6 ms·

Roman elites were more like mafia bosses from "The Godfather" than princes. They typically started their day by hearing the petitions of those who were dependen

by beloch 2y ago

Roman elites were more like mafia bosses from "The Godfather" than princes. They typically started their day by hearing the petitions of those who were dependent on them. Roman elites were expected to compete with one another to produce public works, give handouts, and put on extravagant games. They were expected to serve in a sequence of public, military, and religious offices. Failure to do so could get their whole family drummed out of elite circles. Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public. Individuals who exploited the system to an extreme degree to amass wealth (e.g. Marcus Licinius Crassus) could tarnish their reputation. However, even Crassus died in military service trying (very dumbly) to attain the military glory that was expected of roman elites. In the modern world, pretty much all responsibilities that the Roman elite served now rest on governments. Billionaires are free to amass obscene wealth with almost no social responsibility. There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses. Today's system works only if the rich pay their taxes and governments regulate them to prevent excesses on the level Crassus was famous for. The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes and are subverting government power to free themselves of regulations. In the case of some countries, the rich are even seizing the reigns of power and undermining fundamental state institutions. It's a recipe for revolution.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public Roman elites made their big bucks through governorships (corruption) and campaign (conquest). > There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed. > rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes* Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West. > It's a recipe for revolution To the extent we are, it’s towards an imperial transition where the elites take a greater share.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed. Arguably nobless oblige has been embedded in the legal system. The expectation is there and expressed in the tax code. The philosophical process was the elites sat down, codified their obligations and called it "our taxes". Ironically, big chunks of beloch's post is pointing out that billionaires have a huge amount of social responsibility under the modern system. They are expected to provide welfare and build stadiums. Just not administer the process.
  - redczar 2y ago
    They aren’t building the stadiums when those stadiums are paid for with public money that they contribute relatively less to.
- graemep 2y ago
  > Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West. Depends on your definition of rich, your definition of "lion's share" and where in the west. In the UK 18% of government revenue comes from national insurance - which is an income tax only on earned income, and charged at a higher rate on people in lower tax bands. Another 17% is from VAT. Yes, rich people will buy more stuff subject to VAT, but a much lower proportion of their incomes, and it falls a lot as incomes go up. I would guess it pretty much plateaus for the super-rich. About 4% comes from council tax, which is per household with an adjustment for the value of the property you live in, and a that adjustment if far from proportionate and there is a maximum level that is far below the typical value of the residences of the rich. There is a penalty for owning multiple houses for personal use. Again, would plateau at some point. About another 5% comes from fuel and tobacco alcohol duties. Rich people might have bigger cars, but they are also more likely to have EVs, and they do not drink more alcohol AFAIK and are less likely to smoke. Only 23% comes from income tax which is the only clearly progressive tax - and that becomes less clear when you leave for exemptions and the greater ability of the rich to avoid it. It would take a detailed analysis to figure this out. Sources: https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-government-get-its-money https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-go... https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
angra_mainyu 2y ago
I think there is a bit of a false equivalence going on - Roman elites held immense power with far fewer human rights constraints compared to modern wealthy individuals. No, I do not accept hyperbolic wailing of the "being a wagie is literal slavery" sort. 1) slavery and ownership of lives: they could literally own slaves. No matter how much anyone will want to twist "working for corporate" as slavery, there is simply no comparison to such direct dominion. 2) magisterial power: consuls and praetors could even sentence people to death with barely any resistance. You're welcome to find me an example in the first world. 3) land and resource control: we are in an era where the masses have a much larger share of land and resource ownership compared to then (e.g: latifundia). 4) judicial immunity: yeah, we all know the legal system isn't perfect but you don't have the same extreme levels of abuse you had back then unless again, you appeal to corrupt 3rd world countries. 5) military command: I don't see the billionaires in the first world with their own personal armies.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  1, 2 and 4 are comparable to modern North Korea or Nazi Germany. The third, sort of, but with exceptions. 3, it depends, and 5 is really rare nowadays. The closest I can think of is the Wagner Group and the Akhmat Chechen units in Russia, and Wagner showed quite clearly why this privilege is dangerous to the rulers.
- exe34 2y ago
  > You're welcome to find me an example in the first world. You can get a one way ticket to a supermax in El Salvador even if you have the protection of the supreme court.
- cess11 2y ago
  As an example of 2), Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... Or Nora al-Awlaki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki Do you consider the state of Israel "first world"?
inglor_cz 2y ago
IIRC Major American universities get a lot of money from successful alumni. Isn't this an equivalent of the old fashioned Roman games and bread? Today, we are collectively less into gladiators and more into colleges. "The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes" The taxation levels in OECD countries are way higher than whatever any Roman emperor could dream of, and the top 1 per cent usually pays ~ 30 per cent of the total income tax revenue.
rqtwteye 2y ago
“ There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses” It’s the other way now. The taxpayers are paying for stadiums so the billionaires can charge a ton of money for entertainment
HPsquared 2y ago
Noblesse oblige is the name for this concept: that traditionally, the wealthy were socially obligated to "give back". This kind of "social obligation to share within the group" behaviour is seen all over the Animal kingdom too, not only in humans. The difficulty comes in scale and abstraction as we see today.

by beloch 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Roman elites made themselves wealthy through service to the empire, but they were expected to use that wealth to serve the public Roman elites made their big bucks through governorships (corruption) and campaign (conquest). > There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed. > rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes* Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West. > It's a recipe for revolution To the extent we are, it’s towards an imperial transition where the elites take a greater share.

roenxi 2y ago
> Philanthropy is absolutely an expectation, though I agree the noblesse oblige8 has decayed. Arguably nobless oblige has been embedded in the legal system. The expectation is there and expressed in the tax code. The philosophical process was the elites sat down, codified their obligations and called it "our taxes". Ironically, big chunks of beloch's post is pointing out that billionaires have a huge amount of social responsibility under the modern system. They are expected to provide welfare and build stadiums. Just not administer the process.
- redczar 2y ago
  They aren’t building the stadiums when those stadiums are paid for with public money that they contribute relatively less to.
graemep 2y ago
> Relatively, yes. In aggregate, the rich pay the lion’s share of taxes in the West. Depends on your definition of rich, your definition of "lion's share" and where in the west. In the UK 18% of government revenue comes from national insurance - which is an income tax only on earned income, and charged at a higher rate on people in lower tax bands. Another 17% is from VAT. Yes, rich people will buy more stuff subject to VAT, but a much lower proportion of their incomes, and it falls a lot as incomes go up. I would guess it pretty much plateaus for the super-rich. About 4% comes from council tax, which is per household with an adjustment for the value of the property you live in, and a that adjustment if far from proportionate and there is a maximum level that is far below the typical value of the residences of the rich. There is a penalty for owning multiple houses for personal use. Again, would plateau at some point. About another 5% comes from fuel and tobacco alcohol duties. Rich people might have bigger cars, but they are also more likely to have EVs, and they do not drink more alcohol AFAIK and are less likely to smoke. Only 23% comes from income tax which is the only clearly progressive tax - and that becomes less clear when you leave for exemptions and the greater ability of the rich to avoid it. It would take a detailed analysis to figure this out. Sources: https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-government-get-its-money https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-go... https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/ https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

angra_mainyu 2y ago

I think there is a bit of a false equivalence going on - Roman elites held immense power with far fewer human rights constraints compared to modern wealthy individuals. No, I do not accept hyperbolic wailing of the "being a wagie is literal slavery" sort. 1) slavery and ownership of lives: they could literally own slaves. No matter how much anyone will want to twist "working for corporate" as slavery, there is simply no comparison to such direct dominion. 2) magisterial power: consuls and praetors could even sentence people to death with barely any resistance. You're welcome to find me an example in the first world. 3) land and resource control: we are in an era where the masses have a much larger share of land and resource ownership compared to then (e.g: latifundia). 4) judicial immunity: yeah, we all know the legal system isn't perfect but you don't have the same extreme levels of abuse you had back then unless again, you appeal to corrupt 3rd world countries. 5) military command: I don't see the billionaires in the first world with their own personal armies.

inglor_cz 2y ago
1, 2 and 4 are comparable to modern North Korea or Nazi Germany. The third, sort of, but with exceptions. 3, it depends, and 5 is really rare nowadays. The closest I can think of is the Wagner Group and the Akhmat Chechen units in Russia, and Wagner showed quite clearly why this privilege is dangerous to the rulers.
exe34 2y ago
> You're welcome to find me an example in the first world. You can get a one way ticket to a supermax in El Salvador even if you have the protection of the supreme court.
cess11 2y ago
As an example of 2), Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla... Or Nora al-Awlaki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki Do you consider the state of Israel "first world"?

inglor_cz 2y ago

IIRC Major American universities get a lot of money from successful alumni. Isn't this an equivalent of the old fashioned Roman games and bread? Today, we are collectively less into gladiators and more into colleges. "The rich in many countries are no longer paying much in the way of taxes" The taxation levels in OECD countries are way higher than whatever any Roman emperor could dream of, and the top 1 per cent usually pays ~ 30 per cent of the total income tax revenue.

rqtwteye 2y ago

“ There is no expectation, for example, that a billionaire should provide welfare or build a stadium out of his own pocket and provide free entertainment to the masses” It’s the other way now. The taxpayers are paying for stadiums so the billionaires can charge a ton of money for entertainment

HPsquared 2y ago

Noblesse oblige is the name for this concept: that traditionally, the wealthy were socially obligated to "give back". This kind of "social obligation to share within the group" behaviour is seen all over the Animal kingdom too, not only in humans. The difficulty comes in scale and abstraction as we see today.