3 ms·

Ah, yes and no. First you need to ask the question: "why was a basic income instituted?" It was instituted to buy votes, of course. But why were people's vote

Ah, yes and no. First you need to ask the question: "why was a basic income instituted?" It was instituted to buy votes, of course. But why were people's votes for sale so cheaply? During Rome's ascendancy, the citizen-soldier institution sent hundreds of thousands of Roman men out into the world on military campaigns. As their successes grew, so did their terms of military service. In turn, this lead to the collapse of the farms that these men used to work in order to provide for themselves and their family. These farms were purchased by the patrician class, and worked by slaves. Within a few generations, wealth inequality in Rome was so bad that most of the households that had previously been small landholders were reduced to urban poverty. Some Roman politicians did attempt to address this stifling inequality (such as the Gracchi brothers). After the Senate repeatedly murdered such "class traitors", the compromise of bread and circuses became the Senatorial (and later, Imperial) solution to the problems that the Senatorial classes had themselves caused. Universal income in Rome was a symptom of a completely dysfunctional society. Rome collapsed because its working classes ceased to work, but its working classes ceased to work because its ruling classes ceased to rule for the benefit of the many. Rome was brought down by its wealthy elite. If modern Western societies really are analogous to Rome (which they probably aren't), then universal income may herald the collapse. However, if it does, then this collapse will have been ultimately precipitated by the aggregation of power in the hands of the wealthy. In any case, pointing the finger at the Roman poor is a historical trend that was conjured by Rome's ruling classes to justify their own positions (think of all the howling about the "welfare poor" by the well-off in North American society today) and later by conservative British historians to justify the lopsided distribution of wealth and power in their own society. Rome's poor built the Roman Empire.

pjlegato 11y ago
You missed my point in your eagerness to put out the Marxist version of Roman history. The reasons why the basic income was instituted in Rome are indeed fascinating, but not the point here. The point is: once a basic income was instituted -- for whatever reasons -- the vast majority of the populace ceased to care about ALL other factors in politics. Thenceforth, they only cared about who would increase the basic income. This is a very dangerous situation for any society to be in. Incidentally, the world today is in a very analogous situation. Whereas in Rome the work formerly done by the poor was taken by unpaid slaves, today the work formerly done by the poor is taken by unpaid machines -- just like slaves in most respects, except without the annoying moral quandary attached.
- dibujante 11y ago
  Oh dear, the M-word! Out of curiosity, are there any other theories you'd advance, outside of the "decline of virtue" theory? In any case, your point is a good one, although what keeps it from being completely locked in is that this is correlation, not causation. Did "bread and circuses" truly bring down Rome, or was it a symptom of the collapse of Rome? What does the counterfactual look like? Let's say everything else stays the same, but the Aediles are incorruptible, leaving a large, mass of hungry Romans with nothing to do. Isn't this the recipe for insurrection and civil war? Wouldn't the Senate decide that the best solution to this would be ... bread and circuses? It still seems to me that the situation that had developed in Rome produced only two outcomes: either the inhabitants of Rome keep voting themselves bread and circuses, or they rise up in rebellion until someone gives them bread and circuses. Basically, I don't see a "third way" that solves this problem. Absent that, it seems like the origins of Roman collapse need to be traced back farther. Bringing this back to the point of universal income, if universal income creates a culture of dependency like the one described, the analogy implies that this is a symptom of the conditions that created a need for universal income. tl;dr: if this is true, society had already collapsed. Bread and circuses only prolonged the patient's suffering.

pjlegato 11y ago

You missed my point in your eagerness to put out the Marxist version of Roman history. The reasons why the basic income was instituted in Rome are indeed fascinating, but not the point here. The point is: once a basic income was instituted -- for whatever reasons -- the vast majority of the populace ceased to care about ALL other factors in politics. Thenceforth, they only cared about who would increase the basic income. This is a very dangerous situation for any society to be in. Incidentally, the world today is in a very analogous situation. Whereas in Rome the work formerly done by the poor was taken by unpaid slaves, today the work formerly done by the poor is taken by unpaid machines -- just like slaves in most respects, except without the annoying moral quandary attached.

dibujante 11y ago
Oh dear, the M-word! Out of curiosity, are there any other theories you'd advance, outside of the "decline of virtue" theory? In any case, your point is a good one, although what keeps it from being completely locked in is that this is correlation, not causation. Did "bread and circuses" truly bring down Rome, or was it a symptom of the collapse of Rome? What does the counterfactual look like? Let's say everything else stays the same, but the Aediles are incorruptible, leaving a large, mass of hungry Romans with nothing to do. Isn't this the recipe for insurrection and civil war? Wouldn't the Senate decide that the best solution to this would be ... bread and circuses? It still seems to me that the situation that had developed in Rome produced only two outcomes: either the inhabitants of Rome keep voting themselves bread and circuses, or they rise up in rebellion until someone gives them bread and circuses. Basically, I don't see a "third way" that solves this problem. Absent that, it seems like the origins of Roman collapse need to be traced back farther. Bringing this back to the point of universal income, if universal income creates a culture of dependency like the one described, the analogy implies that this is a symptom of the conditions that created a need for universal income. tl;dr: if this is true, society had already collapsed. Bread and circuses only prolonged the patient's suffering.