Subject:	[novaroma] Offensive Divisions!
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:50:16 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus Priscillae Vediae Serenae S.P.D.

I am here responding for my self, and not for Piscinus, who can
doubtless do so on his own behalf. And I can only say for a beginning
that I find your atttitude very hard to understand and full of
outright error as to what I have said.

You wrote:

Today, however, I find myself offended..indeed angered..... to the
point where I must speak out against the malicious lies and
deliberate attempts at division that I had the displeasure to read
from both Formosanus and Piscinius. I have chosen "not" to quote
their posts because, quite frankly, my anger is not related to one
phrase or turn of words, so much as it is towards their blatant
attempt to casually toss the cives of this nation into what they see
as opposing groups.

MAF: I do not know what it means to "casually toss the cives...into
what they see as opposing groups". This is an election period and
some people are running on a conservative/authoritarian platform and
others on a liberal/moderate one. The whole electorate is voting for
these two tendencies and so dividing themselves. By noticing and
mentioning this tendency we are not creating it. What is there to
fuss so about?
___________________

I find myself offended by the very notion of there being a specific
set of groups within Nova Roma into which we must all be
pigeon-holed.

MAF: Who said you "must" be pigeon-holed? If you are an atypical
person who wishes to hover in the centre and split your vote equally
between the two sides, no one is stopping you. Most people have a
preference for one of the sides based on their personal values and
perceptions, and the virulence of your attack only on us would seem
to point to a fundamental preference for our opponents. Which is your
right, but I wish you would not diguise it as something neutral when
obviously it is not.
______________

Given that neither Piscinius nor Formosanus saw fit to name
specific individuals who inhabit the "Amici Potestatas"

MAF: I *did* name them, which seems to show that you read my posts
without the attention that should preceed a response like this.
______________

or the "faction" (as opposed to the "circle of friends" of
Piscinius), one must assume they have both taken the "you are either
with us or against us" dogma to the extreme.

MAF: In fact I named them "Amici Potestatis", a name parallel to our
own "Amici Dignitatis", and I do not believe that I ever called them
a "faction". But why such misplaced indignation over names in any
case? We are both groups of people clear around the leaders and
fuzzing out around the edges.

How dare they?

How dare ANY citizen so callously categorize their fellow cives,
simply to facilitate their own attempt at being elected?

MAF: I do not see anything "callous" about observing that we have a
range of political opinion on the normal liberal - authoritarian
continuum typical in virtually all countries of the earth. Nor am I
sure how doing something which upsets you as a voter so much can in
itself get us elected. Unless of course such a division is popular,
and if you believe it is, why do you oppose it so much?
___________________

Are there people with whom they disagree? Of course. Does this
grant them the right to insinuate that ONLY the Amici Dignitatis are
concerned with human rights and dignity?

MAF: In fact I publically posted that a number of candidates running
*against* us were good men - among them Cassius Iulianus and
Alexander Probus. I *do* wish you would read before you attack.
_____________
To insinuate that some form of conspiracy must exist among non Amici
Dignitatis members to somehow walk all over other citizens? I think
not.

MAF: The conspiracy among the Amici Potestatis is not the finding of
some obscure logic, but something obvious to anyone following the
political scene during the past year.
________

It is one thing to disagree with someone on political or ideological
grounds. I applaud such differences, as they often lead to
stimulating debate and occasionally to some great new ideas. I,
however, detest the use of political rhetoric when used as a tool to
defame an entire sector of the populace, a sector that has...by and
large.......said and done nothing to warrant such treatment.

MAF: It is not the uncommitted "by and large"; it is about a small
group, and I have named them.
_____________
Nothing, unless one were to count NOT signing the statement of Amici
Dignitatis as having "chosen sides".

MAF: Choosing sides in a moral conflict openly and clearly is often a
virtue, I think. But note what I said above about above my favourable
references to non-Amici candidates.

I, for one, value our nation far too much to allow such divisions to
go unchallenged. For those who have been citizens for a while, you
can surely attest that I am not one to raise my voice in anger. I
assure you that I do so today simply because I refuse to allow the
community and good fellowship which IS alive and well in Nova Roma to
be tarnished by the ignorant and malicious statements of two men
looking to be elected by any means necessary.

MAF: And I am sure that people who know me are aware that during the
past year I have raised my voice in the interests of tolerance and
the rights of the individual civis to justice. If every civis, even a
member of a sexual minority with slightly special needs, were treated
with human dignity, then the community and good fellowship of Nova
Roma would be on a much sounder footing. Unity cannot be bought at
the price of trampling the inconvenient individuals underfoot.

If you care so much about the "callous categorizing" of citizens,
then why not also concern yourself with the *really* callous
categorizing of cives into a gender they do not feel themselves to be
and telling them to like it or lump it? We have to care about what is
being done to fellow citizens in the name of *our* state. That caring
is the one and only way to have real community, unity, fellowship,
and good will. Oppressing the weak or the few and then asking others
to shut up about the injustice of it in the name of community is
*not* the way.

Vale!

Pagina Candidatoria:
http://www.diocletian.de/elect/formosanus/

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius    
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976495826/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Offensive Divisions!
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:47:53 -0500

Salve,

>>MAF: I do not know what it means to "casually toss the cives...into what
they see as opposing groups".>>

It means precisely what it says. You have divided (in your mind) the
citizens of Nova Roma into two camps. One agreeing with you and one against
you. You began the very notion of there having to be two opposite camps in
Nova Roma, refusing to accept that people can disagree ideologically on a
single issue and yet not be "against" one another in the sense of opposite
sides which we as voters must decide between. There *is* no fundamental
schism within Nova Roma which must be dealt with. There "are" a few cives
unstaisfied with the Gender Edict, which hardly amounts to the crisis of
conscience you would like us to believe exists for "the whole electorate".

>>This is an election period and some people are running on a
conservative/authoritarian platform and others on a liberal/moderate one.>>

I suppose here is where we disagree. I see some candidates, yourself chief
among them, attempting to create a platform of revolution/sweeping change on
which to be elected. The vast majority of candidates, whether they be
signatories of the Amici Dignitatis or not, appear to running on their own
ideas and merits, not some platform of "us versus them". That you believe
that all candidates have a platform of such a black and white nature is
quite telling. I also find it quite interesting that, in your world,
conservatism and authoritarianism are synonyms.

>>The whole electorate is voting for these two tendencies and so dividing
themselves. By noticing and mentioning this tendency we are not creating
it.>>

With all due respect, you could not "be" more wrong. I have seen very
little evidence that many, let alone "the whole electorate" accept your idea
of sides and factions. You indeed attempted to create just such divisions,
but thankfully it appears that most cives recognize it for the political
rhetoric it is, and not for the truth you wish it to be. The very fact that
you are so convinced that the divisions are real and that we "all" must also
agree is, again, quite telling.

>What is there to fuss so about?>

I suppose what you call "fuss" I call concern. Such is the way of
semantics. I stated the reasons for my anger quite clearly in the original
post, if you still do not comprehend my reasons that is something I cannot
help you with.

Vale,

Priscilla Vedia Serena



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976499422/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: CONCORDIA
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:52:23 -0600

Hit reply, doh. Re-sent.

Piparskegg UllRsson wrote:

> Salvete,
>
> Spurn not the message, though the messenger be soiled by dust from the
> journey.
>

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976506756/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Fund Raising and Taxation
From:	Oppius Flaccus <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:16:10 -0800 (PST)

Salvete Quirites,

I have seen much written in recent posts regarding
taxation and fund raising. As a very new NR citizen,
please excuse some of my ignorance of NR historical
debates on this topic. If this has been brought up
before, then please feel free to correct me. (I have a
thick skin and am not ashamed to be offended or
chastised...but perhaps this is a theme for another
post :-)

Though far from being an expert on taxation in the
ancient Roman world, I DO know that that the majority
of funds were traditionally garnered in one of the
following ways:

1-Roman citizens gave freely of material possessions,
time; and perhaps most importantly their lives in
times of crises. In times of war, citizens gave
materials, food, assisted with weapons production,
etc. In other words, direct physical contributions
as opposed to heavy financial contributions.

2-Wars of conquest

3-"Tax Farming" in the provinces. Formal taxation of
Roman citizens in Roma proper, was largely
inconsequential until Diocletian. The provinces and
allies bore the brunt of state coffer enhancement.

4-Proscriptions. <<'nuff said here :-)>>

5-"Borrowing" from religious shrines and temples.

Anyway, what I really wish to address here is item #1.
One could expound volumes on Roman virtues and how at
least throughout the Republican and parts of the
Empire periods, Roman citizens were more than willing
to help in any way they could when the mierde got
thick. It is with this in mind, that I ask the simple
question:

Why can't the citizens of NR voluntarily give a few $
to advance the growth of our great nation? How about
this: We each give $1 of our own (specifically, $1
per year) to the state treasury. Based on the current
citizenship count that's at least $615! This would
more than cover the base operating expenses of Nova
Roma, as they seem to now sit according to the last
financial documents. Now, think if we gave $2, $3 or
$5 a year...I think the point (and the math) speaks
for itself. To further the point, how about $100 or
more per citizen, per annum? The NR land ownership
dream inches closer and closer toward reality. (Land
ownership, for the record; being something I
wholeheartedly support. Certainly this is one of the
main precepts that we can *all* unite under?)

In stating this, I'm not shortsighted enough to think
of this as anything but one of many potential
short-term fund-raising options. Still, I'm happy to
put my mouth where my postings are and start the ball
rolling in light of this festive Saturnalia season. So
as to not "show anyone up" or make a spectacle, I'm
going to pull an Agrippa simply make a variable annual
contribution starting on or before 1/1/01 solely for
the betterment of Nova Roma. I'll be in touch with the
Senate to discern how to go about doing this. Anyone
else want to 'Rally to the standards?'

One other brief idea (before finally going to bed!) is
to hold a raffle. I have to think that offering a
raffle to the citizens (as well as those outside our
great nation) on antiquae optimae (warning, suspect
Latin...) such as coinage, statues, oil lamps, etc.,
could raise a few denarii as well.

In closing, I again state that if these items have
been previously mentioned or discussed, then please
advise. I have no wish to dwell on dead issues or take
undue credit for the previous ideas of others. -Bottom
line, I just want a great Nova Roma! Meanwhile, I
leave the longer-term financial issues of taxation,
fiscal management and requisition of NR non-profit
status up to those infinitely more qualified than
myself.

Valete,
Oppius Flaccus Severus



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976515371/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] To Vedius on Gender Issue
From:	Gian G Reali <piscinus@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 06:39:57 -0800

Salve Vedius

Scripsisti:
"Indeed; would you have an objection if everyone were required to send in
a
photocopy of their driver's license? We used to require everyone
snail-mail
their application for Citizenship, back in the early days; this wouldn't
be
too huge an imposition. No one has said anything other than we yield to
the
decision of the macronation of which any given Nova Roman is a citizen.
At
this stage, I see no reason not to leave this matter in the hands of
those
that have the infrastructure to decide it definitively. If you insist
that
everyone should send in a copy of their driver's license, in the
interests
of fairness, I might support that point of view. But I want to hear your
justification of it, first."

Respondeo:

I would indeed object to a requirement for a photocopy of a driver's
license, or comparable documentation, where additional and unnecessary
information would become included. With driver's licenses in particular,
there are differences between states, and between countries, as to what
information is found on a driver's license. In the case of Ohio, not
only would you receive a picture of my wry smile, but also my SSN. In
conjunction with other information I have provided Nova Roma in my
application for citizenship, I am not inclined to give you my social
security number too.

With this issue on the Gender Edict there are several points involved.
First, unless the same information and documentation is required of all
applicants, then the edict is discriminatory in intent and in content.
It really does not matter who the edict is directed at. I would be more
favorable towards any edict which applies equally to all citizens.

The second issue is whether Nova Roma has sufficient need for the
additional information. We do require some statement of age, if not
documentary proof, and do insist our younger members also provide
parental consent before joining with us. That information I would
consider Nova Roma having a sufficient need to request. Nova Roma does
not have sufficient need for information on what colour my mustache is
this month, or where it's been. Don't bother to ask me for a photograph
to prove I have one.

A third point is that Nova Roma citizens come from different
macronations, with different standards, different documentation,
different laws regarding discrimination. I do not believe Nova Roma
should accept the standards of any macronation, but should pursue its
own. At the same time though we must be aware of the differences and
should attempt to limit conflicts of interest between our micronation and
the respective macronations of our citizens. Our rule of thumb should be
that we require the least amount of information, to avoid the greatest
amount of difficulties.

An entirely different set of issues has then arisen out of the arguments
being made over the Gender Edict, and that concerns whether individual
citizens have any rights inside Nova Roma. Our Consul Fabius, who is now
a candidate for Praetor, has posted in the past that we citizens have no
rights. His justification for his view is that ancient Romans had no
rights, so neither should Nova Roma citizens. I have taken exception to
his view of Roman history in my previous posts, and to his view of Nova
Roma's Constitution, and to the implication of his words. A Praetor
Urbanus who believes citizens have no rights would not only be an
historical inaccuracy, and a poor recreation, but also a gross mistake
for any micronation claiming to follow a rule of law.

You, Vedius, have expressed an opinion that all Nova Roma citizens have
a right to leave Nova Roma whenever they feel they are being oppressed or
wronged. That does not address the question of whether any citizen has
any rights while they still remain in Nova Roma. Your answer I regard as
essentially the same as that of Fabius. What rights any of us have
inside Nova Roma, some are now protesting, is being left to the arbitrary
whims of some magistrates. What you seem to say in reply then is that if
we do not like it, get out. If that is the case so be it, but it should
be so stated on Nova Roma's main page that we are a private association
that restricts, inhibits, or otherwise discourages some people from
joining Nova Roma. Like Justinia Cassia has posted before, an attitude
of "love it or leave" is oppressive in nature in itself. I feel citizens
do have rights within Nova Roma, but question whether they are being
allowed to equally exercise their rights.

Free association is a civil right too. If you wanted to make a little
boys club, no girls allowed, that is your right Personally I would not
have seen any attraction in joining. If you wanted to then discriminate
among your membership, or applicants for membership, that too is your
right and the right of the organization as a whole, but only so long as
you state this is the case before hand. You should have mentioned you
were an offshoot of the BSA first. Should you wish to set up sodalitates
in Nova Roma that has exclusive membership requirements, that is your
right and I would support you having such a right. However, if you are
going to state that Nova Roma is open to ALL individuals with an interest
in ancient Rome, then let it be open to ALL on an equal footing. If Nova
Roma is meant for certain kinds of people alone, to the exclusion of all
others, then let me know beforehand so I know what kind of organization I
am being asked to associate. Otherwise you have infringed upon my right
to free association.

Vale
Piscinus
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976534332/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Fund Raising and Taxation
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:07:34 -0000

> Why can't the citizens of NR voluntarily give a few $
> to advance the growth of our great nation?

Indeed, many have contributed money and services to Nova Roma. To cite
just a couple of examples, the citizens of Germania contributed a
substantial sum this year, Marcus Octavius Germanicus is hosting our
site for free on his server, and many magistrates use their own funds
for phone calls, postage and office supplies to do their jobs.

We are currently awaiting word from the U.S. tax authorities regarding
our application for non-profit status. Once this is approved, I
anticipate we will enjoy more contributions from our U.S. citizens.

>I'm going to pull an Agrippa simply make a variable annual
> contribution starting on or before 1/1/01 solely for
> the betterment of Nova Roma. I'll be in touch with the
> Senate to discern how to go about doing this.

It's easy! Just send the money (in a check or money order made out to
"Nova Roma") to Nova Roma, P.O. Box 1897, Wells, ME 04090.

> One other brief idea (before finally going to bed!) is
> to hold a raffle.

As I understand it, raffles -- a form of fund-raiser in which
participants buy tickets for a relatively small sum, and one ticket is
chosen to win a fairly substantial prize -- are not legal in all parts
of the U.S., and I have no idea about how they are regarded in other
nations. Does anyone have any expertise, or would you be willing to
research this?

Thank you for your energy and ideas! Nova Roma needs these.

Patricia Cassia
Quaestor, Nova Roma



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976540056/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:59:26 -0800

Salvete Fortunate et al

>> 'Immortality is a true unattainable. The only form of immortality that
>> can be acheived is to leave behind a name for ourselves.'
I believe this was written by Epicuro or other Epicurean philosopher.

Fortunatus scripsit:
>However, take a look at what it is that we know of them. We know some
>of what they wrote, and some of the opinions others had about them. We
>also know what has been written about their writings, and what has been
>written about the things that were written about them. But we do not
>know them.
>And, eventually, even those things will cease to exist. Some day,
>nobody will remember who Cicero or Plato were, even through third-,
>fourth-, or any-hand accounts. Ask the average man on the street who
>Camillus was, and he will most likely stare at you blankly. All things,
>even reputations, eventually end.

Well, I humbly change the first sentence to a different one:
"MORTALITY is a true unattainable."

It's true, the names perish. But the memory, that will never perish. I'm not
talking about the memory of Men, I'm talking about the memory of the
Universe! The Universe is subject to change, but a change in the FUTURE is
always dependent on the PRESENT state of the Universe, and this PRESENT
state is dependent on the PAST. And this is an interminable chain of cause
and effect.
The simple fact that one exists is already a determinant of the future. The
name of a man and the memory of his deeds may perish, but the effect of his
deeds will always remain!
Today, you have given piece of bread to a bagger, saving him from dying of
starvation. That man you saved will have a son, and that son will have
another son, and his grandson will discover the cure of a disease and save
Mankind from total anihilation! It was not his grandson who saved Mankind,
it was you who saved his grandfather. And although no one will remeber your
name and your deed, the memory of your act will be engraved on the Universe
as the surviving Mankind herself!

Epicuro, great philosopher, you have asked your disciples to celebrate your
birthday every year in the hope that you would live forever in the memories
of men! How could you fail to grasp that even if your name and and deeds are
vanished from the memory of Mankind, the effect of your deeds will be
forever written in the athoms that you describe as immortal?! How could you
fail to grasp that although you could make Mankind remember your name, you
would never be able to make the Universe forget your existence?
So, do not despair philosopher, for you are as immortal as anyone or
anything, for the memory of the Universe is as eternal as the memory of the
Gods!

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976543205/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] On Shortening the Woodpile
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:15:21

Quiritibus salutem

Scripsit sapientissima Iulia Cassia:

>Referring to disagreements, there is an old saying which >states, 'Where
>there is no wood, the fire goes out.' There are so many >people here who
>have so much to offer. In the interests of Concordia >and Pax, may I
>respectfully request that we all attempt to shorten >our individual
>woodpiles? ;-)

I have been applying this maxim in a different way. Instead of venting my
anger at some very petty, humourless and unneccessary posts, often making
bizarre accusations, which seem designed to be divisive or downright
personal, I go outside and cut firewood.

There are the remains of three of last year's felled elms in my yard (yes -
fasces material - I intend to appear with at least one lictor at public
events this coming year!)

I use energy evoked by my personal indignatio to rip-saw the timber into
logs (chanisaws are for wimps!), which I then split with an axe (that's the
best bit, and I hope no-one has a headache as a result).

This work is far more productive than annoying people on the Main List with
petulant postings, and I like to think that my recent relative silence
irritates certain detractors (and one in particular who wants me to respond
in kind, as he never fails to).

A useful by-product of this Industria is that there's more fuel in the
woodshed than ever before and - O Frugalitas! I find that the exercise has
made me nice and warm, so there's no need for me to light the praefurnium
after all (even if Aletheia and the cats disagree).

As one of my great-uncles was fond of saying: "It's surprising what you can
do without when you try."

I commend Iulia Cassia for her post, and this healthier exercise to you all.
We can all do without the other. Nova Roma can be a lot more fun than some
of us seem bent on trying to make it.

Bene valete,

Vado.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976544123/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Cool Greek archaeological site
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:34:00 -0000

http://www.stoa.org/metis/index.html

has panoramic virtual-reality photos of Greek archaeological sites.
You'll need Quicktime VR (free) to view them. Worth a look if you're
an archaeology fan.

P. Cassia


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976548845/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rights in Rome
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:35:30 EST

In a message dated 12/11/2000 3:32:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
piscinus@-------- writes:

<< Our Consul Fabius, who is now
a candidate for Praetor, has posted in the past that we citizens have no
rights. His justification for his view is that ancient Romans had no
rights, so neither should Nova Roma citizens. I have taken exception to
his view of Roman history in my previous posts, and to his view of Nova
Roma's Constitution, and to the implication of his words. A Praetor
Urbanus who believes citizens have no rights would not only be an
historical inaccuracy, and a poor recreation, but also a gross mistake
for any micronation claiming to follow a rule of law. >>

Salvete all!
I asked Piscinus via private e-mail to tell me where and when I said that
citizens of Rome had no rights? Since he never replied, I assume he doesn't
want to talk to me privately about it. I believe my words were taken out of
context, which seems to be the order of the day around here in the Forum. I
think it had something to do with voting in the Centuries or Tribes. How the
majority counted in each and not the total plurality like in the Hellenic
assemblies.
However be that as it may, of course Nova Roman citizens have rights. And
that is why we have two City Praetors, to help enforce them. We have also
have the office of the Tribune to protect all citizens from abuses. And if
the citizen doesn't like what is happening in the micronation, he can vote
with his feet, and leave. No one is pinned here. That alone is a huge right.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Candidate for Praetor Urbanus
http://romanrepublic.org/campaign/Fabius/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976552552/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:46:18 US/Central

Salvete

Antonius Gryllus scripsit:
> Well, I humbly change the first sentence to a different one:
> "MORTALITY is a true unattainable."
>
> It's true, the names perish. But the memory, that will never perish. I'm not
> talking about the memory of Men, I'm talking about the memory of the
> Universe! The Universe is subject to change, but a change in the FUTURE is
> always dependent on the PRESENT state of the Universe, and this PRESENT
> state is dependent on the PAST. And this is an interminable chain of cause
> and effect.

Well, I never meant to imply that one doesn't have an effect upon the
universe. One's actions are important, and they do, as Antonius Gryllus
rightly points out, have an effect upon the future. On a cosmic scale, that
effect is exceedingly small, but it is certainly a real effect.

Also, it is true that all energy is conserved within the universe (at least as
far as we know). Therefore, my constituent atoms will be a part of the
universe for however long it lasts, which may very well be forever.

And so, I agree with Antonius Gryllus that a kind of immortality is inevitable,
and that it is possible for me to make the future a better or worse time in
which to exist.

However, immortality usually implies that one can actively participate in the
world in perpetuity. When M Aurelius died, he ceased to be capable of
affecting further change upon the world. His potential was spent. True, his
actions created lasting elements in the world which still influence other
people's actions. However, he himself is incapable of action. Indeed, he no
longer exists, and his legacy can't be said to be any more alive than a rock
that influences the path I take from my house to my car every morning.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976553180/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:25:19 -0800

Salvete Labiene et al

>However, immortality usually implies that one can actively participate in
the
>world in perpetuity. When M Aurelius died, he ceased to be capable of
>affecting further change upon the world. His potential was spent. True,
his
>actions created lasting elements in the world which still influence other
>people's actions. However, he himself is incapable of action. Indeed, he
no
>longer exists, and his legacy can't be said to be any more alive than a
rock
>that influences the path I take from my house to my car every morning.
And doesn't the rock affect your life actively? How many times has it made
you fall for being distracted? Had it been Marcus Aurelius to put the stone
there, I would say that Marcus Aurelius still affects your life.
But still, what you say is very important. We are given a very narrow
lifespan to prepare the eternity of our immortality. We are given such a
narrow lifespan in order to prepare our share on the Fate of things and Men.
Fate, the property of the Gods is also shared by us as their instruments and
servitors in the world. Yes, the share of each one of us is small. Yet it is
necessary even in a Universal scale. Change the position of an athom, and
Fate will not be exactly the same. Our share of Fate can even be multiplied!
Can Marcus Aurelius expect a better thing than having a share on the Fate of
the Men born after him? That indeed makes him a God. That indeed honours his
Apotheosis as Divus Marcus Aurelius!

And after this talking we would even have to consider another part of what
you say: Energy. I would not be able to tell more than my personal belief
about Energy. Nevertheless, let that word take the value of the mystery it
encloses. After death, where goes the Energy that fills our body which we
usually call "Life"? Surely it is not lost. Is it transformed? Maybe... Who
knows? The secrets of Energy are far from being discovered. Ask the Nuclear
Physics how many new particles they had to invent mathmatically on paper in
order to explain the mysterious behaviour of Energy! And surely they will
answer you with nothing more than a probability equation. Energy has of
course its share on the causes and effects of the Universe. Maybe the Energy
to which we call life is no exception: freed from a body, enclosed in
another or others... Maybe the energy of Marcus Aurelius is still there
participating in some appropriate form, sometimes guiding the thoughts and
actions of those inspired by his Philosophy. Maybe Marcus Aurelius is a
small - yet as necessary as anything else - part of the Laws of the
Universe, a small part of the Universal Mind...

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976555643/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rights in Rome
From:	RexMarcius@--------
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:17:24 EST

Salve Consul Fabie!

As not all of us are on-line 24 hours a day and you seems to be looking for a
swift answer I might offer a guess:

Pisicinus might have referred to your post of 30 March 2753 AUC (message Nr.
11577 of the main list) which could be misunderstood the way he brought
forward:

"However, when it comes to our Government, I feel I must answer. While it is
true the United States' Government as a republic modeled somewhat on the Roman
the two are light years apart in tone. The guaranteed US' "Bill of Rights"
are not based on Roman ones. Romans citizens were only guaranteed one thing.
That they could appeal any charges brought against them under Roman Law."

But he will clarify it himself I guess.

Ave et Vale
Marcus Marcius Rex
Amicus Dignitatis

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976558666/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:27:57 US/Central

Salvete Antoni Grylle et alii

> >Indeed, he no longer exists, and his legacy can't be said to be any more
> >alive than a rock that influences the path I take from my house to my car
> >every morning.
> And doesn't the rock affect your life actively? How many times has it made
> you fall for being distracted? Had it been Marcus Aurelius to put the stone
> there, I would say that Marcus Aurelius still affects your life.

The rock does affect my life, but not actively. There is no intelligence
within the rock that decides to interfere with my path. If M Aurelius placed
the rock where it is, then the result of one of his actions affects my life.
He does not do so directly. As we move away from the moment of an action, any
effect it has is lost in more and more indirection.

Can it really be said that Marcus Aurelius has an appreciable influence on my
life when said influence is enacted fith-, sixth-, or even a thousandth-hand?
And, isn't such an influence really the work of that thousandth hand--that
person nearest to me on the chain of events? This doesn't seem to be what
people generally mean when they talk about immortality.

> But still, what you say is very important. We are given a very narrow
> lifespan to prepare the eternity of our immortality. We are given such a
> narrow lifespan in order to prepare our share on the Fate of things and Men.
> Fate, the property of the Gods is also shared by us as their instruments and
> servitors in the world. Yes, the share of each one of us is small. Yet it is
> necessary even in a Universal scale. Change the position of an athom, and
> Fate will not be exactly the same. Our share of Fate can even be multiplied!

This far, I generally agree with you.

> Can Marcus Aurelius expect a better thing than having a share on the Fate of
> the Men born after him? That indeed makes him a God. That indeed honours his
> Apotheosis as Divus Marcus Aurelius!

One generally posits a more direct and active divinity than you are suggesting
here. Why ever would anyone sacrifice to and ask favors of a God that is
incapable of taking an active interest in the affairs of his worshippers?
Sure, the actions he took while in life have an affect upon me. However, there
is nothing he can do to change that affect, as he can perform no further
actions. Such a God has no potential.

> And after this talking we would even have to consider another part of what
> you say: Energy. I would not be able to tell more than my personal belief
> about Energy.

I wouldn't expect otherwise. And, in general, we agree about much here. For
myself, I equate energy with the fire of the ancient Stoics. It is the active
principle of the universe.

> Maybe the Energy to which we call life is no exception: freed from a body,
> enclosed in another or others... Maybe the energy of Marcus Aurelius is still
> there participating in some appropriate form, sometimes guiding the thoughts
> and actions of those inspired by his Philosophy. Maybe Marcus Aurelius is a
> small - yet as necessary as anything else - part of the Laws of the
> Universe, a small part of the Universal Mind...

The degree to which this can be said to be immortality depends on the degree to
which Aurelius' energy is sensate and capable of discerning itself as
independent. A drop of water returned to the ocean essentially ceases to exist.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976562878/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 19:45:08 -0800

Salve iterum Labiene

>Can it really be said that Marcus Aurelius has an appreciable influence on
my
>life when said influence is enacted fith-, sixth-, or even a
thousandth-hand?
>And, isn't such an influence really the work of that thousandth hand--that
>person nearest to me on the chain of events? This doesn't seem to be what
>people generally mean when they talk about immortality.
<snip>
>The degree to which this can be said to be immortality depends on the
degree to
>which Aurelius' energy is sensate and capable of discerning itself as
>independent. A drop of water returned to the ocean essentially ceases to
exist.
Maybe that's because joining our narrow lifespan there is also a narrow
perception of Life and the Universe. Due to the contingencies of life, the
living humans are so worried with their insignificant existence that they
forget their significant Universal existence. That perception of the
insignificant is not Man's fault... Though it is Man's fault not to perceive
the narrowness of his perception compared to the significance of the All. A
man can choose to be just a small drop of water or otherwise to be a part of
Oceanus.

Vale bene amice
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976563943/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] To Vedius on Gender Issue
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:46:57 -0800

Oh Gn. Moravius, you object, I see. Well M. Apollonius did not object to it when he
made his post to NR's list (Message 13138). It is very interesting that there are
differences between this. The Poll on Egroups shows that most people prefer this
moderate version, this compromised version.

Even our Constitution defers back to the Macronations of our residence. Look at
(II.A.1). Where is states that Nova Roma recognizes any person who is Sui Juriis by
the municipal laws of his or her domicile. This means that if you are 17 years old,
and can vote in Russia, then technically you can vote in the election in Nova Roma.
We will need proof though. :)

What makes this provision any different than on requireing proof that your
macronation must recognize your gender? Answer, Nothing.

Even (II.b.2) states, the Right and obligation to remain subject to the civil rights
and laws of the countries in which they reside or hold citizenship. This
establishes the dual citizenship clause.

Gn. Moravius, your wrong. Nova Roma is just like any other nation. We have laws
that we must enforce. Good laws that do not take away from the credibility of Nova
Roma. When I promulgated the Name change Edict, that was my sole purpose. We had
to find a way of being able to enforce this edict. There was already precedent by
having younger citizens already send in parental consent forms. With that in mind,
I see no impediment for citizens who want to go by a different gender than what they
phyiscally are IF they can provide documentation that their macronation recognizes
them as the very same gender. So, a drivers license or any other macronational
document that states gender will be sufficient enough for me to change someone's
gender.

Why should Nova Roma be any different? To make Nova Roma any different than any
other macronation detracts from the very purpose of Nova Roma.

And, since you object, I guess that means that you wont be going around trying to
convince us that you are a woman and want to use Gnea Moravia Piscina? And
utlimately you disagree with it and I am for it. Therefore we are at an impasse.
However, here is the Poll on the NR website. Most people are either for a very
strict edict or a compromised edict. Therefore I would say that, the current name
change edict represents the People of Nova Roma very well.

No, one should be given a choice to be recognized as a male or female. 19 20.00%
Yes, one's Roman name should always reflect his/her actual gender(ie his/her legal
gender). 34 35.79%
Yes, but exceptions should be made for those living their real (not virtual) lives
as the opposite gender. 33 34.74%
I really don't care. 9 9.47%

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Gian G Reali wrote:

> Salve Vedius
>
> Scripsisti:
> "Indeed; would you have an objection if everyone were required to send in
> a
> photocopy of their driver's license? We used to require everyone
> snail-mail
> their application for Citizenship, back in the early days; this wouldn't
> be
> too huge an imposition. No one has said anything other than we yield to
> the
> decision of the macronation of which any given Nova Roman is a citizen.
> At
> this stage, I see no reason not to leave this matter in the hands of
> those
> that have the infrastructure to decide it definitively. If you insist
> that
> everyone should send in a copy of their driver's license, in the
> interests
> of fairness, I might support that point of view. But I want to hear your
> justification of it, first."
>
> Respondeo:
>
> I would indeed object to a requirement for a photocopy of a driver's
> license, or comparable documentation, where additional and unnecessary
> information would become included. With driver's licenses in particular,
> there are differences between states, and between countries, as to what
> information is found on a driver's license. In the case of Ohio, not
> only would you receive a picture of my wry smile, but also my SSN. In
> conjunction with other information I have provided Nova Roma in my
> application for citizenship, I am not inclined to give you my social
> security number too.
>
> With this issue on the Gender Edict there are several points involved.
> First, unless the same information and documentation is required of all
> applicants, then the edict is discriminatory in intent and in content.
> It really does not matter who the edict is directed at. I would be more
> favorable towards any edict which applies equally to all citizens.
>
> The second issue is whether Nova Roma has sufficient need for the
> additional information. We do require some statement of age, if not
> documentary proof, and do insist our younger members also provide
> parental consent before joining with us. That information I would
> consider Nova Roma having a sufficient need to request. Nova Roma does
> not have sufficient need for information on what colour my mustache is
> this month, or where it's been. Don't bother to ask me for a photograph
> to prove I have one.
>
> A third point is that Nova Roma citizens come from different
> macronations, with different standards, different documentation,
> different laws regarding discrimination. I do not believe Nova Roma
> should accept the standards of any macronation, but should pursue its
> own. At the same time though we must be aware of the differences and
> should attempt to limit conflicts of interest between our micronation and
> the respective macronations of our citizens. Our rule of thumb should be
> that we require the least amount of information, to avoid the greatest
> amount of difficulties.
>
> An entirely different set of issues has then arisen out of the arguments
> being made over the Gender Edict, and that concerns whether individual
> citizens have any rights inside Nova Roma. Our Consul Fabius, who is now
> a candidate for Praetor, has posted in the past that we citizens have no
> rights. His justification for his view is that ancient Romans had no
> rights, so neither should Nova Roma citizens. I have taken exception to
> his view of Roman history in my previous posts, and to his view of Nova
> Roma's Constitution, and to the implication of his words. A Praetor
> Urbanus who believes citizens have no rights would not only be an
> historical inaccuracy, and a poor recreation, but also a gross mistake
> for any micronation claiming to follow a rule of law.
>
> You, Vedius, have expressed an opinion that all Nova Roma citizens have
> a right to leave Nova Roma whenever they feel they are being oppressed or
> wronged. That does not address the question of whether any citizen has
> any rights while they still remain in Nova Roma. Your answer I regard as
> essentially the same as that of Fabius. What rights any of us have
> inside Nova Roma, some are now protesting, is being left to the arbitrary
> whims of some magistrates. What you seem to say in reply then is that if
> we do not like it, get out. If that is the case so be it, but it should
> be so stated on Nova Roma's main page that we are a private association
> that restricts, inhibits, or otherwise discourages some people from
> joining Nova Roma. Like Justinia Cassia has posted before, an attitude
> of "love it or leave" is oppressive in nature in itself. I feel citizens
> do have rights within Nova Roma, but question whether they are being
> allowed to equally exercise their rights.
>
> Free association is a civil right too. If you wanted to make a little
> boys club, no girls allowed, that is your right Personally I would not
> have seen any attraction in joining. If you wanted to then discriminate
> among your membership, or applicants for membership, that too is your
> right and the right of the organization as a whole, but only so long as
> you state this is the case before hand. You should have mentioned you
> were an offshoot of the BSA first. Should you wish to set up sodalitates
> in Nova Roma that has exclusive membership requirements, that is your
> right and I would support you having such a right. However, if you are
> going to state that Nova Roma is open to ALL individuals with an interest
> in ancient Rome, then let it be open to ALL on an equal footing. If Nova
> Roma is meant for certain kinds of people alone, to the exclusion of all
> others, then let me know beforehand so I know what kind of organization I
> am being asked to associate. Otherwise you have infringed upon my right
> to free association.
>
> Vale
> Piscinus
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976564537/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:49:58 US/Central

Salve Antoni Grylle

> Maybe that's because joining our narrow lifespan there is also a narrow
> perception of Life and the Universe. Due to the contingencies of life, the
> living humans are so worried with their insignificant existence that they
> forget their significant Universal existence. That perception of the
> insignificant is not Man's fault... Though it is Man's fault not to perceive
> the narrowness of his perception compared to the significance of the All. A
> man can choose to be just a small drop of water or otherwise to be a part of
> Oceanus.

While I suspect we might disagree on the specific application of the above,
there's certianly nothing there I can argue with.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus



-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976567837/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Philosophical question
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:55:51 -0800

Salve Labiene amice

>> Maybe that's because joining our narrow lifespan there is also a narrow
>> perception of Life and the Universe. Due to the contingencies of life,
the
>> living humans are so worried with their insignificant existence that they
>> forget their significant Universal existence. That perception of the
>> insignificant is not Man's fault... Though it is Man's fault not to
perceive
>> the narrowness of his perception compared to the significance of the All.
A
>> man can choose to be just a small drop of water or otherwise to be a part
of
>> Oceanus.

>While I suspect we might disagree on the specific application of the above,
>there's certianly nothing there I can argue with.
And don't worry with that my Labiene, for the subject of our disagreement
cannot be debated more thoroughly within the limits of rational discourse.
;)

Vale bene et bonam Fortunam
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976568192/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem III Idus Decembres (December 11th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:09:46 -0800

Salvete omnes

Here is the religious posting for today.

Valete in pace deorum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

************************************

This is a dies nefastus publicus (NP), a day for special religious
observance in which no legal action can take place.

Today is the Agonalia of December, in honour of Sol Indiges, the traditional
Roman solar deity. At His temple at the Circus Maximus, near the
race-tracks, He was considered as the protector of the four-in-hands which
joined the races. The Rex Sacrorum sacrifices a ram to Sol Indiges.

Today is the Septimontium (the festival of the Seven Hills), which
celebrates the federation of the inhabitants of the Capitol, Palatine,
Aventine, Quirinal, Viminal, Esquiline and Caelius. A sacrifice is made on
each one of the hills.

The month of December is sacred to Vesta.


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976569023/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Can you help me?
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:59:35 -0800

This inquiry came to the Censors. Maybe someone with military knowledge
might be able to answer this? :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Tristan Warneke wrote:

> Dear sir or madam,
> I am part of a creative team working on an educational reading
> program. One of the topics in this reading program covers the Roman
> army's siege of Masada. I was wondering if you could help me in
> obtaining pictures that would fit with this topic? I am mostly
> interested in what would appear to be Roman military pictures, both in
> battle and in camps. I thought that you would be a good place to start
> since, by the website, you seem to have connections to many Roman
> reconstruction groups. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Tristan Warneke
> Indivisual Learning, Inc


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/61050/_/976572556/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Subject:	[novaroma] The Candidate Debate
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:19:03 +0100

M. Apollonius Formosanus Quiritibus omnibus S.P.D.

As a candidate participating in Sunday's Live Debate Forum,
initiated by the Amici Dignitatis in accordance with its Statement, I
would like to report my personal happiness with it and extend my
thanks to Censor L. Cornelius Sulla Felix and especially to the very
capable moderatrix Pompeia Cornelia Strabo - those two non-members of
the Amici Dignitatis who graciously consented to be involved in order
to maintain a true neutrality in which all candidates would feel at
home.

Unlike the arguments on the lists, the format of the debate
discouraged the captious criticisms and ad hominem attacks on other
candidates. More than that, however, there seemed to be a great deal
of goodwill and camraderie among the candidates of different
political persuasions. Afterwards Senator Cincinnatus IIRC broke out
the champagne, and we had an agreeable political party :-).

I am encouraged to see that some of the key ideas of the Amici
Dignitatis, namely setting ourself the task of creating real legal,
and judicial systems, and activating the Comitia so that the People
can in fact as well as theory exercise their sovereignty, have become
an accepted programme for virtually all of the major candidates
present. I think that whether I succeed or fail at my candidacy,
these ideas which I and we have championed are sure to be realised in
the upcoming year. They are ideas whose time has come.

This is not to say that the Amici are not representing a bit more
than that: we also favour clear guarantees of civil and human rights.
M. Cassius Iulianus, a non-member of the Amici, also has this idea,
but when I asked Vedius Germanicus whether he thought human rights
were relevant to Nova Roma, he replied that he thought that
macronations will do that for us adequately. His reasoning was that
it is easy for the dissatisfied to leave Nova Roma.

He is correct that there does exist a route of seeking redress
through suit in U.S. federal and state courts for rights violations
against individuals on the part of Nova Roma as a U.S. legal entity.
That strikes me as something that would be disastrous for us. Not
everyone will leave quietly if mistreated as Vedius seems to desire,
nor should they be expected to. This is something that we must deal
with both idealistically and realistically. We need our equivalent of
a Bill of Rights, and no other kinds of laws, courts or popular
voting can replace that element in our state system.

After our meeting, I am encouraged about the possibilities of
working with my fellow magistrates and senators if I am elected as
Praetor Urbanus. And rest assured that I will not forget in the
details of the labour the all-important fact that law must protect
the individual civis - every civis. Laws exist to protect and
facilitate, not to be an obstacle or encumbrance to individual
freedom or initiative.

If you agree with that, I would be glad to have your vote, and I
remind you that all signatories of the Statement of the Amici
Dignitates are pledged to that point of view as well.

Valete!

My Candidate Page can be found at:
http://www.diocletian.de/elect/formosanus/


Marcus Apollonius Formosanus << CANDIDATVS PRAETORIVS >>
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius    
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/61050/_/976579035/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->