Two Treaties of Government

To understand the situation in the USA I think the best idea is to learn the Two Treaties of Government of John Locke plus the Declaration of Independence. There you see even though the USA is a republic  (not direct democracy), still it is based on fair elections. Since there was doubt about the validity of the count of the Dominion machines, the election should not have been certified.

[The Two Treaties is all about: when is it moral to rebel against the government?]

Just to be clear: I hold from the Two Treaties and the Constitution of the USA because they are the best in coming to peace of the state which is one f the major goals of Torah. On a small scale a Litvak yeshiva tends to be the best in creating a decent group based on objective morality. But on a larger scale the model based on the American Constitution brings the best results of creating a just society. --I mean to say that how to create such a thig has been a subject of debate ever since Plato wrote the Republic. But his answers seem lacking. Nor do any intellectual answers since then get any better results. The odd fact is the model based on Medieval England (Parliament, the Magna Carta, etc which got translated into the American system  get the best results in terms of a just society.) Kings on occasion were okay but often they were not.

universities ought to simply become technical schools.

 In the time of Kant many thought that the universities ought to simply become technical schools. (What is called today: "STEM fields".) But the "liberal arts" won and so we have the social studies and humanities parts of the university.

{I mean to say that the theological aspect of the universities was already on its way out. So the question arose what should be the nature of the university?}

However I think the original idea was best --of just having universities being technical schools. The liberal arts departments are of negative value.

But not everything in university ought to be for the sake of making a living. So while the socialist departments ought to be disbanded, not everything else should be for making a living. Rather I see certain things in STEM as having ontological value in themselves [like Mathematics and Physics.]

{You see this in Rishonim mediaeval authorities. But how far does this go? [To consider some "secular subjects" has having value to learn just for their own sake?] 

two important lessons to learn from Robert E Lee. Lee was always strongest when he was considered weak.

I noticed that there are two important lessons to learn from Robert E Lee. One of the most astounding facts about him is that he was more dangerous in retreat than in offensive attack. You learn this from the Antietam battle with General McClellan.  G. McClellan was dismissed by Lincoln because of his perceived mistake of not following Lee in his retreat back to Virginia across the Potomac.  I do not know from where Lincoln was getting his information from because in fact McClellan did pursue Lee! At the river crossing where Lee was retreating, there was an eye witness from a Northern newspaper that wrote that when McClellan tried to attack Lee (in this retreat), the air was filled with bullets as thick as rain attacking McClellan.

The other very important fact about Lee is defense. He created a system of breastworks [makeshift fences] after the battle of Mine Run.  The Northern general looked and looked for the slightest opening and found nothing and so retreated. Later Lee was do the same with Grant. [The northern general at that time made his own instant retreat at night knowing that Lee would immediately in the morning pursue him.]

So you see Lee was always strongest when he was considered weak.

z73 music file

 

 The issue of my core belief system came up today and I wanted to mention that the way I see Torah is that what matters is "to be a mensch" midot tovot. Everything else is secondary. So I really do not care much how one comes to good midot.  This idea is based to some degree on the books of Musar [mediaeval books about morality] but also on the Gemara itself that says the commandments do have known reasons. But the Gemara does not give them. The later rishonim give the reasons for the commandments and they are in short--to be a mensch. But to be a mensch of course means a lot more than being a decent human being. So one does have to learn the basic core books of Musar to understand what being a mensch means.

Being a mensch should be common sense, but I guess that is no longer common.  

כתובות דף י''ט. רמב''ם הלכות מלווה ולווה פרק ב' הלכה ו' Ketuboth 19 Rambam 2:6

כתובות דף י''ט  

לוי borrows from ראובן and ראובן borrows from שמעון. Comes time of payment and ראובן has no money. You take from לוי and give to שמעון. If both לוי and ראובן say the loan was paid you pay no attention to them since they might be conspiring against שמעון. The ר''ן asks: Why not collect the document  שטר of the loan from ראובן and give it to שמעון? He answers because the document itself is not money.  I was wandering around at the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a very good reason not to collect the document of the loan from ראובן and give it to שמעון as the ר''ן asks. If שמעון would have the שטר then he could collect the משועבדים the property that לוי sold after  he borrowed money  from ראובן. So why does the ר''ן not answer this answer which seems like a better answer?

[Just to make this clear: Just think about it. Giving the document to שמעון would make it seem that the original loan was from לוי to שמעון. And thus all of לוי's property would be obligated in that loan. But that is way too much. The only thing that ר' נתן says in כתובות י''ט  is that if ראובן has no property we take from לוי and give to שמעון, not even property that לוי sold. And even more so. If שמעון could גובה from  property that לוי sold, you would have an infinite regress. No one would buy anything. So on one hand giving the document to שמעון does not give to שמעון any more power than ראובן had. But still שמעון might at some future date borrow from someone else and also have no money to pay back the loan, and so on and so forth forever. The property of לוי would never be safe.

Ketuboth page 19. Rambam Laws of  Loans. 2:6 

Levi borrow from Reuven and Reuven borrows from Shimon. Comes time of payment and Reuven has no money. You take from Levi and give to Shimon. If both Levi and Reuven say the loan was paid you pay no attention to them since they might be conspiring against Shimon.

The Ran asks why not collect the document of the loan from Reuven and give it to Shimon. He answers because the document itself is not money.   

 I was wandering around at the sea shore and it occurred to me that there is a very good reason not to collect the document of a loan from Reuven and give it to Shimon as the Ran asks. If Shimon would have the document then he could collect the Meshuabadim --the property that Levi sold after he borrowed money  from Reuven. So why does the Ran not answer this answer which seems like a better answer?

[Just to make this clear: Just think about it. Giving the document to Shimon would make it seem that the original loan was from Levi to Shimon. And thus all of Levi's property would be obligated in that loan. But that is way too much. The only thing that R. Natan says in Ketuboth 19 is that if Reuven has no property we take from Levi and give to Shimon, not even property that Levi sold. And even more so. If Shimon could collect from even property that Levi sold you would have an infinite regress. No one would buy anything. So on one hand giving the document to Shimon does not give to Shimon any more power than Reuven had. But still Shimon might at some future date borrow from someone else and also have no money to pay back the loan, and so on and so forth forever. The property of Levi would never be safe.

כתובות דף י''ט

לוי לווה מראובן וראובן לווה משמעון. מגיע זמן התשלום ולראובן אין כסף. אתה לוקח מלוי ונותן לשמעון. אם גם לוי וגם ראובן אומרים שההלוואה שולמה, אתה לא שם לב אליהם מכיוון שהם עלולים ליצור קשר נגד שמעון. שואל הר''ן: למה לא לגבות את מסמך שטר ההלוואה מראובן ולתת אותו לשמעון? הוא עונה כי המסמך עצמו אינו כסף. (שטרות לאו בני גוביינא נינהוא). הסתובבתי על שפת הים ועלה בדעתי שיש סיבה טובה מאוד לא לאסוף (לגבות) את מסמך ההלוואה מראובן ולתת אותו לשמעון כפי שהר''ן מבקש. אם לשמעון היה את השטר, אז הוא היה יכול לאסוף את המשועבדים (את הרכוש שמכר לוי לאחר שהוא לווה כסף מראובן). אז למה הר''ן לא עונה על התשובה הזו שנראית כמו תשובה טובה יותר

רק כדי להבהיר את זה: רק תחשוב על זה. מתן המסמך לשמעון יראה שההלוואה המקורית תהיה מלוי לשמעון. ולפיכך יתחייבו כל רכושו של לוי באותה הלוואה. אבל זה יותר מדי. הדבר היחיד שאומר ר' נתן בכתובות י''ט הוא שאם לראובן אין רכוש, אנחנו לוקחים מלוי ונותנים לשמעון, לא רכוש שמכר לוי. ועוד יותר מכך. אם שמעון היה יכול לגבות מנכס שלוי מכר, הייתה לך נסיגה אינסופית. אף אחד לא היה קונה כלום. אז מצד אחד מתן המסמך לשמעון לא נותן לשמעון יותר כוח ממה שהיה לראובן. אבל בכל זאת שמעון עלול באיזשהו תאריך עתידי ללוות ממישהו אחר וגם לא יהיה לו כסף להחזיר את ההלוואה, וכן הלאה וכן הלאה לנצח. רכושו של לוי לעולם לא יהיה בטוח.