A Beautiful Story about Rabbi Ratzon Arusi

Rabbi Meir Mazuz related in a recent Motz’ei Shabbos speech Rabbi Ratzon Arusi shlita encouraged the men in his city (Kiryat Ono, presumably) to wear their Tallis on the way to Shul. Why? Shabbos observance was suffering. He wished to publicize the Shabbos, and ensure it is honored. The custom stuck and spread.

That’s exactly what rabbis are for. And that’s exactly what customs are for.

Why Put up with Lost Mail, Potholes, Poor Schools, Depreciated Money, and Clogged Courts?

Municipalized Trash: It’s Uncivilized

3698.jpg

09/14/2009
Jeffrey A. Tucker

Driving into work today, I saw garbage bins overflowing and city dumpsters spilling out with trash. It stinks. It’s disgusting. It’s uncivilized. It’s probably dangerous to some extent.

It’s a holiday, so of course the government workers charged with picking up this nasty refuse can’t work, even though construction workers in private firms are busy bees taking advantage of the extra time.

It’s true with house trash too: pickup is once per week — on schedule — and there is nothing you can do to make it more frequent. It’s part of the master plan, don’t you know, and if you make more trash than the once-per-week pickup can contain, that is your problem, not the city’s.

The very fear that people have about private trash collection — that it will pile up and no one will do anything about it — turns out to be a regular feature of government trash collection. But we look the other way. Why?

Before getting to this, let us first establish that garbage is a serious issue. Libertarians were once chided by William F. Buckley, his head full of schemes for threatening populations with nuclear annihilation, for bothering with such petty concerns as trash collection.

“It is only because of the conservatives’ disposition to sacrifice in order to withstand the enemy,” wrote Buckley in 1961, “that [libertarians] are able to enjoy their monasticism, and pursue their busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors.”

Ah yes, little seminars. Seminars about such things as the avoiding the plague. Humanity has some experience with the results of failing to dispose of trash properly, and that experience is deadly. Plagues swept the ancient world every 50 years or so, spread mainly through a lack of good sanitation. The Black Death in Europe might have been avoided with better sanitation and a decent system for disposing of trash, rather than letting it pile up on the streets.

History’s fight with the plague in the developed world came to an end at the time of the rise of capitalism in the late middle ages, and no surprise there. With the accumulation of capital came innovation in trash disposal, since living in sanitary conditions and staying alive turns out to be something of a priority for people. This is why the largest advances in garbage collection came about during the Industrial Revolution.

And yet here we are in 2009, with trash piled up on the streets and stinking to high heaven, bags full of raw animal parts (chickens, pigs, cows, fish), baby diapers stuffed with waste, rotting eggs mixed with sour cream dip from game-day parties, piles that are right now being scavenged by roaches and rats. This is in a town that prides itself on its tidiness.

And we put up with this for the same reason that we put up with lost mail, potholes in roads, dilapidated schools, depreciated money, and a clogged court system: because these services are monopolized by government.

Now you can make all the public-goods arguments you want to about roads and courts, but trash disposal is not rocket science and could be easily handled by the market. Everyone wants trash removed, and the sooner the better.

That means that there is a market demand for the service. There is money to be made. The only way to keep something like this at bay is to make it illegal.

If the market were in charge, pickup would surely be more than once per week. We wouldn’t have to drag our trash bins out to the curb. In fact, we would be faced with several or many possible options for trash pickup.

If we made more trash than we “should,” we wouldn’t get angry notes from the city government. The private pickup companies would be thrilled. We might be paying by frequency of pickup or perhaps by the pound. That would be for the market to decide.

In fact, trash pickup services might actually be characterized by — perish the thought — innovation, just as they were in the early part of the 20th century, when trash collection was mostly private. Our houses might be directly connected to underground trash-transmission services that would whisk it all away in an instant. Our kitchens might have highly effective trash chutes that would zap away trash as we make it.

But because of this ghastly tradition of municipalizing trash pickup (or we might call it Sovietizing), the entire industry is stuck in the past, utterly impervious to improvement and modernization.

We get our news through fiber optics, walk around with tiny wireless phones that can instantly connect with anyone anywhere, and shop digitally with any vendor in the world. But when it comes to trash, we are still relying on once-per-week, strictly scheduled pickups by tax-funded workers driving monstrous, old-model trucks.

In my town, even the trashcans are paid for and owned by the government, as if the private sector has yet to figure out on its own initiative how to make a tub for holding things.

So why does this system persist? I asked a few people about this, and the answer usually came down to some system of graft. Powerful people make the trucks, manage the landfills, and dole out the contracts. Perhaps so, but why do we put up with it?

It seems like a preposterously unobjectionable plan: open this system to private ownership and competition, and thereby innovation.

I don’t just mean contracting out. I mean abolishing city trash pickup and letting private enterprise completely take over. There is just no way that the existing muck would persist, for it offends every aesthetic sensibility and it may pose a ghastly health risk.

As for the old conservative claim that libertarians are insufficiently worried about the Soviet threat and too much about garbage collection, note that the Soviet Union is gone and the garbage problem is still with us.

From Mises.org, here.

מה עדיף: גבורה בתורה או התחדשות?

שבת קנ”ב א’:

תניא, רבי יוסי בר קיסמא אומר, טבא תרי מתלת, ווי לה לחדא דאזלא ולא אתיא.

מאי היא, אמר רב חסדא, ינקותא.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר, ינקותא כלילא דוורדא סבותא כלילא דחילפא.

רבנו חננאל:

טבי תרי מתלת, פי’ יותר הוא טוב המהלך על ב’ רגליו מן הזקן שצריך משען כגון מקל או שבט להישען עליו והוא כמו רגל שלישי.

חבל על דאזלא ולא אתיא, פי’ הבחרות הולכת כשמזקין האדם ואינה חוזרת אליו.

ינקותא כלילא דוורדי, הבחרות כתר של וורד ריחו נודף ושל זקנה כתר של חילף שריחו מאוס.

The Draft Is a Death Sentence

A Million Haredi Soldiers Won’t Help Israel’s Security if the IDF is Afraid to Fight

By David Sidman
The ‘not fair’ argument isn’t a good enough reason to unnecessarily sacrifice the lives of more Israelis. Here’s a hypothetical question for you- If a community of secular Jews in 1938 Germany was being sent to the gas chambers while a community of Haredi Jews was spared from the same fate, would the former complain that it’s not fair that only they have to die? Or would they realize that the fewer Jewish deaths, the better.

Now I realize that the example I gave is extreme and I would never in a million years compare the IDF to Nazis, but a similar parallel can be found between the draft dodging Haredi protesters and the sentiment of those who oppose them. That’s because the sad truth is that more Haredi soldiers in the IDF is a lose-lose for both the Haredim as well as Israel as a whole. That’s because all it will do is cause more unnecessary soldier deaths at the hands of a scared, broken military that is led by people who are afraid to fight with conviction and are petrified of winning wars.

At this point, you may say to yourself that if everyone refused to serve, there would be no army and no defense for Israel. Although true, there’s a big difference between a protest by currently enlisted military personnel and rewarding a corrupt military with more sheep to the slaughterhouse.

Why do I use such a harsh analogy? Because for many opposed to the protests, it’s largely irrelevant that we have an army who gives their enemies a 15 minute warning before eliminating them (giving them ample time to escape imminent death). They don’t care if Tzahal unnecessarily risks the lives of its troops by abiding by cease fires while under fire behind enemy lines. And so what if infantry men are prosecuted in a show trial for killing terrorists who just moments earlier almost stabbed their fellow soldiers to death. What difference does it make that the upper echelon of the IDF uses our troops as pawns unnecessarily risking their lives to avoid condemnation from a bunch of anti-Semites in the UN (how’s that working out by the way?). All that matters to the pro-draft crowd is fairness for the sake of fairness.

What’s important to the pro-draft crowd is that the Haredim should allow their sons to unnecessarily die in wars with their hands tied behind their back just like their sons do. Otherwise, it’s just not ‘fair’. The problem that most people fail to realize is that a million new Haredim in uniform won’t improve Israel’s security so long as Israel is afraid to fight wars and win them. And that’s precisely the problem and it should be the only problem that those who care about Israel’s security focus on.

Our frustration needs to be directed at those who send commandos onto Hamas affiliated flotillas with paintball guns. Our anger should be directed at the same military who can’t seem to scrounge up the money to insulate military vehicles with bullet-proof armor or provide kevlar vests to those on the front lines, yet magically figured out a way to fund sex change operations for trans soldiers while dishing out 700,000 NIS to hire Elor Azariya’s prosecutor. (The list goes on and on but I’d rather not turn this article into a novel).

As Haredi draft dodgers take to the streets to protest the draft, the push-back from the Israeli public has been loud and clear. Most Israelis believe that the Haredim should serve like the rest of us (except for Israeli Arabs). However, the problem with the anti-draft dodging sentiment isn’t the principle but rather the priorities. That’s because when Haredi draft dodging protests cause more of a controversy than an army who refuses show up to battle, we have a big problem. Our rage shouldn’t be directed at the Haredim, but rather at those who needlessly play Russian Roulette with the lives of Israel’s finest men just to get a pat on the back from the New York Times. Once the broken army is fixed, we can then talk about the draft dodgers.

What US Soldiers Think They Do / What They Really Do

The operative excerpt from Laurence M. Vance:

There are a number of things that U.S. soldiers certainly don’t sign up for. No matter what they think, their family thinks, or what Americans in general think, U.S. soldiers don’t sign up to:

  • defend the country
  • fight for our freedoms
  • keep Americans safe from terrorists
  • support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic
  • protect Americans from credible threats
  • serve the country
  • secure American borders
  • patrol American coasts
  • guard American shores
  • watch over American skies
  • fight “over there” so we don’t have to fight “over here”

So, what is it that U.S. soldiers actually sign up for? Truth be told, they sign up to:

  • boldly go where no American soldier has any place going
  • obey orders unconditionally
  • die in vain, for a lie, or for a mistake
  • die for empire
  • be a pawn in the hands of Uncle Sam to be moved around as he sees fit
  • serve the state
  • help unleash sectarian violence
  • invade other countries
  • occupy other countries
  • fight foreign wars
  • maintain U.S. hegemony
  • make widows and orphans
  • launch preemptive strikes
  • spread democracy at the point of a gun
  • be the world’s policeman, fireman, bully, and social worker
  • be part of the president’s personal attack force
  • enforce UN resolutions
  • die a senseless death
  • fight unjust wars
  • kill and maim foreigners
  • kill civilians
  • die for imperialism
  • destroy foreign industry, culture, and infrastructure
  • change regimes
  • nation build
  • fight immoral wars
  • defend other countries
  • fight unnecessary wars
  • carry out a reckless, belligerent, and deeply flawed U.S. foreign policy
  • neglect their families
  • intervene in other countries
  • create terrorists, insurgents, and militants because of foreign interventions
  • enforce no-fly zones in other countries
  • fight undeclared wars
  • take sides in civil wars
  • engage in offense instead of defense
  • get PTSD or a traumatic brain injury
  • have their limbs or genitals blown off
  • die for the military/industrial complex
  • be a global force for evil

See the rest of it on LRC here…