[Avodah] Copyright and Dina deMalkhuta

[Zev Sero]

Arie Folger wrote:

> The power of taxation by the sovereign power derives from the notion that the 
> sovereign (or, perhaps, in modern democracies, the citizens as a whole) lets 
> the inhabitants live in the country by his grace. Hence we owe him a debt.  
> This justification for DDD requires us to fulfil laws that are to benefit the 
> sovereign. Taxes, and possibly law and order fall under this.

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.

The Ran seems to be assuming that Bavel in Shmuel's day was a feudal
society, at least to the extent that the king owned the entire
country, and had the right to expel people from it.  It seems to me
that a lot of rishonim made similar assumptions, projecting their
own social conditions back to Biblical and Talmudic times, without
any evidence.  (E.g. the discussion of the "flags" of the shvatim
ignores the fact that flags hadn't been invented yet.)

In any case, nowadays in most countries kings and states no longer
own all the real estate, and I'm not aware of any country today
which claims the right to expel a citizen from its territory.
It's generally accepted that citizenship in a country gives one
the absolute right to enter and remain in that country, no matter
what one does.  It would seem, therefore, that according to the
Ran, DDD no longer applies to the citizens of any country; it
would only apply to people who are living as resident aliens in
a country not their own.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas