[Avodah] Copyright and Dina deMalkhuta

[Arie Folger]

RZS wrote:
> I don't think this is quite right, as an explanation of the Ran's opinion.
> AIUI, it's nothing to do with debts or gratitude.  AIU the Ran, a king's
> right to make laws in his country is exactly the same as the right of any
> property owner to make rules on his property.  Since the owner has the
> right to expel anyone from his property, for any reason or for no reason,
> he also has the right to make arbitrary rules, which are binding on
> anyone who happens to be on the property.  A person who knowingly breaks
> these rules is trespassing, which is a kind of theft.  Similarly, the Ran
> says, since (in a feudal society) the king owns the entire country, and
> may expel anyone from it at his whim, he may make arbitrary laws, and a
> person who breaks them is a trespasser.   But since every Jew has the
> right to live in EY, and no king has the right to expel a Jew from EY,
> this whole logic doesn't apply, and there is no obligation to obey the
> king's orders.

This is correct and is no contradiction to what I wrote. My contribution to 
the dialog was mostly in pointing out that for many posqim, that kind of DDD 
is limited to property matters and poll taxes, it may also include a minimal 
amount of additional laws. We become obligated to the sovereign because he 
could kick us out. However, this is no basis for laws not benefiting the 
sovereign.

You contention, that this theory of DDD no longer applies today is exactly 
what I was aiming for: the modern legislative bodies most likely find their 
halakhic support in the concept of 7THI, not DDD.

Good Shabbos,

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com