PDA

View Full Version : The Fall of the Republic



Chris
01-13-2014, 07:49 PM
Interesting analysis of the fall of Rome which I'm sure historians can argue about. If there's any basis to it then we're in trouble.

The Fall of the Republic (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-fall-of-the-republic#ixzz2qKTltOMe)


...Boiling the Frog

The Roman Republic died a death of a thousand cuts. Or, to borrow from another, well-known parable: The heat below the pot in which the proverbial frog was boiled started out as a mere flicker of a flame, then rose gradually until it was too late for the frog to escape. Indeed, for a brief time, he enjoyed a nice warm bath.

Like the American Republic, the Roman one was born in violent revolt against monarchy. “That’s enough of arbitrary and capricious one-man rule!” Romans seemed to declare in unison in 509 B.C. Rejecting kings is a supremely rare thing in human history. The Romans dispersed political power by authorizing two coequal consuls, limited to one-year terms and each with a veto over the acts of the other. They created a Senate in which former magistrates and members of patrician families with long civil or military service would sit. They set up popularly elected assemblies that gained increasing authority and influence over the centuries.

Due process and habeas corpus saw their first widespread practice in the Roman Republic. Freedoms of speech, assembly, and commerce were pillars of the system. All of this was embodied in the Roman Constitution, which—like that of the British in our day—was unwritten but deeply rooted in custom, precedent, and consensus for half a millennium.

Roman freedom and republican governance, to be sure, were undercut by limitations on the franchise and on the always detestable institution of slavery. The Roman Republic was certainly not perfect, but still it represented a remarkable advance for humanity, as could be said of the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence.

Writers from the first centuries B.C. and A.D. offered useful insights to the decline. Polybius predicted that politicians would pander to the masses, leading to the mob rule of an unrestrained democracy. The constitution, he surmised, could not survive when that happened. Sallust bemoaned the erosion of morals and character and the rise of personal power lust. Livy, Plutarch, and Cato expressed similar sentiments. To the moment of his assassination, Cicero defended the Republic against the assaults of the early dictators because he knew they would transform Rome into a tyrannical despotism.

Ultimately, the collapse of the political order of republican Rome has its origins in three developments that took root in the second century B.C., then blossomed by the end of the first. One was foreign adventure. The second was the welfare state. The third was a sacrifice of constitutional norms and the rule of law to the demands of the other two.

...

Akula
04-07-2014, 09:55 AM
History may not repeat itself exactly, but it always rhymes.
Our time is coming.

The Sage of Main Street
04-07-2014, 04:09 PM
Interesting analysis of the fall of Rome which I'm sure historians can argue about. If there's any basis to it then we're in trouble.

The Fall of the Republic (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-fall-of-the-republic#ixzz2qKTltOMe) You won't hear this from histwhoreans, who are funded by the ruling class, but the only tumor is hereditary power. It must be surgically removed by cutting off the children of the rich from Daddy's Money at the age of 18.

Peter1469
04-07-2014, 04:13 PM
Reading now. I did love my trip there. They had just found an extended portion of the Roman forum when I was there.

Peter1469
04-07-2014, 04:25 PM
It looks like something that I would have written.

Chris
04-07-2014, 04:31 PM
It reminds me of James Madison in a speech tn the Virginia Ratifying Convention on Control of the Military, June 16, 1788: "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. On a candid examination of history we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which in republics, have more frequently than any other cause produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of the ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes."