03-13-2012, 11:15 AM
Dear Zulske,
Thank you for your question. I realize that this can be a confusing concept, because ruling governments are rightfully granted certain powers and privileges that are not granted to individuals. However, the powers and privileges that can be rightfully claimed by ruling governments are certainly not unlimited or capricious. For example, your phrase "legal theft" is an oxymoron. If it is legal within Torah Law, then it is not theft. And if it is theft within Torah Law, then the Torah Law does not recognize it as being legal.
Please see the relevant Torah Laws cited by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Laws of Robbery 5:12-14,18. These are quoted here from the translation by Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, "Sefer Nezikin," p. 282-286. pub. Moznaim, 19'97:
==============
12. Similarly, if a king imposes a tax on all the inhabitants of a city, a fixed annual head tax or a fixed annual property tax, or decrees that anyone who violates a particular law will have all his property confiscated by the king, or decrees that anyone who is found in a field at the harvest time must pay the tax on it whether or not he is the owner of the field, or any similar decree, it is not considered to be robbery...
13. ... If, however, a king confiscates a courtyard or a field from one of the subjects of his country in a manner that is not in accordance with the laws that he enacted, he is considered to be a robber, and the owners may expropriate the property from the person who purchased it from the king.
14. The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law, but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is considered to be robbery.
Therefore, when the king's tax collectors and enforcement officers sell fields because the owner did not pay the fixed tax for the field, the sale is binding. A head tax, however, is the personal responsibility of each person and it may not be collected from his property. Thus, if a field was sold because an individual was delinquent in paying the head tax, the sale is not binding, unless this is the law enacted by this particular king.
18. When does the above apply? When the coins issued by a king are the tender of the land. This indicates that the inhabitants of that land have accepted him and consider him to be their leader and themselves to be his subjects.
If, however, the coins he issues are not the tender of the land, he is considered to be a robber who takes by the force of arms. He and his servants are like a band of armed thieves, whose laws are not binding. Such a king and his servants are considered to be robbers in all respects.
Thank you for your question. I realize that this can be a confusing concept, because ruling governments are rightfully granted certain powers and privileges that are not granted to individuals. However, the powers and privileges that can be rightfully claimed by ruling governments are certainly not unlimited or capricious. For example, your phrase "legal theft" is an oxymoron. If it is legal within Torah Law, then it is not theft. And if it is theft within Torah Law, then the Torah Law does not recognize it as being legal.
Please see the relevant Torah Laws cited by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Laws of Robbery 5:12-14,18. These are quoted here from the translation by Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, "Sefer Nezikin," p. 282-286. pub. Moznaim, 19'97:
==============
12. Similarly, if a king imposes a tax on all the inhabitants of a city, a fixed annual head tax or a fixed annual property tax, or decrees that anyone who violates a particular law will have all his property confiscated by the king, or decrees that anyone who is found in a field at the harvest time must pay the tax on it whether or not he is the owner of the field, or any similar decree, it is not considered to be robbery...
13. ... If, however, a king confiscates a courtyard or a field from one of the subjects of his country in a manner that is not in accordance with the laws that he enacted, he is considered to be a robber, and the owners may expropriate the property from the person who purchased it from the king.
14. The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law, but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is considered to be robbery.
Therefore, when the king's tax collectors and enforcement officers sell fields because the owner did not pay the fixed tax for the field, the sale is binding. A head tax, however, is the personal responsibility of each person and it may not be collected from his property. Thus, if a field was sold because an individual was delinquent in paying the head tax, the sale is not binding, unless this is the law enacted by this particular king.
18. When does the above apply? When the coins issued by a king are the tender of the land. This indicates that the inhabitants of that land have accepted him and consider him to be their leader and themselves to be his subjects.
If, however, the coins he issues are not the tender of the land, he is considered to be a robber who takes by the force of arms. He and his servants are like a band of armed thieves, whose laws are not binding. Such a king and his servants are considered to be robbers in all respects.