותם. אחרי זמן, נכנסה המדפסת, והיה אפשרות לשנות ולהוסיף את החוזה בקלות. אנשים התחילו לכלול כל פרט שאפשר בתוך החוזה. ואז החוזה הפך להיות יותר ויותר על מה היה כתוב מפורש, ואפילו עוד, על מה שלא היה כתוב מפורש. משפט החוזה הפך להיות משחק איך למצוא דרך לנצל את החוזה באותו זמן שקיימים פרטי תוכנו. נאמנות ושכל נשלחו לפח.

וזה לא רק בחוזים. אלא, היום הצעות לחוק כל כך ארוכות שאף אחד לא מופתע כל כך שמחוקקי החוק לא קוראים אותם לגמרי, אם בכלל. איך האזרח הפשוט יכול לשמור את החוקים והמשפטים אם הם יותר מדי מסובכים לאלה שמחוקקים אותם?

וזה מביא אותנו לחלק השני: עורכי דין, ובמיוחד עורכי דין כפוליטיקאים.

טבעי ביותר שעורכי דין יכנסו לתחום של פוליטיקה. מי שיש לו נטייה להסתבכויות של משפט, ירצה באפן טבעי בחקיקה. אבל התפקיד של עורך דין, הוא בעיקר לעזור ללקוח שלו להשתמש בחוק ולהציל אותו מהחוק כמה שאפשר. במילים אחרות, העורך דין רוצה, באפן עקרוני לנצח את החוק.

נראה לי שהמחוקקים הכי טובים יהיו אנשים שמעונינים בצדק, ולא בחוק. חוקים, וממשלות בכלל, הם הכרחיים להקים חברה יעילה של צדק ומשפט. אבל, ציבור שהעמיס בכובד של כללים מיותרים ומסובכים וסותרים הוא ציבור מסכן כמו אזרחים בתחת עריצות.

אנחנו חיים בחברה שחוקים הפכו להיות בלי משמעות. ריבוי חוקים מיותרים גורם לשימוש בהם שרירותי, הקיום שלהם קשה, והמציאות שלהם מדכא.

תשאל כל שוטר: אפשר לקבל עשרים דו"חים רק על נסיע מהבית למרכולת, בלי לסכן עצמו, את השכן או השכונה. שוטר הגון לא ייתן דו"חים על כל עברות הפיציות האלה, אבל הוא יכול. וזה אומר שכל אזרח הוא חי בסובלנות שרירותית של הכרח הכללים המגוחכים שאין להם סוף.

אנחנו חיים בעולם שהמגוחך הפך למציאות. הוא מנהג שחייבים לבטל.

אבל יש פטרון פשוט: לעשות הכל יותר פשוט.

איני אנרכיסט, אבל ברור לי שהמערכת כמו שהיא – השלטון הפקידים המפלצתי שבגדילה תמידית – עומד להיות איום יותר מסוכן מלחיות בלי ממשלה.

חז"ל אומר שבלי שלטון כל שהוא, אפילו שלטון רע, אזרחים "אוכלים" אחד את השני. אבל בעולם של שלטון הפקידים שיצרנו, המציאות היא כבר כך. אך בעולם הזה שיצרנו, האזרח "מתעכל" יותר לאט אבל הוא סובל יותר.

באמת, עודף של כללים וחוקים שכל אזרח פוגש יום יום גורם ביזוי עמוק למשפט ושמירת החוק בחברה. (אף אחד לא דואג לנסוע במהירות הרשמית אלא במהירות שאפשר לנסוע בלי שנעצור). הוא כבר לא על עניין שמירת החוק אלא על שלא ייתפס על ידי החוק.

למרות מה שנחשב, מערכת המשפט של התורה היא פשוטה מאד. באמת המוסג של עורכי דין מתנגד לעיקר התורה, שמבוסס על צדק, וגילוי האמת או הכי קרוב לאמת שאפשר. מערכת החוק של התורה, ההלכה, בנויה להיות פשוטה, שכלליה יכולים להיות מובנים ומשמעותים לכל בר דעת.

(היום שבתי דין משתמשים בחידוש של "טוען רבני" מרמז שאולי מערכת ההלכה של היום או לפחות בתי הדין שלהם תעו מכמה עיקרים שלהם.)

בנזקים, הנוסחה היא פשוט: המזיק משלם פיצוים לכל נזק משמעותי שהוא גרם. ובעיקר הוא אותו כלל לכל עניין חברתי. לדוגמה, מה בן אדם יכול לעשות ברכוש שלו מוגבל אך ורק אם וכאשר הוא גורם נזק ממש לזולתו.

לא צריכים לקבל רשות מוקדמת מאף סמכות לפעולות בסיסיות של חיים. לא מוכר לי שבתורה מישהו חייב לקבל רשות למעשה מותר, שנעשה בצורה מותרת, ובמיוחד לא לפני עשית המעשה. ההלכה כן מחייבת, במצב מסוים מישהו לקבל הסכם ממי שהמעשה יכול לפגוע בו. אבל הסכם כזה הוא מבוסס על כבוד הזולת וכל אחד יכול להבין שהוא הגון, כמו שבונים חומה בין שתי חצרות וכדומה. (אבל לבנות חומה בתוך חצר שלו בלבד, לא צריכים שום הסכמה).

אבל היום, בכל חברה מערבית, אי אפשר לחיות בלי לקבל (בדרך כלל בתשלום) רשות מוקדמת מאיזה סמכות (ובדרך כלל מכמה סמכויות לכל מעשה). זה לא מוגזם. לפרנס צריך רשיון עסק, או לפחות מספר זהות למס. ותלוי איך רוצים לפרנס, יכול להיות שצריכים רשות או רשיון מכמה סמכויות, רשות, משרד ממשלתי או שכה - כל אחד מהם עם הכללים השונים שלו.

צריכים רשות מהסמכויות לחנך את הילדים, לבנות בחצר, או לנסוע ברכב (אפילו בשטח הפרטי).

מישהו פעם שאל למה חייבים לקבל רשיון לנהוג, או יותר חשוב, רשות להיות בעל רכב? הרשיון לא מונע תנועת דרכים, ולא מונע שום פעולות פלילית, אלא רק הופך פעולה שלא עשויה ברשות גוף ממשלתי להיות פלילית ולא משנה אם היא פעולה מסוכנת או לא, אם היא גורמת נזק או לא. רוב האנשים יענו שואדי רשיון נהיגה ורשיון אחזקת רכב הם החרכים היום לחברה המודרנית. ואולי זה נכון, אבל נראה לי שהתשובה באה בגלל שהתרגלנו למוסג כזה והיא לא באה מתוך בדיקת העניין.

יש דרך יותר טובה. צריך לנהל ממשל כמו כל מערכת אחרת, כמו עסק או ארגון שצריך להיות יעיל.

בחברה כמו בחיים הדרך הטובה ביותר היא הדרך הפשוטה.

אין צורך ממש לשלטון הפקידים שמטריד את החברה שלנו. ובמיוחד כאשר כל העצה לשיפור היא להוסיף עוד כללים וחוקים. הזמן הגיע להתחיל מחדש. אפשר להתחיל בכלל אחד: אל תעשה נזק. ומי שעובר על הכלל ההוא, בשוגג או במזיד, חייב לשלם על הנזק על פי החלטת בית הדין.

חוץ מזה במקום שאין נזק, אז אפשר להבין שאין עברה.

Some of my best friends are lawyers. I even have a friend who became a lawyer in order to help people victimized by the system, which I think is admirable.

I also like word processors. I’ve had some form of a word processor since I was thirteen. As a writer, I don’t know what I’d do without them.

But the two combined, lawyers and word processors, have brought a plague on mankind.

I’m not overstating things. Let me explain.

Let’s start with the seemingly more innocuous of the two. Before the word processor, contracts used to average about a page in length. When a contract had to be retyped from start to finish just to add a few phrases or an addendum, everyone relied on his fellow to be reasonable. Contracts were letters of understanding that stated the principles of an agreement that both parties were expected, and intended to keep in good faith. Eventually, the word processor came along and, since contracts could be changed, added to, and adapted more easily, people started including every possible detail they could think of into their contracts. Contracts then became more about what was explicitly stated, and, sometimes even more, what was omitted. In many cases contract law turned into a game of finding a way to violate an agreement, or mislead one’s fellow, while remaining true to the letter of the contract, if not its spirit. Good faith and reasonableness were both thrown out the window.

And, it’s not only with contracts. Today, proposed laws are so long that no one is too surprised at the fact that lawmakers don’t read them in their entirety, if at all. How are simple citizens supposed to follow laws and statues that are too complex for the those that establish them to understand?

Which brings us to the next part: Lawyers, and in particular, lawyers as politicians.

It’s only natural that lawyers would gravitate to the field of politics. Someone who has an affinity for the intricacies of law would be expected to have an interest in its legislation. Yet, lawyers main role and function is to help their clients either exploit the law or to salvage as much of their clients interests as possible from it. In other words, a lawyer is interested, one way or another, in defeating the law.

It seems to me that the best legislator would be someone interested in justice, not law. Laws and government are a necessity in establishing a just and equitable, functioning society. But a public burdened under the weight of overly complicated, contradictory, redundant, superfluous, and excessive rules is as much a victim as citizens living under a tyranny.

We live in a society where laws and statues have been rendered virtually meaningless. Their excessiveness have made their application arbitrary, their fulfillment onerous, and their reality oppressive.

Ask any cop: You can get twenty citations just from pulling out of your driveway in the morning and running to the corner store, without endangering yourself, your neighbor or your community. (one absurd example is that it is illegal to back out of your driveway, but it is equally illegal to back into your driveway). Not that a reasonable police officer would stop you for such inconsequential violations, but he could, which makes every citizen the subject to the whim and arbitrary enforcement of trivial rules.

We live in a world where the absurd has become customary. It is a habit we need to learn how to break.

There is a simple solution: simplify.

I am not an anarchist, but it is clear to me that the system as it stands, the monstrous and ever-growing bureaucracy poses at least as large a danger as complete lawlessness.

Our sages teach that without government, even bad government, citizens would eat each other alive. Yet, in the bureaucratic, regulatory world we have created, that is exactly what is happening. Only, in our world, the digestion of the citizens is a slower, and possibly more painful process.

In fact the excess of rules and regulations each citizen encounters on daily basis has, in fact, bred a deep and profound contempt for law and lawfulness within our society (Nobody worries about driving the speed, but rather how fast one can drive without getting stopped). It’s no longer about being a law abiding citizen, but about not getting caught.

Despite what one might think, the Torah system of justice is a fairly simple one. In fact, the idea of lawyers contradicts a basic concept of the system: that it is meant to be fair, that it’s result is meant to approximate to the best that it is able, truth and establish justice, and, G-d Willing, righteousness.

The halakhic system is suppose to be simple, its rules understandable and realistically achievable by any reasonable person.

(That today’s halakhic courts allow, and some would argue require, the role of a quasi lawyer called a To’en Rabbani, would suggest that the halakhic system or at least its courts have strayed very far from their established principles.)

In the realm of torts, the formula is simple: the responsible party pays compensation for any real and reasonable damages that are caused. And, in principle, this same formula applies to nearly all other aspects of communal life. For instance, what a person is able to do with his person and property is generally only restricted if and when it caused reasonable and real damages to his neighbor.

One needn’t receive prior permission from any authority for any of the basic activities of life. In fact, I can’t think of one place, within Torah where an individual must receive permission for any permitted activity performed in a permitted manner. Though, the Halakhah mandates, under certain conditions, an individual receive consent from others whom would be directly affected by such activity, such consent would be considered a reasonable expectation by nearly anyone, such as building a wall on the property line between two homes. (However, a wall built within one’s own property needn’t receive consent from the neighbor).

Yet, today, in nearly any western society, one cannot exist with out receiving (and usually paying for) prior permission. This is not an exaggeration. To earn a living one needs a business license or vender’s license, or at the very least, a Tax I.D. And, depending upon the way one wants to earn a living one might need permission, licensing and registration from a half a dozen regulatory agencies, commissions and bureaus.

One needs permission to educate one’s children (as opposed to the state doing it), build on one’s own property, or to drive one’s own motorized vehicle (even on one’s own private property).

Has anyone ever bothered to ask why it is necessary to receive licensing to operate or more importantly, to own a car? Licensing doesn’t prevent accidents nor any other criminal activity, it only criminalizes activity when that activity is not done with the prior permission of a governing body, whether the activity was dangerous or not, whether it caused damage or not. Most people will automatically answer that a license and registration are absolutely necessary for a modern society. It might be true, but it seems to me, that such response is generally based on our conditioning, and not on a considered examination of the issue.

There is a better way. Governance should be handled like any other system, like a business or an organization, which needs to be efficient.

In society, as in life, the best method is to keep it simple (We all remember the K.I.S.S. method, right?).

There is little need for the complex bureaucracy that plague society. Especially when every proposal for improvement is to add more regulation, more laws. It’s time to do away with all of them, and start over. We can begin with one general principle: do no damage, and the corollary to this rule is: if damage is done, either intentional, or through negligence, the responsible party has to pay compensation according to the decision of a qualified court . That’s it. It’s that simple.

Other than that, we can assume where there is no harm, there is no foul.