4 ms·

> Overall the various Romans who contemplated reform were in a way hindered by the tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rathe

> Overall the various Romans who contemplated reform were in a way hindered by the tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems. I'm not convinced the two are separable. One important virtue in a republic is self-restraint, the ability to see an opportunity to enrich or empower yourself at the cost of the republic, and refrain from exploiting it. A self-indulgent people will find it hard to preserve the systems that comprise the republic.

davedx 5y ago
Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. So far.
- sologoub 5y ago
  A lot is changing in the US society and some not for the better - if you compare to even 80s/90s, the strength of the institutions has eroded and the trust is all but gone. The “so far” may not last much longer.
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    Just to put some data behind it, Monmouth found in June that 63% of Republican-identifiers and Republican-leaners believe Joe Biden only won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Seems bad, but how does it stack up to faith in institutions historically?
- dTal 5y ago
  My first thought was that the US in particular suffers from the same disease. It's a highly individual-focused culture that tends to credit people with their successes and blame them for their failures. Criminal justice reform, or harm reduction for drug users, is fiercely opposed on the grounds that it's their fault they got into that situation. A persistent fiction is that if only the right individual becomes President, everything will be fixed. Systems level thinking is unpopular. As for tyrant-resistance, I would go so far as to say that the US just had a tyranny stress test, and the results were deeply concerning.
  - aaron-santos 5y ago
    > Systems level thinking is unpopular. It is. Moreover, the most pressing problems we face are in fact systems level problems. At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous. Are there other sources than the Roman republic for more optimistic instances where this dynamic played out?
    - traject_ 5y ago
      > Systems level thinking is unpopular. I think it is the opposite really. Materialistic thinking is the baseline in modern society and in many ways the tendency to dismiss the unquantifiable as non-existent is one of the greatest weaknesses of modernity. It is certainly far easier to quantify the average temperature in a region using Antarctic or Greenland ice core data and use that to determine how that may affect agricultural production in a historic time period or analyze average skeleton height sizes to assess quality of life metrics than to analyze how cultural changes affected problems. >At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous The Romans may not have worded it correctly but it should not be surprising if we replace the word 'virtue' with 'social norms' and re-analyze how changes in social norms can affect social trust, how institutions are structured and even how families are structured(e.g. a change in norms from the religious change from paganism to Christianity meant a change from the city focused philanthropy of euergetism to the poor/sick focused ecclesiastical charity). Social trust, for example, is very important as it greatly reduces transaction costs yet and its core much of it relies upon the concept of common shared knowledge (in the form of traditions, values and principles) that is difficult to quantify. Yet at its core, the change in social norms would be deeply related to changes in 'virtues' as virtues, in practice, are ideals that society pressures individuals to follow. So, the Romans may not have the scholarly data on material changes in the environment to be sure but they also have a better intuitive understanding of the importance of virtues than their modern successors.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    I think the American people have forgotten some important small-r republican principles. They have forgotten tolerance, accepting that others may have differing values and opinions, but that we need not force them to agree with us. They have forgotten that every power you let "your guy" exercise is going to be turned on you by "the other guy". They have forgotten that loyalty should be to principles, not parties or individuals, because a true principle never turns hypocrite. And they have forgotten that the responsibility for preserving liberty rests with them, not politicians, not Supreme Court justices. There are structural problems, yes, but I believe the root cause is the people's lack of education in these points. The system is made out of people.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. The laws, etc., help a lot, but they are built by people and can be dismantled by people. The founders could have built an authoritarian government; IIRC Washington was offered much more power than he took, and his resignation after two terms was his choice to put democracy first.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
    Hwrein lies the problem that is at the core of our rot. The system promotes the worst for office: as presidents , senators or house. Washington came in to office at great risk and sacrifice to himself and his family. For as long as US politicians are able to enrich themselves and leave high office richer than they started, we shouldnt be surprised that we attract the worst kind of people to politics. This is easily solvable with the right laws but we need a small miracle to get another washington elected first
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Yet the system has worked orders of magnitude better than any other system in human history.
ProjectArcturis 5y ago
A well-designed republic will not rely on the self-restraint of those in power. Indeed, it will assume those who seek power have little self-restraint, and it will have systems of checks and balances intended to prevent would-be tyrants from seizing the entire state.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I don't think it's realistic to expect a structure imposed by law to withstand the abuse of people who make, interpret, and enforce those laws, unless a superior force (the entire people) is opposed to it.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
    I think it's very realistic. Proof is the US has outlasted and bettered most other systems by a substantial margin. Same as switzerland
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      What I'm suggesting is that, insofar as the U.S. (or Swiss, or whatever) system has survived, it is due not only to its structure, but to the activity of its people in opposing governmental "mission creep" — what the U.S. founders called "usurpation". The structure has to be right, it has to be susceptible to popular control, but the people also have to be on guard, or the structure will be destroyed while they're not looking. I'm not as confident as you are that the American system is intact. I think some important elements have been discarded, in large part because the people did not understand their value. For example, the reorganization from the state militias to the largely federalized National Guard, along with the imposition of a large standing army, removed the general population of the states from the defense and federal law enforcement roles, allowing both to get out of the people's control. There are numerous other examples.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      That assumes that the US system's success has been due especially to the laws and not to other factors. The question is, which factors had how much effect?

davedx 5y ago

Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. So far.

sologoub 5y ago
A lot is changing in the US society and some not for the better - if you compare to even 80s/90s, the strength of the institutions has eroded and the trust is all but gone. The “so far” may not last much longer.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  Just to put some data behind it, Monmouth found in June that 63% of Republican-identifiers and Republican-leaners believe Joe Biden only won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Seems bad, but how does it stack up to faith in institutions historically?
dTal 5y ago
My first thought was that the US in particular suffers from the same disease. It's a highly individual-focused culture that tends to credit people with their successes and blame them for their failures. Criminal justice reform, or harm reduction for drug users, is fiercely opposed on the grounds that it's their fault they got into that situation. A persistent fiction is that if only the right individual becomes President, everything will be fixed. Systems level thinking is unpopular. As for tyrant-resistance, I would go so far as to say that the US just had a tyranny stress test, and the results were deeply concerning.
- aaron-santos 5y ago
  > Systems level thinking is unpopular. It is. Moreover, the most pressing problems we face are in fact systems level problems. At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous. Are there other sources than the Roman republic for more optimistic instances where this dynamic played out?
  - traject_ 5y ago
    > Systems level thinking is unpopular. I think it is the opposite really. Materialistic thinking is the baseline in modern society and in many ways the tendency to dismiss the unquantifiable as non-existent is one of the greatest weaknesses of modernity. It is certainly far easier to quantify the average temperature in a region using Antarctic or Greenland ice core data and use that to determine how that may affect agricultural production in a historic time period or analyze average skeleton height sizes to assess quality of life metrics than to analyze how cultural changes affected problems. >At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous The Romans may not have worded it correctly but it should not be surprising if we replace the word 'virtue' with 'social norms' and re-analyze how changes in social norms can affect social trust, how institutions are structured and even how families are structured(e.g. a change in norms from the religious change from paganism to Christianity meant a change from the city focused philanthropy of euergetism to the poor/sick focused ecclesiastical charity). Social trust, for example, is very important as it greatly reduces transaction costs yet and its core much of it relies upon the concept of common shared knowledge (in the form of traditions, values and principles) that is difficult to quantify. Yet at its core, the change in social norms would be deeply related to changes in 'virtues' as virtues, in practice, are ideals that society pressures individuals to follow. So, the Romans may not have the scholarly data on material changes in the environment to be sure but they also have a better intuitive understanding of the importance of virtues than their modern successors.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I think the American people have forgotten some important small-r republican principles. They have forgotten tolerance, accepting that others may have differing values and opinions, but that we need not force them to agree with us. They have forgotten that every power you let "your guy" exercise is going to be turned on you by "the other guy". They have forgotten that loyalty should be to principles, not parties or individuals, because a true principle never turns hypocrite. And they have forgotten that the responsibility for preserving liberty rests with them, not politicians, not Supreme Court justices. There are structural problems, yes, but I believe the root cause is the people's lack of education in these points. The system is made out of people.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. The laws, etc., help a lot, but they are built by people and can be dismantled by people. The founders could have built an authoritarian government; IIRC Washington was offered much more power than he took, and his resignation after two terms was his choice to put democracy first.
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  Hwrein lies the problem that is at the core of our rot. The system promotes the worst for office: as presidents , senators or house. Washington came in to office at great risk and sacrifice to himself and his family. For as long as US politicians are able to enrich themselves and leave high office richer than they started, we shouldnt be surprised that we attract the worst kind of people to politics. This is easily solvable with the right laws but we need a small miracle to get another washington elected first
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Yet the system has worked orders of magnitude better than any other system in human history.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago

A well-designed republic will not rely on the self-restraint of those in power. Indeed, it will assume those who seek power have little self-restraint, and it will have systems of checks and balances intended to prevent would-be tyrants from seizing the entire state.

JasonFruit 5y ago
I don't think it's realistic to expect a structure imposed by law to withstand the abuse of people who make, interpret, and enforce those laws, unless a superior force (the entire people) is opposed to it.
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  I think it's very realistic. Proof is the US has outlasted and bettered most other systems by a substantial margin. Same as switzerland
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    What I'm suggesting is that, insofar as the U.S. (or Swiss, or whatever) system has survived, it is due not only to its structure, but to the activity of its people in opposing governmental "mission creep" — what the U.S. founders called "usurpation". The structure has to be right, it has to be susceptible to popular control, but the people also have to be on guard, or the structure will be destroyed while they're not looking. I'm not as confident as you are that the American system is intact. I think some important elements have been discarded, in large part because the people did not understand their value. For example, the reorganization from the state militias to the largely federalized National Guard, along with the imposition of a large standing army, removed the general population of the states from the defense and federal law enforcement roles, allowing both to get out of the people's control. There are numerous other examples.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    That assumes that the US system's success has been due especially to the laws and not to other factors. The question is, which factors had how much effect?