Abstract
Ona’ah is a Hebrew word indicating the Jewish Talmudic law which, according to various interpretations, proscribes both fraud and over-charging. This chapter sharply distinguishes between these two concepts, accepting the former as legitimate but rejecting the latter on grounds of economic inefficiency and property rights violations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The literal translation of the law into English is as follows: “the law of mispricing” (Wilson, R. 1997, “Comparative religious thought on economic behavior and financial transactions,” The Journal of the Association of Christian Economists, No. 23, August, p. 1); “price fraud” (Warhaftig, n.d.).
- 2.
Is there some reason for 16%, as opposed to 15% or 17%? If so, what is it?
- 3.
Most modern economies, of course, are “mixed,” in the sense that some prices are controlled and others not.
- 4.
For earlier critics of Soviet-style economics, see Bauer, P.T. and Yamey, B.S. (1957), The Economics of Underdeveloped Countries, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.; Boettke, P.J. (1993), Why Perestroika Failed: The Politics and Economics of Socialist Transformation, Routledge, London; Mises, Ludwig von, Socialism, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981 (1969); Mises, Ludwig von. [1957] 1985. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957 (reprint: Auburn University, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1985).
- 5.
By this terminology Smith meant to indicate God’s role in economics; Smith, Adam. 1776/1979. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
- 6.
On this see Hayek, F.A. (1945), “The use of knowledge in society”, 35 American Economic Review, Vol. 35, pp. 519–25; Hayek, F.A. (1948), “Socialist calculation I, II, & III”, Individualism and Economic Order, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. For an even more radical claim, that it is not merely the information that is lacking for the central planners, but that even if they had it they still could not function due to lack of appraisement, see Mises, Ludwig von, Socialism, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981 (1969); Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1966. Human Action. A Treatise on Economics, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949 (3rd ed. Chicago: Regnery, 1966); Mises, Ludwig von. [1957] 1985. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957 (reprint: Auburn University, Alabama: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1985); Salerno, J.T. (1990), “Ludwig von Mises as social rationalist”, Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 26–54; Salerno, J.T. (1992), “Mises and Hayek de-homogenized”, Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 113–46; Salerno, J. (1995), “A final word: calculation, knowledge and appraisement”, Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 141–2.
- 7.
An ancient one, of the sort which occurred when this law was first promulgated. Leviticus was written sometime in 1400 BC; the actual date varies between different authorities; see: http//www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm.
- 8.
For one scholar who has interpreted Ona’ah in this way as pure fraud see, Zvi Weiss who states: “The halacha states that if I explicitly tell someone that I am overcharging what I am selling (or that I am offering an artificially low price for what I am buying), then there is no prohibition of Ona’ah. This would seem to make clear that Ona’ah is strongly based upon issues of value and deception.” Mail Jewish Mailing List, Volume 16 Number 5; Produced: Mon Oct 24 22:53:39 1994. http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v16/mj_v16i05.html.
- 9.
This article was written in 1999. There is no doubt, given government inflationism, that in a few years hence $500 for such a meal will not raise any eyebrows. The present writer, in his youth, was accustomed to paying for a sandwich, fries and a coke in the neighborhood of $0.50.
- 10.
The bill might have specified $5000, $50,000, $500,000, and so on, or perhaps even indentured servitude for life.
- 11.
See Warhaftig (n.d.).
- 12.
In a similar vein, anti-trust law also proscribes fraud, but does much more. For a critique of the non-fraud combating aspects of anti-trust, see Armentano, Dominick T. 1972. The Myths of Antitrust, New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House; Armentano, Dominick T. 1982. Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, New York: Wiley; Armentano, Dominick T. 1999. Antitrust: The Case for Repeal. Revised 2nd ed., Auburn AL: Mises Institute; Armstrong, Don, Competition vs. Monopoly, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1982; Block, Walter E. 1977. “Austrian Monopoly Theory – a Critique,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. I, No. 4, Fall, pp. 271–279; Block, Walter E. 1982. Amending the Combines Investigation Act, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute; Block, Walter E. 1994. “Total Repeal of Anti-trust Legislation: A Critique of Bork, Brozen and Posner, Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 35–70; Boudreaux, Donald J., and DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1992. “The Protectionist Roots of Antitrust,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 81–96; DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1996. “The Myth of Natural Monopoly,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 43–58; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf; High, Jack. 1984–1985. “Bork’s Paradox: Static vs Dynamic Efficiency in Antitrust Analysis,” Contemporary Policy Issues, Vol. 3, pp. 21–34; McChesney, Fred. 1991. “Antitrust and Regulation: Chicago’s Contradictory Views,” Cato Journal, Vol. 10; Rothbard, Murray N. (2004 [1962]). Man, Economy and State, Auburn AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, Scholar’s Edition; Shugart II, William F. 1987. “Don’t Revise the Clayton Act, Scrap It!,” 6 Cato Journal, 925; Smith, Jr., Fred L. 1983. “Why not Abolish Antitrust?,” Regulation, Jan-Feb, 23; http://cei.org/op-eds-and-articles/why-not-abolish-antitrust.
- 13.
And not only unenforceable; presumably, the law would have some teeth (I need some info on this), and penalties would be imposed upon the restaurateur.
- 14.
According to folklore, there was a case in the 1990s, possibly apocryphal, where a taxicab driver charged a foreign customer some $5000 to take him from JFK Airport to downtown Manhattan If true, this would certainly be a violation of the Ona’ah proscription.
- 15.
What price would this information have? The restaurateur, by his actions, does not wish to make it available to the tourist customer. If he did, he could have charged $10. The only price he would in effect agree to is $500 − $10 = $490. But this would have been attained without the charade of information selling, merely by a direct charge of $500 for the meal.
- 16.
This is called “consumer’s surplus” by economists.
- 17.
Or two very good friends.
- 18.
A non-economist would place quotation marks around these words. I do not.
- 19.
But not too far, lest we in contemplating it be found guilty of a violation of the very law under discussion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Block, W.E. (2019). Ona’ah. In: Property Rights. Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28352-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28353-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)