The Law of the Land part 2

We must ask a question as to where the authority of the secular authorities comes from in the first place. If you and I perform a business transaction, how does the government become a party to that, levying taxes on our transaction? Many of the medieval authorities suggest that it is an outgrowth of the principle of "Hefker Beit Din Hefker" (the Court may legally declare any property as ownerless). Although this is referring to a standing (as opposed to ad hoc ) Beit Din of rabbis, many medieval scholars saw it as referring to any recognized authority. Another approach was suggested by RASHBA (1235-1310) who formulated the principle of "Social Contract" some four hundred years before Rousseau, who is usually credited with the idea. He states that when men formed societies, they voluntarily ceded some rights to kings, for the benefit of all citizens. (We must contrast this with the view that individuals exist for the betterment of the State. That is Fascism, but is nevertheless a feature of the ideology of certain groups in Israel and other countries). This would exclude a government that is imposed from the outside. Indeed, there are many quotes in Talmud that Roman tax collectors can, and should, be ignored. (I consider attempts by some commentators to "explain away" those statements as being a feeble maneuver aimed at not arousing governmental anger). Another issue is if a law is discriminatory. A tax, levied on one segment of society, but not on another, is invalid. The Talmud already makes clear "the law of the Kingdom is the law, but not royal robbery". Another suggestion is that in every monarchy, the King, at least theoretically, owns all of the real and movable property in his Kingdom. All property is his. Any misappropriation of property or money is robbing the King. This begs two questions, which rabbis tend to avoid, at least publicly. First, does the principle of "Dina D'Malchuta" apply in a society without a King? The U.S. government makes no claim to private property. It cannot take my money away without due process. Is a tax imposed by a local, state, or federal legislature considered due process? Indeed, there are opinions that Dina D'Malchuta only applies to ancient, well-established laws of that society. Second, does the principle apply only to financial matters? If the government makes a law against underage drinking, for example, should a synagogue not serve wine to children at a Shabbat service? The general view I have seen among poskim is that we must obey the laws of a democratic society as well (some differ; to be discussed next time), but we need not follow legislated morality; but, at the same time, not blatantly flaunt it, so as not to appear rebellious. These, and related issues, will be discussed more next time.