Vergilius Rex Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Lately I have been reading Roman History and have come to question myself: The Roman Republic was so successful that it conquered the world. So what made it worth of that power?, and to be the inspiration for the renaissance and the resurgence of the West? What renaissance thinkers like Machiavelli and Enlightment thinkers like Locke noticed to be the strenghts of a republic is what was put on paper to make the constitutions of the US or France. Thus the republics that exist today are the freest that have ever existed. We can confirm that those thinkers, and the enacters of those constitutions, have done something right. However our Republics seem to be dying. Corruption, decay, roman parallels that Stefan has so expertly exposed. What is it exactly that killed the Roman Republic and is killing our western Republics as well? I dare to say that, what makes a republic is effectively its citizens. Without its citizens there is no republic, no matter its laws. What the Romans lacked was a de facto Consitution, so that laws could not be made and unmade at will. We have Constituions that protect the citizens from too many or too few laws. But they lack something as well. The original US Constitution, and the French one, had limited citizenship. Not everyone could be a citizen because not everyone can be responsible for the destiny of the country. Thus:- No children, because they are not responsible for themselves- No women, because they are considered vain and weak regarding politics ( Stefan made a case here)- No unlanded men, because they had not a material part of the country and, therefore, could not be really responsible for its integrity. I think they had a case here. A citizen is someone that takes responsibility for the country, that accepts the consequences of its actions. Thus the flaw of our Constitutions today is the definition of its citizens. By making everyone a citizen, they have practically made no one a citizen. If it is not earned it has no value. As simple as that. I would like to discuss this topic with this question: What are good limitations on citizenship? And how to enforce the citizenship? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelafina Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 The founders only allowed landowners to be able to vote, and for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Robert Heinlein had a good idea in Starship Troopers (1959), that only citizens with military experience should be allowed to vote, reason being they had proven their dedication to the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Robert Heinlein had a good idea in Starship Troopers (1959), that only citizens with military experience should be allowed to vote, reason being they had proven their dedication to the society. Well, two years in the Federal Service, which implies taking personal responsibility for the safety of the human race rather than possessing a pulse and a temperature near 37C. The movie made it sound more evil by loading on more entitlements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Your methodology is flawed. We can confirm that those thinkers, and the enacters of those constitutions, have done something right. This claim is so vague that it's almost impossible to be wrong and therefore doesn't add anything. However our Republics seem to be dying. Corruption, decay, roman parallels that Stefan has so expertly exposed. What is it exactly that killed the Roman Republic and is killing our western Republics as well? Simple: Violence achieves the opposite of one's stated goals. All entities die. And republics are designed to flourish in the present at the expense of the future. All you're seeing is the bill coming due. A citizen is someone that takes responsibility for the country, that accepts the consequences of its actions. No, a citizen is somebody who is claimed to be owned by a government. What are good limitations on citizenship? And how to enforce the citizenship? This is an exploration on what is the best way to steal from, assault, rape, and murder people. I think a much better question is: Can humans exist in different, opposing moral categories? If not, then governments are predicated on the violation of property rights and should not be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts