[Avodah] dina demalchuta

[garry]

On 7/24/2011 8:07 PM, Lisa wrote:
> A democratic government is not the same as a monarchy.  In a monarchy,
> you either accept that the king rules over you or you don't.  There's no
> middle ground.  In a democracy (or a democratic republic, rather), the
> majority enforces its will on the minority, and the minority has*not*
> necessarily accepted that the majority has a right to do what it does.
> Since that minority is in a constant struggle to overturn what it deems
> to be wrong actions by the majority, you can't claim that the government
> is accepted in the same way that a monarchy is.

Most people don't see it that way. In a monarchy, either you accept the
king rules over you or you don't. If you do, you're still stuck with
some decisions you don't like. That's true even when the king changes
his mind.

In a representative democracy, either you accept the democratic system
(the legislature, executive, courts) or you don't. If you do, then
you're stuck with the decisions that go against you. Part of the system
you accept is the right to try to change stuff you don't like, and the
right of others to change things that you do like -- but until changed,
you either accept to be bound by whatever the presently-existing rules
are, or you don't.


On 7/24/2011 8:07 PM, avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> I think there has to be a shikul on a case-by-case basis.  With
> proposals floating around for a 90% tax bracket (no joke), the question
> has to be asked.  In addition, the halakha views tax as a head tax.  A
> progressive tax can be viewed as a punitive tax, which may be more akin
> to a fine than a tax.  I don't think we say it's forbidden to avoid a
> punishment.

There were numerous cases where the amount due to the temple or
the priests or the poor depended on the amount of property you had.
If everything other than a head tax is a punishment, is that true of
maaser? If different people can be charged different _amounts_ based
on property or income, what basis is there to claim that different
_percentages_ make it punitive? (As for returning to the horrible
punitive days of the Eisenhower administration, when multi-millionaire
incomes were punitively reduced to fewer multi-millions, it's not gonna
happen, but it's hardly a silly idea.)

Garry Koenigsberg