A. Apollonius omnibus sal.
Having taken notice of the complaints about dominance
on this list of legal discussions and the people who
indulge in them, I've been trying to reduce the amount
I write, but this doesn't seem to be working out, so
I'm going to try a new strategy. This message contains
all my replies to various people's points. Apologies
to anyone who finds it tedious to search through a
very long message to find the bit addressed to him or
her specifically: comfort yourself with the knowledge
that this system makes life a little easier for people
who want to read topics other than this one. Not that
there are any other topics at the moment, but that's
their fault as much as mine. ;)
This message contains replies to L. Vitellius, M.
Octavius, L. Modius, M. Horatius, Cn. Equitius, and Q.
Cassius.
First, two similar sentiments. Scripsit L. Vitellius:
> I don't believe I've missed the point at all. I keep
> hearing and
> hearing and hearing "we all want to live the Roman
> Life in the Roman
> Way." Unfortunately, due to the political and legal
> nature of this
> particular list, you have to go elsewhere to find
> that in NR. If one
> does not wish to participate in a political or legal
> argument, there
> seems to be no point in posting.
Et scripsit M. Octavius:
> I disagree. The reason so much time is spent on
> trivialities is
> that the culture here encourages and rewards such
> behaviour.
You are both saying precisely the same thing as I have
been saying. Our public culture is excessively
legalistic. Yes. I agree. I have said it several
times. I hope it's fairly clear that this is my view.
Many people seem to think that this is simply because
everyone else (no one accuses himself) is being stupid
or has a warped sense of priority. I am offering what
strikes me as a slightly more plausible diagnosis. The
root of this culture is the constitution itself. The
constitution has two important characteristics. First,
it is the self-proclaimed most important thing in our
community. Second, there is no way to ever, *ever*
settle any disagreement about what it actually means.
The consequences of this are pretty obvious. The first
point means that we are obliged to consult it and
refer to it constantly because it is, according to
itself, the ultimate foundation and source of
everything in Nova Roma. The second point is that when
we try to consult it and refer to it but we find that
we're not always sure what it means, we have no way to
determine what it means except by arguing about it
until we all get tired, because nothing can ever
definitively settle the argument.
M. Octavi, you say that our political culture is set
up to reward legislation. I'm not sure this is the
whole story. It's partly true, of course. Legislation
is often seen as the main duty of consules and even
tribuni plebis. In fact I remember a time two years
ago when one or two citizens complained very loudly
about the fact that a consul had gone six months
without proposing any leges. But I think this is
changing. None of the four candidates for the
consulate last November ran on a manifesto of
extensive legislation; in fact all of them ran on a
promise to legislate as little as possible. And indeed
that's exactly what we've seen from them: minimal
legislation. As for tribunician legislation, we've not
had all that much of that this year either. Voting has
just finished on one proposal, and one which was only
proposed in response to a perceived immediate and
practical need. Before that we had two other
proposals, one of which was a response to an immediate
problem, the other of which was not. And this brings
us to your second point.
Your second point is that the people vote "yes" to
almost everything that's put in front of them. This is
a common statement, but it's simply not true. What has
become of the four pieces of legislation which have
been proposed this year? One was criticized,
withdrawn, rewritten with extensive consultation, and
has now been presented again for discussion in an
open-ended contio. Two were voted down by large
majorities. And the fate of the fourth will be
announced soon. Does that look to you like a populace
which votes "yes" to whatever it sees?
But is legislation actually the cause of all these
arguments which you and others find so boring? How
many legalistic and political arguments have we had
this year? Let me recap for you:
1. About C. Curius' resignation.
2. About the senatus consultum on the lex curiata.
3. About the "blasphemy clause".
4. About C. Curius' resignation.
5. About the lex Memmia on resignations.
6. About the new senatores.
7. About the censorial warnings.
8. About C. Curius' resignation.
9. About whether the tribunes should supervise
applications for citizenship.
10. About C. Curius' resignation.
11. About the lex Popillia senatoria.
12. About whether proceedings of the senate should be
made public.
13. About coins.
14. About whether the senate can declare war on
terrorists.
15. About C. Curius' resignation & provocatio.
16. About the constitution.
That bring us up to date. Now by my count that's 2 out
of 16 of this year's legal arguments which have been
caused by legislative proposals. So I don't think your
diagnosis is borne out by the evidence. Excessive
legislative activity is not the cause of our
excessively legalistic culture. The cause is the
constitution. If the constitution had been flexible,
arguments 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 16 would not have
occurred, and several of the others would have been
considerably shorter.
The reason politically active citizens spend so much
time arguing about the wording of the constitution is
because the wording of the constitution rules our
political lives. Surely that's not hard to see. With a
flexible constitution the only arguments we would need
to have would be "is this a good idea or not?" Sure,
those arguments might get long and boring, but not
nearly as long and boring as the current ones get,
because sooner or later they would be settled one way
or the other. What the constitution does is make it
impossible for such arguments ever to end.
Now, L. Vitelli, as for the rest of what you wrote,
let me say this, though I have said it before. The
idea that the large volume of legal and political
debate on this list makes it impossible to talk about
anything is unadulterated nonsense. Anyone can write
anything on this list. The simple fact is that the
people who talk about law and politics are, it seems,
more or less the only people who can be bothered to
say anything at all. You say that all the good stuff
is going on elsewhere - well, why? Why not here? Are
all the really good people to incredibly virtuous that
they can't bear to see their profoundly fascinating
messages to appear intermixed with our horrible, nasty
ones? Are they all on the New Roman list? That list is
virtually dead apart from M. Minucius' frequent and
laudable attempts to get someone to say something. Are
they all out in their local communities promoting Nova
Roma or having enjoyable excursions and meals with
their fellow-citizens? Great! I'm glad to hear it! So
what's the problem? Or is the fact that we're talking
about the constitution somehow magically stopping
people doing those things?
It seems to be a popular idea that arguments about the
constitution are obstructing the growth of Nova Roma
as a face-to-face community. I simply don't see how
this is logically possible. I've managed to meet up
with fellow-citizens (not including the one I see
nearly every day) about a dozen times so far this year
in spite of the fact that there were legalistic
arguments going on in the forum. Up to 40 people
managed to get together in Rome this month in spite of
the fact that there were legalistic arguments going on
in the forum. People got together at Roman Days
earlier this summer even though, yes, there were
legalistic arguments going on in the forum.
Of course there's nothing wrong with meeting up,
eating, drinking, visiting musea, and so on. They're
great. I do them often. What I totally reject is the
idea that these things are somehow incompatible with
arguments about the constitution. Constitutional
arguments do not stop people doing face-to-face
activities any more than face-to-face activities stop
people having constitutional arguments. In fact I've
been to a few face-to-face meetings where people have
argued about the constitution!
Who are the people who join in these legalistic
arguments? I'm one; I'm also one of the few British
citizens who have been to every provincial meeting
we've had since we started having them, and to the
last two pan-European meetings. C. Equitius is one;
he's also active in his provincial government, and is
the only citizen who came to the last conventus from
the Americas. P. Memmius is one; he's also working
hard with Sex. Apollonius to revive Gallia after its
long dormancy and is also helping to plan a future
conventus. Domitius Constantinus is one; he's also a
local magistrate of one of the only two oppida in Nova
Roma. Cn. Caesar is one; he's also very active in the
sodalitas Egressus and is leading the Go Roman!
recruitment project. Does this suggest to you that
there's some incompatibility between constitutional
arguments and face-to-face activities? You ask us to
imagine what could be achieved if people put as much
energy into community-building as they put into legal
arguments. Well, guess what: they already do!
Scripsit L. Modius:
> This brings up an interesting point actually; if we
> were to abolish
> the consitution in its current form, it would be
> useful to maintain a
> list of such basic "rights", written into the
> [abbreviated] bylaws.
> Although I think this is almost to be taken for
> granted, I'd like to
> have these laid out (in addition to the necessary
> operational
> procedures and definitions of power) for the ease of
> new citizens and
> quick reference; it would also definitively enshrine
> these basic
> rights granted to all citizens. Any consensus on
> this?
Probably not. :)
I see no problem at all with having the basic rights
of citizenship written down somewhere, or even in lots
of places. But not in the by-laws. The only point of
making the constitution flexible is to get away from
the problems caused by the fact that we're governed by
a supreme legal document which is very difficult to
amend. If we take bits out of the constitution and put
them into the by-laws we're just dismantling one
unhelpful document to replace it with another. This
brings me to the words of M. Horatius concerning a
Roman "bill of rights":
> Uhm the Twelve Tablets? The first right of every
> civis is to have
> access to the law, which is what the whole issue of
> writing down the
> law on those tablets involved. But also certain
> rights of cives are
> listed on those tablets. All the piecemeal
> legislature followed.
The crucial difference between the Twelve Tables and a
bill of rights in the American sense is that the
Twelve Tables were just an ordinary statute. A pretty
long one, and a very important one, but just a
statute. It could be overruled by later statutes, and
was. That's the point. The very concept of a statute
which could overrule later statutes was totally alien
to Roman thought. It's also worth mentioning that
there were a number of basic rights which were not
mentioned in the Twelve Tables, or at least not in our
surviving texts, including most of the public rights.
Cn. Equitius scripsit (replying to C. Fabia):
> > It would be perfectly possible to change the
> wording
> > of the Oath of Office, if we so wished, to remove
> > explicit reference to the Constitution.
>
> But all magistrates who've already sworn to support
> and defend the
> Constitution would have to oppose that effort, or
> risk prosecution for
> violating their oaths of office.
Well, first, amice, let's remember that the oath of
office carries no legal sanction and is not legally
binding. But, more importantly, let me point out to
you that you are heading toward turning republican
Rome into Hellenistic Athens. In the Hellenistic
period Athens had an idea called the graphe paranomon.
The graphe paranomon was a legislative proposal which
it was a criminal offence to make. When the Athenians
thought of a thing which they really, really didn't
want to happen, they would make it a criminal offence
for someone to even propose it. The only way to make
such a proposal was first to propose a statute which
would stop it being a graphe paranomon. But the
Athenians were quite zealous, and a person was quite
likely to get prosecuted even for suggesting that a
graphe paranomon should stop being paranomon. One poor
fellow was even prosecuted for proposing that a
committee should be set up to consider whether a
proposal should be made to stop a certain proposal
being a graphe paranomon. Does that sound familiar?
Yes, it's the line of logic you're following. Did the
Romans ever have such an idea? No, never.
> I would feel much better about this whole discussion
> if it were limited to
> considering a change in the supremacy of the current
> Constitution as a law
> above all other laws. After all, there is much in
> it that is good, and
> should be preserved. Furthermore, we do need a
> constitution, of some sort or
> other, that will reflect our adoption of the
> constitutional principles of Roma
> Antiqua in Nova Roma.
Would our adoption of the constitutional principles of
Roma antiqua not be reflected adequately if we were to
actually adopt them?
Q. Cassius scripsit:
> My question is replace it with what? When it comes
> to that question
> the advocates of abolishing the Constitution just
> give glimmering
> generalities that can mean anything to anyone but
> mean absolutely
> nothing in specific.
You may find, Calve, that this is because no one's
asked yet. I'm quite happy to answer your question.
There are various options. I hope a choice of options
doesn't amount in your mind to "glimmering"! At one
extreme, we could simply remove about 150 words from
article I of the constitution to make it non-rigid, so
that it would have the same legal force as any other
lex. All the rest of the text could remain the same.
In this case, it would not be replaced with anything.
The other extreme would be to remove the whole thing
and replace it with nothing at all. This would leave
fewer holes than you might think, since much of what
is written in the constitution is already covered by
other leges. The remaining holes would have to be
filled by custom and convention. To begin with I
imagine things would continue to be done much as they
are now, simply because the various institutions are
used to operating in that way. Gradually things would
change, preferably in a more historical direction.
In between, there are various possibilities. One would
be to amend article I and to break up the rest of the
current constitution into a number of smaller leges in
order to reduce its status as the Big Important Law.
Another would be to replace it with either one or
several new leges dealing with the same subject matter
but in a different way. No doubt people will think of
further options.
I prefer the option of repealing the whole thing and
replacing it with nothing, because I'm an optimist and
I believe it would work. But I recognize that few
people are as optimistic as I am, and would prefer
something less risky. I'm flexible on the point. The
main thing is that any of the options I've described
would be a huge improvement on the current situation.
Would you like more specifics? Feel free to ask.
> This looks like the classic political power play in
> motion:
>
> Step 1: Find a problem.
> Step 2: Hype up the problem until it becomes a
> "crisis."
> Step 3A: Announce a plan to solve the "crisis."
> Step 3B: Give vague statements about the solution
> that can mean
> anything to anyone but mean absolutely nothing in
> specific.
> Step 3C: Demonize the opposition. Paint the
> opposition as being
> ignorant, obstructionist, reactionary,
> anti-progress. Don't be
> afraid to pull punches as the opposition must be
> silenced at all
> costs.
>
> Folks, when you see this plan in action ask youself
> the following
> questions:
>
> Is this really a crisis or a mountain being made of
> a molehill?
> What is the real agenda?
This is an interesting analysis, and your two
questions are indeed apposite. You're right to imply
that there is no crisis. I'm sure I needn't point out
that I, for one, have never said there was a crisis.
The problem of the constitution is a slow and steady
deterioration. It triggers various small crises from
time to time, but in itself it is not a crisis. It is,
however, a serious problem. I understand that I may
give the impression that it is a crisis by urging that
action be taken about it, but the reason is simply
that the problem will slowly get worse and worse until
we take action.
But more interesting is the second question. Yes, what
is the real agenda? You suggest an answer when you
talk about a "classic political power play". Now, am I
wrong in thinking that the usual objective of a
"classic political power play" is for those behind it
to end up gaining political power? If so, I don't see
how this particular one is supposed to work. How am I,
for instance, going to gain political power as a
result of this "power play"? Do you expect me to run
for consul this November on a manifesto of abolishing
the constitution? If so, you'll be disappointed. As I
understand it the usual procedure in the scenario you
describe is for the people who do steps 1, 2, and 3 to
then go on to step 4: ask the people to give them
power so they can solve the crisis. Well, do you see
anyone doing that? I don't. For my own part I would be
quite happy for the current consules to repeal the
constitution themselves. I don't want to have to wait
until I'm consul for it to happen. I want it to be
done as soon as possible, and I don't care who does
it.
> I have my own analysis of what the real agenda is
> here. If anyone
> wants to know feel free to drop me a line.
I shall, thanks.
You also wrote:
> The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand
> Corporation in the
> 1960's...
You give a very helpful run-down of the technique. I'd
like to go through it and see whether it actually
describes what's going on.
> You take a targeted group and give them the illusion
> of public input
> and accountability and steer them into a
> predetermined outcome. It
> is extremely important that the targeted group
> accept the leaders
> (though they are never called leaders, they are
> called "facilitators") as the most knowledgeable
> sources of
> information keeping all other sources away from the
> group.
I take it that according to your theory the leaders
are the people advocating the repeal of the
constitution (or are we the pawns being manipulated by
leaders behind the scenes?). Well, are we the most
knowledgeable sources of information? I don't know. I
guess between us we know a fair amount of stuff. But
do we keep all other sources of information away from
the group? I'm not sure how we would do that. We can't
stop other people writing to this list.
> The first step is to plant operatives in the group
> to coordinate and
> steer discussions on preset questions designed to
> move the group in
> the desired direction. The purpose here is to
> isolate, quiet and
> discredit dissenters by making them feel uneasy that
> they are in
> disagreement with what appears to be a majority
> opinion.
Hahahae! Anyone who thinks that what I'm saying is "a
majority opinion" is not paying attention. By my count
there are about a dozen people in Nova Roma, if that,
who support the repeal of the constitution.
> ... Mind you
> that the majority opinion is established through
> answering questions
> designed to only be answered one possible way. Any
> deviation from
> those designed questions by asking other questions
> will not be
> tolerated and must be dealt with.
Ask away, please. All other questions will be
tolerated. :)
> The facilitator is always charming...
Well, yes, I admit Cato is fairly charming.
> ... but when asked
> questions that
> break outside the path of the pre-determined outcome
> they digress
> into something totally unrelated They play on the
> ingrained
> instinct of survival and poke and prod at dissenters
> to make them
> snap and look a foolish, belligerent, not a team
> player. Make an
> example of the dissenter so others will decide to
> keep their mouth
> shut rather than face the same fate.
Again, this seems to suggest that the facilitators
present themselves as representing the group, the
majority opinion, and that they paint their opponents
as being out of step with the will of the group. This
doesn't match up very well with our situation, in
which a small group of people is trying to defy
popular opinion by suggesting an idea that most people
think is stupid.
> When the facilitator finishes the oft lengthy and
> off topic diatribe
> politely reply, "That's all very interesting but my
> question
> was...", and repeat the question.
A good suggestion.
> Most importantly is to suck people into believing
> how important they
> are to the process, that their opinions (opinions
> formed by loaded
> pre-set questions) are important so that they feel
> like they own the
> process and it's very important to see the process
> out to the pre-
> destined conclusion. Dissenters must be isolated
> from the
> supporters of the pre-destined outcome. This can be
> done by
> discouraging them and hope they drop out of the
> process. This can
> also be achieved by rallying planted agents around
> them to isolate
> them from the non-planted to keep the dissent from
> spreading.
Again, I don't see anyone trying to make people think
that their opinions are important and are being taken
into account. I shall be quite frank in admitting what
everyone can already guess: I'm not in the habit of
taking other people's opinions into account on this
subject. I will, of course, listen to any and all
arguments against repealing the constitution, but I've
heard most of them already and they haven't persuaded
me.
> Another good trick is to get private input from the
> group where
> people write down their ideas and dislikes for the
> facilitator to
> review. You don't know what anyone else wrote so
> when the
> facilitator announces what areas consensus has been
> achieved and
> what areas need further discussion you have no idea
> if the
> facilitator is telling the truth or lying to move
> things along to a
> pre-determined outcome. You have no idea if your
> idea, dislikes, or
> suggestions were in the minority or not. For all
> you know everyone
> else agreed with you but that information is being
> suppressed.
Another thing that's not happening here. No one is
saying that the majority of people are privately
supporting the repeal of the constitution. I actually
haven't talked to many people about it privately, and
all the people who I have talked to privately about it
have approached me, not the other way round. Certainly
I would never suggest that most of them support the
idea. I've talked to C. Equitius and Cn. Caesar about
it, and they agree with me on most points. I've talked
to Q. Maximus about it and he disagrees, as he said on
this list. I've talked to Ti. Galerius and I haven't
yet heard his view. I've talked to Cn. Equitius and he
disagrees.
> I ask, is Nova Roma being "Delphied" into accepting
> a Nova Roma
> without a Constitution?
Um... no. :)
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos
http://uk.photos.yahoo.com