4 ms·

This is very interesting. I know obsessing over Roman history is seen as somewhat fascist-adjacent, especially emanating from tech spaces, but I keep wanting to

by thom 2y ago

This is very interesting. I know obsessing over Roman history is seen as somewhat fascist-adjacent, especially emanating from tech spaces, but I keep wanting to run a company along the lines of the Republic’s mixed constitution. No king with centralised power (CEO) but elected Consuls with term limits, who have the power to kick off and deliver big projects, aligning teams however they need to. Give every tribe (product, design, engineering, platform etc) a tribune with some degree of veto power. Create a senate with every Senior, who elect the consuls and approve new wars (projects). Employ quaestors across the company to do finops. At the end of your period you get a big triumph if you were victorious, or you get dumped in the Tiber if you abused your power.

atonse 2y ago
This is (sort of) how many defense contractors already are run. Ones like Booz Allen, which are more like 500 small businesses (each one generally, but not always, mapping to one gov contract) and where the leadership work together but have a lot of self-determination to grow their unit. More like an organism with multiple ecosystems but one forest (like one payroll, IT, and financial system and similar resources) to tie them together. It had some interesting effects, like how different teams would compete for candidates and give counter offers, all coming from the same company though.
adrian_b 2y ago
I also believe that certain aspects of the Roman Republic were superior to those of any of the so-called Republics that exist today, all of which do not observe the fundamental rule of the Roman Republic, which was that, there must exist no major management function occupied by a single human, like a president or a prime minister, but in all such roles there must be at least 2 humans, equal in the granted authorities, so that they will control each other, and this rule could have exceptions only in truly exceptional situations, i.e. wars or calamities, when dictators could be appointed. Despite the fact that the modern republics are supposed to have some "checks and balances" to limit the power of the leaders, I have seen too many cases of presidents or prime ministers who, after being elected using various lies, begin to act like absolutist kings and nobody seems able to stop them, because they claim that they "represent the majority of the people who have elected them" and nobody may limit their power, because nobody is equal to them.
- thom 2y ago
  It's true there were usually pairs of consuls and censors, but there were powerful magistracies that were awarded to individuals, like pontifex maximus and the tribune of the plebs, the former being a lifetime appointment. Either way, the Republic collapsed into violence, and was hardly blameless in its own fall. Ultimately whatever checks and balances you have, it's very hard to stop power and wealth accumulating, and thus enormous constituencies feeling disenfranchised.

by thom 2y ago

atonse 2y ago

This is (sort of) how many defense contractors already are run. Ones like Booz Allen, which are more like 500 small businesses (each one generally, but not always, mapping to one gov contract) and where the leadership work together but have a lot of self-determination to grow their unit. More like an organism with multiple ecosystems but one forest (like one payroll, IT, and financial system and similar resources) to tie them together. It had some interesting effects, like how different teams would compete for candidates and give counter offers, all coming from the same company though.

adrian_b 2y ago

I also believe that certain aspects of the Roman Republic were superior to those of any of the so-called Republics that exist today, all of which do not observe the fundamental rule of the Roman Republic, which was that, there must exist no major management function occupied by a single human, like a president or a prime minister, but in all such roles there must be at least 2 humans, equal in the granted authorities, so that they will control each other, and this rule could have exceptions only in truly exceptional situations, i.e. wars or calamities, when dictators could be appointed. Despite the fact that the modern republics are supposed to have some "checks and balances" to limit the power of the leaders, I have seen too many cases of presidents or prime ministers who, after being elected using various lies, begin to act like absolutist kings and nobody seems able to stop them, because they claim that they "represent the majority of the people who have elected them" and nobody may limit their power, because nobody is equal to them.

thom 2y ago
It's true there were usually pairs of consuls and censors, but there were powerful magistracies that were awarded to individuals, like pontifex maximus and the tribune of the plebs, the former being a lifetime appointment. Either way, the Republic collapsed into violence, and was hardly blameless in its own fall. Ultimately whatever checks and balances you have, it's very hard to stop power and wealth accumulating, and thus enormous constituencies feeling disenfranchised.