Subject:	[novaroma] This e-mail is a democracy
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:49:54 -0600

Uhh, Im afraid that I use Oxford English like the rest of the world.
Here is an excellent example of a democracy in this e-mail.
Since the rest of the world (the majority) says it is correct,
then by democracy it is.

Dont insult the founding fathers. They were smart enough to get the
United States going, so they are obviously smart enough to know what
they were talking about.

This 'representative democracy' saying is basically just a word for
people
to say that dont know too much about politics. YOU try to find the word
democracy in the Constitution.





> All of this seems so absurd that perhaps in "US english" the meaning are
> different
> then in rest of the world.
> The USA have a democratic system : representative democraty which the
> founding fathers invented and today is called simply democraty in
> opposition to "direct democracy" which was called democracy by the
> ancients, in an ancient/greek democracy the magistrates are taken by
> lot, in a modern democracy they are elected by all the people, this we
> owe to the founding fathers of the USA.
>
> The sense of democraty has changed a lot since Antiquity just as the
> sense of republic which was just as I already stated : State Affairs
> with no meaning on the form of goverment. The Res Publica Romanorum was
> first a monarchy, then a republic and finally an empire, but in all that
> time it was the Res Publicae.
>
> Republic is a word that remained with the same sense since the middle
> ages : government without a King/Emperor/etc. Venice was a Republic for
> as long as it existed as an independent state, so were o lot of cities,
> but they were no democracies just oligogarchies few had the right to
> vote.
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Partially?!
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:52:19 -0600

S. Apollonius Draco wrote:
>
>
> Countries change, and so must laws. With all due respect to your Founding
> Fathers, but even a traditional society like Rome changed °quite° a bit in
> two centuries, while they still honoured °their° founding fathers. People
> immigrated to the US not because of the Founding Fathers, but because they
> thought they'd have a better life there. It has only partially to do with
> the political system. Besides, when the second large immigration wave hit
> America, the political and legal system had been changed already.
>

PARTIALLY? You DONT think that freedom and the Bill of Rights is WHY
people
move here?

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] This e-mail is a democracy
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:23:25 -0200

"C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
>
> Uhh, Im afraid that I use Oxford English like the rest of the world.
> Here is an excellent example of a democracy in this e-mail.
> Since the rest of the world (the majority) says it is correct,
> then by democracy it is.
>
> Dont insult the founding fathers. They were smart enough to get the
> United States going, so they are obviously smart enough to know what
> they were talking about.
>
> This 'representative democracy' saying is basically just a word for
> people
> to say that dont know too much about politics. YOU try to find the word
> democracy in the Constitution.

Of course not: In 18th century english (and french and everything else)
democracy meant "direct democracy"=Athenian democracy. The US
constitution invented a new form of government which is now called
"modern democracy" or "representative democracy" or most often just
democracy.
The differences between that democracy and antique democracy are huge:
The people don t vote the laws (rarely do) they vote for some
representatives that do,
the people have nearly totally lost the initiative of the laws (htere
are some exceptions in some European countries where the popular
initiative plebiscites exist: Italy, Switzerland perhaps some others but
strongly limited).

Today democracy means a totally different thing from 1776.

And yes under Justinian democracy meant mob-rule, it was applied to the
circus factions rules. That does not mean that today democracy=mob-rule
or that it still means it.


Michel.

>
> > All of this seems so absurd that perhaps in "US english" the meaning are
> > different
> > then in rest of the world.
> > The USA have a democratic system : representative democraty which the
> > founding fathers invented and today is called simply democraty in
> > opposition to "direct democracy" which was called democracy by the
> > ancients, in an ancient/greek democracy the magistrates are taken by
> > lot, in a modern democracy they are elected by all the people, this we
> > owe to the founding fathers of the USA.
> >
> > The sense of democraty has changed a lot since Antiquity just as the
> > sense of republic which was just as I already stated : State Affairs
> > with no meaning on the form of goverment. The Res Publica Romanorum was
> > first a monarchy, then a republic and finally an empire, but in all that
> > time it was the Res Publicae.
> >
> > Republic is a word that remained with the same sense since the middle
> > ages : government without a King/Emperor/etc. Venice was a Republic for
> > as long as it existed as an independent state, so were o lot of cities,
> > but they were no democracies just oligogarchies few had the right to
> > vote.
> >
> >

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Partially?!
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:25:39 -0200

"C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
>
> S. Apollonius Draco wrote:
> >
> >
> > Countries change, and so must laws. With all due respect to your Founding
> > Fathers, but even a traditional society like Rome changed °quite° a bit in
> > two centuries, while they still honoured °their° founding fathers. People
> > immigrated to the US not because of the Founding Fathers, but because they
> > thought they'd have a better life there. It has only partially to do with
> > the political system. Besides, when the second large immigration wave hit
> > America, the political and legal system had been changed already.
> >
>
> PARTIALLY? You DONT think that freedom and the Bill of Rights is WHY
> people
> move here?

Most definitively: NO
they imigrated to the USA in order to achieve economical wealth.

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	"D. Flamen Solus" <dennis@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:49:30 -0800

Salve
Thought my fellow Republicans of Nova Roma would be interested in this:


Early in the 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler described the
dilemma of democracy in his following comments about ancient Athens:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that
they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that
moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
with the result that a democracy always
collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a
dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200
years. These nations have progressed through
the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith,
from spiritual faith to great courage,
from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency, and
from dependency back into bondage."



Training Manual
No. 20000-25
War Department
Washington, November 30, 1928

CITIZENSHIP
Prepared under the direction of
the
Chief of Staff
This Manual Supersedes Manual of
Citizenship Training

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
"direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall
regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by
passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to
consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Constitution of the United States
Article IV Section 4.

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government,"

Training Manual
No. 20000-25
War Department
Washington, November 30, 1928

CITIZENSHIP
Prepared under the direction of
the
Chief of Staff
This Manual Supersedes Manual of
Citizenship Training

REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
and a sensible economic
procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accordance
with fixed principles and established evidence, with a
strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may br brought
within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and
progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

Vale

D. Flamen Solus
Flamen Paterfamilias; Legatus, Sulla et CA/NV
S.P.Q.R.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Partially?!
From:	"D. Flamen Solus" <dennis@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:09 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
> "C. Citius Cattus" wrote:
> >
> > S. Apollonius Draco wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Countries change, and so must laws. With all due respect to your Foun=
ding
> > > Fathers, but even a traditional society like Rome changed °quite° a b=
it in
> > > two centuries, while they still honoured °their° founding fathers. Pe=
ople
> > > immigrated to the US not because of the Founding Fathers, but because=
they
> > > thought they'd have a better life there. It has only partially to do =
with
> > > the political system. Besides, when the second large immigration wave=
hit
> > > America, the political and legal system had been changed already.
> > >
> >
> > PARTIALLY? You DONT think that freedom and the Bill of Rights is WHY
> > people
> > move here?
>
> Most definitively: NO
> they imigrated to the USA in order to achieve economical wealth.
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus

They were able to achieve economical wealth through freedom and the
Bill of Rights.
D. Flamen Solus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Partially?!
From:	"C. Citius Cattus" <plunder@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:22:31 -0600

Michel Loos wrote:
>
>
> Most definitively: NO
> they imigrated to the USA in order to achieve economical wealth.
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus

Perhaps because the United States is not communist and has laws that
help
economic ventures?

This is my last say on this subject.

Subject:	[novaroma] The Law Idea
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:30:14 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Just a few brief comments regarding the recent "Law Idea" and the recent and
unfortunate events concerning Corneliae. A couple of things I want to get
off my chest.

As was alluded to today in an earlier post by Livia Marcia, there has been
discussion in gens Cornelia. There has indeed....lots of it.....Concern and
compassion expressed for Livia, and support of Sulla, who admitted to his
gens that his decision was a hasty one, but admitted so and attempted
reconcilitation and mediation. And, I will say, that although Livia is in
another gens, I wish her and Sulla well in what I hope are some continuing
efforts to come to an amicable understanding.

Although "who" said "what" in gens discussions is not for forum ears, enough
Cornelians have posted here recently in favour of atleast looking at this
law idea regarding IM conversations. Why? Because one of the themes of our
gens discussion was "What can we do to keep such dreadful circumstances from
happening again?" This incident has caused an awful lot of hurt, and nobody
needs this. Several ideas were discussed this weekend, out of concern for
Livia, out of concern for Sulla, and out of concern for all NR civites.

So this "Law Idea" that has been presented by Sulla, is in response to
expressed concerns of members of Corneliae that we should work to prevent
future mishaps.

It has been hypothesized in the forum today that Sulla is trying to "cover"
his tracks for something in his political agenda in the suggestion of a law
which would prevent the misuse of a person's private IM conversations. I do
not see any proof of this, so in my view, it remains a hypothesis. With due
respect, it serves no positive purpose to render such sentiment in the
absence of proof.

This law idea, in essence, is an idea which sprouted from Gens Cornelia
dialogue: it is an issue of social concern, not political agenda.



Bene valete et Pax,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Gens Cornelia




_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Partially?!
From:	"Colin Brodd" <colinbrodd@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:06:53 -0500

> > > PARTIALLY? You DONT think that freedom and the Bill of Rights is WHY
>people move here?
> >
> > Most definitively: NO
> > they imigrated to the USA in order to achieve economical wealth.

>They were able to achieve economical wealth through freedom and the
>Bill of Rights.

This seems to be rather petty bickering of the "my patria is better
than your patria" sort, o cives! But as a historian, I hate to see the facts
abused, so I'll add my 2 denarii -

I agree with Manius - historically, more immigrants came to the U.S.
motivated by the fabled "land of opportunity" and "streets paved with gold"
than any notion of government or laws . . . I remember reading acoounts of
immigrants who, when they did arrive in the U.S., were surprised to find
that the country *really* didn't have a monarch.

Now I am a U.S. citizen and a patriot, as well as a civis Novae Romae.
I love my country, but that's true. And as much as I admire the "Founding
Fathers" (patres patriae?), I can also acknowledge that they were not
perfect (indeed, some would be considered truly immoral and evil by modern
U.S. standards), and I refuse to worship them blindly.

Incidentally, the wealth of the Americas does not necessarily stem from
a system of government. At the time of the major waves of immigration that
account for the majority of the modern U.S. population's ancestry, the
wealth of the U.S. was its untapped resources. The Americas had land aplenty
(though it did seem to be occupied by natives, but that didn't bother the
settlers, who cheerfully destroyed them or displaced them), forests (of the
sort which Europeans had destroyed centuries before), natural resources of
every kind (let's not forget the gold rush of '49). Even before the colonial
period people of Europe were convinced the Americas were a fount of wealth
just waiting to be tapped, after the 13 colonies won their independence it
was the frontier that promised wealth to the world. Oh yes, people heard
that there was freedom from various sorts of persecution to be found in the
U.S. . . . some of them probably moved here because of it (and often found
it was a lie - whatever the books say, persecution has always been prevalent
in America). Need I go on?

I repeat - I am a U.S. citizen and a patriot. I take the pledge of
allegiance very seriously (it is an oath, after all) and I speak it nearly
daily, as a high school teacher. I love my patria. But it is not a perfect
country, nor does it have a perfect history of peace and prosperity brought
about through freedom and fair play.

- C. Valerianus Germanicus
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Law Idea
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:24:38 -0600

Well put Pompeia.

QS


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pompeia Cornelia" <scriba_forum@-------->
To: <NovaRoma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:30 PM
Subject: [novaroma] The Law Idea


> Salvete Omnes:
>
> Just a few brief comments regarding the recent "Law Idea" and the recent
and
> unfortunate events concerning Corneliae. A couple of things I want to get
> off my chest.
>
> As was alluded to today in an earlier post by Livia Marcia, there has been
> discussion in gens Cornelia. There has indeed....lots of it.....Concern
and
> compassion expressed for Livia, and support of Sulla, who admitted to his
> gens that his decision was a hasty one, but admitted so and attempted
> reconcilitation and mediation. And, I will say, that although Livia is in
> another gens, I wish her and Sulla well in what I hope are some continuing
> efforts to come to an amicable understanding.
>
> Although "who" said "what" in gens discussions is not for forum ears,
enough
> Cornelians have posted here recently in favour of atleast looking at this
> law idea regarding IM conversations. Why? Because one of the themes of
our
> gens discussion was "What can we do to keep such dreadful circumstances
from
> happening again?" This incident has caused an awful lot of hurt, and
nobody
> needs this. Several ideas were discussed this weekend, out of concern for
> Livia, out of concern for Sulla, and out of concern for all NR civites.
>
> So this "Law Idea" that has been presented by Sulla, is in response to
> expressed concerns of members of Corneliae that we should work to prevent
> future mishaps.
>
> It has been hypothesized in the forum today that Sulla is trying to
"cover"
> his tracks for something in his political agenda in the suggestion of a
law
> which would prevent the misuse of a person's private IM conversations. I
do
> not see any proof of this, so in my view, it remains a hypothesis. With
due
> respect, it serves no positive purpose to render such sentiment in the
> absence of proof.
>
> This law idea, in essence, is an idea which sprouted from Gens Cornelia
> dialogue: it is an issue of social concern, not political agenda.
>
>
>
> Bene valete et Pax,
> Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
> Gens Cornelia
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>
>
>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Who is to decide?
From:	exitil@--------
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:10:49 EST

In a message dated 1/25/01 6:31:35 PM Central Standard Time, djester6@--------
writes:

> so too is America called a democracy, but in true essence, it is a
Republic.
>
> but, i am not talking about historical references here. i am talking in
> terms
> of concepts, outside of historical context. yes, things can be taken out
> their historical context in an effort to objectively define them.
democracy
> in it's most literal term is a rule by the masses (sounds familiar to
> Marxism?), and that is what makes it so dangerous. It says that the rights
> of
> the individual outweigh the needs or wants of the group. Refer to Atlas
> Shrugged by Ayn Rand to examine this in a deeper effort.

The democracy I know of means "the majority above the individual". I'm sure
there are other definitions, and I know of other definitions, but the
"majority above individual" is most common. Democracy in the modern context
is utilitarian.

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: 'Gladiator' Wins Again
From:	"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:07:22 -0500

I own this movie on DVD and I urge anyone with a DVD player to get it on
that medium rather than video. Just awesome. My friends & I watched
Gladiator on DVD to bring in the New Year. There is a documentary about
gladiators on the DVD which is wonderful - done for the Discovery Channel, I
think.

And I'd love it even if Russell Crowe wasn't in it, despite what my HP says
:)

Helena Galeria

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Law Idea
From:	Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:07:31 +0100

Salvete Pompeia soror atque Scipio frater, salvete Quirites.

Thank you, Pompeia soror veneranda mea, for your words. It should make
clear why this idea was posted here whether it was good to do so or not.

It has been enough turmoil now about the unfortunate and lamentable
affair, and we have discussed it extensively within the gens. Everybody
wants peace and concord to returnto NR and the gens Cornelia - and it is
my deepest hope that there will rise no more discord from all that
happened. As Marius Scipio frater venerandus meus said, all those who
carry on arguing in the public, are about to destroy what we are trying
to build up here.

The gens Cornelia is capable of solving their internal problems
themselves. Many of us serve for NR as magistrates, pontiffs, flamines,
scribae - damaging the reputation of the gens Cornelia before the people
of NR means damaging those members in performing their service - means
damaging NR!

If the historia calamitatum behind the affair which we Corneliae atque
Cornelii all mourn for, is worth to be pursued by a praetor, it will be
pursued - otherwise everybody involved should sit back to consider
her/his role within the affair and to draw her/his conclusions.

I - and I think I am speaking in the name of _all_ Corneliae and
Cornelii - do wish that Livia will find peace and a home in her new
gens. She is a most valued civis NovaRomana, she was a beloved filia of
the gens Cornelia and her memory as a member of this gens will always be
honored; having lost her as a soror and filia still hurts all of us.
On the other hand, I am sure that M. Marcius Rex as being her pater
familias now, will take good care of her and they both will make the
gens Marcia prosper.

Imploring Iupiter as being the god of justice, and Concordia, Pax,
Veritas, Dignitas, &c. is not enough. We, the civites NovaRomani, have
to live this imploration in our minds and hearts, eevry single one of
us, acknowledging the fact that we are all biased and that all we can do
is trying to improve ourselves instead of pointing our finger at others
for whatever reason.

There is quite some truth in what is said to be the words of Jesus - "If
any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at
her."

Bene vale,

Lucilla Cornelia Cinna


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Subject:	[novaroma] Open Governorships
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:55:33 -0500

Salvete, Omnes!

I wanted to remind everyone that the Senate will be considering candidates
for the governorships of Germania and America Boreoccidentalis provinciae
early next month. In addition, the position of governor of California
provincia is now also to be filled.

Any cives who wish to present themselves for consideration for these
positions are asked to contact the Consuls (consuls@--------) as soon as
possible.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	[novaroma] Open Governorships (corrected)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:09:57 -0500

Salvete, Omnes!

I wanted to remind everyone that the Senate will be considering candidates
for the governorships of Germania and America Boreoccidentalis provinciae
early next month. In addition, the positions of governor of California and
Nova Britannia provinciae are now also to be filled.

Any cives who wish to present themselves for consideration for these
positions are asked to contact the Consuls (consuls@--------) as soon as
possible.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Yuck
From:	Ira Adams <iadams@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:46:49 -0600

Salve S. Apollonious

Yes, I have to agree that "Yuck" is a pretty much un-Roman topic, but
certainly an endearingly adolescent one.

The error in *your* basic premise is that there is some objective reality
to the definition of a word, and a common propaganda "buzzword" at that.
Words are defined by their usage and by a consensus of how the majority
of people are using them at a given time. To argue over who has the
"correct" definition of democracy to apply to Nova Roma, Athens, USSR,
and USA is ridiculous.

Of course, few things could be as ridiculous as citing WWII War
Department training manuals as evidence of anything except the prevailing
idiom of that time and circumstance!

And BTW, the USA *isn't* a republic (although that is what it was
intended to be) - it's an oligarchy. It is owned and run by the wealthy
and influential. The electorate at large is mainly just an occasional
inconvenience. Witness how cavalierly the will of the majority was
recently bypassed in order to put the candidate of the oligarchs, the
acknowledged loser, into the White House.

As for your historical "facts" - What you refer to as Nazi Germany was
referred to officially as the Third Reich, which I believe was intended
to represent it as a reincarnation of a Germanic empire. Fascist Italy
was intended to ape Imperial Rome. Fascist Spain never resembled a
Republic - it was a one-man show, run by Franco. The USSR was never a
republic but a federation of "free" republics. Not being ruled by
monarchs is hardly sufficient to define a republic. And what was Franco
(or Stalin, for that matter) if not a monarch? I.e., what do the Greek
roots of "monarch" mean?

I wonder about the value of all this fuzzy thinking (not referring to
yours alone), but have at it (as long as you don't get too "grossed
out"). ;-)

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.


On 1/26/01 6:26 AM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:

>Salvete,
>
>First off, allow me to say that this topic has gone rather un-Roman and
>un-NovaRoman.
>
>C. Citius Cattus scripsit:
>> Uhh, Im afraid that I use Oxford English like the rest of the world.
>> Here is an excellent example of a democracy in this e-mail.
>> Since the rest of the world (the majority) says it is correct,
>> then by democracy it is.
>>
>> Dont insult the founding fathers. They were smart enough to get the
>> United States going, so they are obviously smart enough to know what
>> they were talking about.
>>
>> This 'representative democracy' saying is basically just a word for
>> people
>> to say that dont know too much about politics. YOU try to find the word
>> democracy in the Constitution.
>
>Your basic premisse is all wrong, because you work from your °°opinion°°
>that democracy and republic are opposed as a °°fact°° rather than providing
>evidence. So far you've provided me with evidence that the US is a republic.
>Period.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>D. Flamen Solus dixit:
>
>> Early in the 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler described the
>> dilemma of democracy in his following comments about ancient Athens:
>>
>> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
>> only exist until the voters discover that
>> they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that
>> moment on, the majority always votes for
>> the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
>> with the result that a democracy always
>> collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a
>> dictatorship.
>>
>> "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200
>> years. These nations have progressed through
>> the following sequence:
>>
>> From bondage to spiritual faith,
>> from spiritual faith to great courage,
>> from courage to liberty,
>> from liberty to abundance,
>> from abundance to selfishness,
>> from selfishness to complacency,
>> from complacency to apathy,
>> from apathy to dependency, and
>> from dependency back into bondage."
>
>This still doesn't prove that republics and democracies are opposed.
>
>> Training Manual
>> No. 20000-25
>> War Department
>> Washington, November 30, 1928
>>
>> CITIZENSHIP
>> Prepared under the direction of
>> the
>> Chief of Staff
>> This Manual Supersedes Manual of
>> Citizenship Training
>>
>> DEMOCRACY:
>>
>> A government of the masses.
>> Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
>> "direct" expression.
>> Results in mobocracy.
>> Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.
>> Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall
>> regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by
>> passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to
>> consequences.
>> Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
>>
>
>That seems to me like a US right wing definition (if not extreme right).
>Obviously I do not agree with this. All those who say that democracies and
>republics are opposed merely because there are two opposing °°parties°° in
>the US with these names should step down from their pride as American
>citizen and look at other places in the world. The US does not stand for the
>right definition, and certainly not its military.
>
>> Constitution of the United States
>> Article IV Section 4.
>>
>> "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
>> republican form of government,"
>
>Much like Cattus, you're working from the wrong premisse. This is no solid
>evidence.
>
>> Training Manual
>> No. 20000-25
>> War Department
>> Washington, November 30, 1928
>>
>> CITIZENSHIP
>> Prepared under the direction of
>> the
>> Chief of Staff
>> This Manual Supersedes Manual of
>> Citizenship Training
>>
>> REPUBLIC:
>>
>> Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
>> officials best fitted to represent them.
>> Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
>> and a sensible economic
>> procedure.
>> Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accordance
>> with fixed principles and established evidence, with a
>> strict regard to consequences.
>> A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may br brought
>> within its compass.
>> Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
>> Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and
>> progress.
>> Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
>
>For your information: Nazi-Germany was a republic, fascist Italy was a
>republic, the USSR was a republic, China is a republic, fascist Spain was a
>republic, Yugoslavia is a republic, and so the list goes on with countries
>that DO NOT fall within this definition yet are republics (id est they are
>not ruled by monarchs). Your propaganda is wrong, and I'm grossed out by
>this blatant display of Americanocentrism.
>
>
>Valete,
>Draco
>

Subject:	ADMIN NOTE: (wasRE: [novaroma] Yuck)
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:30:08 -0500

Salve,

I must request that all discussion on this topic cease at once. The thread
of democracy vs. republics *was* at one point on topic, however, as this
change of thread title indicates, it certainly no longer is. No further
public posts on this thread are welcome on the main list.

I would further encourage all citizens to reflect on their posts before
making them. Too often human nature leads us to respond with our emotions
rather than with reason, thus leading to flames. If a post you are making
regards private business, or is a topic that is not (or no longer, as in
this case) relevant to the nation, please make the reply private.
Ceratinly, I would ask that you do *not* continue and/or encourage it. If
you have any doubts or confusion about whether a post belongs here on the
main list, I am at your disposal to assist you with the issue.

As always, all concerns, comments questions and quibbles are welcome at
justicecmo@-------- Please do not reply to this note on the list.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonem

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Yuck
From:	Lucius Sicinius Drusus <drusus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:34:22 -0500

Ira Adams wrote:

>
>
> And BTW, the USA *isn't* a republic (although that is what it was
> intended to be) - it's an oligarchy. It is owned and run by the
> wealthy
> and influential. The electorate at large is mainly just an occasional
> inconvenience. Witness how cavalierly the will of the majority was
> recently bypassed in order to put the candidate of the oligarchs, the
> acknowledged loser, into the White House.
>

Salve,
This isn't the proper forum for discussing the recent US Presidental
Race in strongly partisan terms.

I will mention it as it affects Nova Roma. The US system for selecting a
canidate is similar to the Roman system for selecting a Consul. Popular
vote only matters Within a Century or a State, and the winner of that
Century/State recives it's vote(s) regardless of wheither they won by a
single vote or by a landslide. In both the Nova Roman AND the USA system
it's possible for a canidate to win enough Centuries/States to be
declaired the winner while failing to carry the majority if all the
votes in the Centuries/States are added up.

In niether case does this prove a conspiricy. It's simply due to both
systems being set up so that the winner will have support from many
segments of the population, rather than being selected by overwhealming
support from a few large segments.

Vale
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Partially?!
From:	Piparskegg UllRsson <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:50:36 -0600

Salvete Omnes,

Colin Brodd wrote:
>
> This seems to be rather petty bickering of the "my patria is better
> than your patria" sort, o cives! But as a historian, I hate to see the facts
> abused, so I'll add my 2 denarii -
>
> (excision)
>
> I repeat - I am a U.S. citizen and a patriot. I take the pledge of
> allegiance very seriously (it is an oath, after all) and I speak it nearly
> daily, as a high school teacher. I love my patria. But it is not a perfect
> country, nor does it have a perfect history of peace and prosperity brought
> about through freedom and fair play.
>
> - C. Valerianus Germanicus
>

Bravo, well said.

I have had ancestors buried in this land now called the US and Canada since before the dawn of
recorded time, and more recently, since the end of the 16t century of the Common Era.

I have ancestors who came here as conquerors and exploiters, some who came seeking land and
prosperity for their families, some who came as indentured servants or chattel.

Whatever the reason, here I am.

One of the greatest things about this host community, it affords me the freedom of association to
help a renewal of the Roman Republic get going and flourish.

--
===========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis, Benedicte Omnes!
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives, Paterfamilias Gens Ulleria
Quęstor, Dominus Sodalis
My homestead
http://www.geocities.com/piparskegg/index.html
Nova Roma website
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
Sodalis pro Coqueror et Coquus
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Open Governorships (corrected)
From:	gmvick32@--------
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:39:39 -0700

Salve,

Might I suggest Medioccidentalis Superior be added to the
list?

Livia Marcia Aurelia


Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:

> Salvete, Omnes!
>
> I wanted to remind everyone that the Senate will be
> considering candidates
> for the governorships of Germania and America
> Boreoccidentalis provinciae
> early next month. In addition, the positions of governor
> of California and
> Nova Britannia provinciae are now also to be filled.
>
> Any cives who wish to present themselves for consideration
> for these
> positions are asked to contact the Consuls
> (consuls@--------) as soon as
> possible.
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> "For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a
> profession, and not such a
> bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
>
> eGroups Sponsor


www. .com


>


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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Open Governorships (corrected)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:36:45 -0500

Salvete;

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmvick32@-------- [mailto:gmvick32@--------]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:40
>
> Might I suggest Medioccidentalis Superior be added to the
> list?

Indeed; since it currently stands empty (and has for a while), the position
is always open for someone to submit an application.

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

"For Graccus, hatred of the Patrician class is a profession, and not such a
bad one." (Crassus in the film "Spartacus")

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What does this have to do with NR (was Re: Partially?!)
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:46:58 -0800 (PST)

None of this talk about defining democracy and why
immigrants came to America has anything to do with
NovaRoma. I hope this will be nipped in the bud.

L Aetius Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." --Jean Rostand

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Yuck
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:13:52 -0200

Ira Adams wrote:
>
> Salve S. Apollonious
>
> Yes, I have to agree that "Yuck" is a pretty much un-Roman topic, but
> certainly an endearingly adolescent one.
>
> The error in *your* basic premise is that there is some objective reality
> to the definition of a word, and a common propaganda "buzzword" at that.
> Words are defined by their usage and by a consensus of how the majority
> of people are using them at a given time. To argue over who has the
> "correct" definition of democracy to apply to Nova Roma, Athens, USSR,
> and USA is ridiculous.
>
> Of course, few things could be as ridiculous as citing WWII War
> Department training manuals as evidence of anything except the prevailing
> idiom of that time and circumstance!
>
> And BTW, the USA *isn't* a republic (although that is what it was
> intended to be) - it's an oligarchy. It is owned and run by the wealthy
> and influential. The electorate at large is mainly just an occasional
> inconvenience. Witness how cavalierly the will of the majority was
> recently bypassed in order to put the candidate of the oligarchs, the
> acknowledged loser, into the White House.
>

Republic and oligarchy : back to the long and blonde theme. Oligarchy is
an alternative to democracy. Republic is an alternative to Monarchy and
nothing else.

USA is a Republic, not a totally democratic one since it has a lot of an
oligarchy
and some features of a theocracy too.

> As for your historical "facts" - What you refer to as Nazi Germany was
> referred to officially as the Third Reich, which I believe was intended
> to represent it as a reincarnation of a Germanic empire. Fascist Italy
> was intended to ape Imperial Rome. Fascist Spain never resembled a
> Republic - it was a one-man show, run by Franco. The USSR was never a
> republic but a federation of "free" republics. Not being ruled by
> monarchs is hardly sufficient to define a republic. And what was Franco
> (or Stalin, for that matter) if not a monarch? I.e., what do the Greek
> roots of "monarch" mean?

But it happens that this IS the definition of Republic : not being
governed by a monarch in the whole world. the fact that some U.S.
citizens use another definition
does not change anything to this.

The grfeek root of monarch is government by one, but it was still used
in opposition to tyranny (which is also government by one) by Plato.
Democracy (the greek word) mostly meant mob-rule, but it was used in
opposition to isonomy which (at least in France) is traduced by
democracy.
>
> I wonder about the value of all this fuzzy thinking (not referring to
> yours alone), but have at it (as long as you don't get too "grossed
> out"). ;-)
>

Seems that it is not only GB and USA that are divided by a common
language, but
USA and the rest of the world. Defining better our vocabulary can help
us to understand what the other means.

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>
> On 1/26/01 6:26 AM S. Apollonius Draco (hendrik.meuleman@--------) wrote:
>
> >Salvete,
> >
> >First off, allow me to say that this topic has gone rather un-Roman and
> >un-NovaRoman.
> >
> >C. Citius Cattus scripsit:
> >> Uhh, Im afraid that I use Oxford English like the rest of the world.
> >> Here is an excellent example of a democracy in this e-mail.
> >> Since the rest of the world (the majority) says it is correct,
> >> then by democracy it is.
> >>
> >> Dont insult the founding fathers. They were smart enough to get the
> >> United States going, so they are obviously smart enough to know what
> >> they were talking about.
> >>
> >> This 'representative democracy' saying is basically just a word for
> >> people
> >> to say that dont know too much about politics. YOU try to find the word
> >> democracy in the Constitution.
> >
> >Your basic premisse is all wrong, because you work from your °°opinion°°
> >that democracy and republic are opposed as a °°fact°° rather than providing
> >evidence. So far you've provided me with evidence that the US is a republic.
> >Period.
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >D. Flamen Solus dixit:
> >
> >> Early in the 19th century Professor Alexander Tytler described the
> >> dilemma of democracy in his following comments about ancient Athens:
> >>
> >> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
> >> only exist until the voters discover that
> >> they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that
> >> moment on, the majority always votes for
> >> the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
> >> with the result that a democracy always
> >> collapses over loose fiscal policies, always followed by a
> >> dictatorship.
> >>
> >> "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200
> >> years. These nations have progressed through
> >> the following sequence:
> >>
> >> From bondage to spiritual faith,
> >> from spiritual faith to great courage,
> >> from courage to liberty,
> >> from liberty to abundance,
> >> from abundance to selfishness,
> >> from selfishness to complacency,
> >> from complacency to apathy,
> >> from apathy to dependency, and
> >> from dependency back into bondage."
> >
> >This still doesn't prove that republics and democracies are opposed.
> >
> >> Training Manual
> >> No. 20000-25
> >> War Department
> >> Washington, November 30, 1928
> >>
> >> CITIZENSHIP
> >> Prepared under the direction of
> >> the
> >> Chief of Staff
> >> This Manual Supersedes Manual of
> >> Citizenship Training
> >>
> >> DEMOCRACY:
> >>
> >> A government of the masses.
> >> Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of
> >> "direct" expression.
> >> Results in mobocracy.
> >> Attitude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.
> >> Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall
> >> regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by
> >> passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to
> >> consequences.
> >> Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
> >>
> >
> >That seems to me like a US right wing definition (if not extreme right).
> >Obviously I do not agree with this. All those who say that democracies and
> >republics are opposed merely because there are two opposing °°parties°° in
> >the US with these names should step down from their pride as American
> >citizen and look at other places in the world. The US does not stand for the
> >right definition, and certainly not its military.
> >
> >> Constitution of the United States
> >> Article IV Section 4.
> >>
> >> "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
> >> republican form of government,"
> >
> >Much like Cattus, you're working from the wrong premisse. This is no solid
> >evidence.
> >
> >> Training Manual
> >> No. 20000-25
> >> War Department
> >> Washington, November 30, 1928
> >>
> >> CITIZENSHIP
> >> Prepared under the direction of
> >> the
> >> Chief of Staff
> >> This Manual Supersedes Manual of
> >> Citizenship Training
> >>
> >> REPUBLIC:
> >>
> >> Authority is derived through the election by the people of public
> >> officials best fitted to represent them.
> >> Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
> >> and a sensible economic
> >> procedure.
> >> Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accordance
> >> with fixed principles and established evidence, with a
> >> strict regard to consequences.
> >> A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may br brought
> >> within its compass.
> >> Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
> >> Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and
> >> progress.
> >> Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
> >
> >For your information: Nazi-Germany was a republic, fascist Italy was a
> >republic, the USSR was a republic, China is a republic, fascist Spain was a
> >republic, Yugoslavia is a republic, and so the list goes on with countries
> >that DO NOT fall within this definition yet are republics (id est they are
> >not ruled by monarchs). Your propaganda is wrong, and I'm grossed out by
> >this blatant display of Americanocentrism.
> >
> >
> >Valete,
> >Draco
> >

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] My hair isn't long... it's blonde!
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:37:28 -0500

Salvete!

C. Citius Cattus wrote

>About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves
>oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is
>flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer
>willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be
>subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government
>assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in
>fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."

>And about 63 BC [should be CE - MMSM], Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy
is more cruel than
>wars or tyrants."

On the other hand, in the 50s BCE Cicero - not a friend to democratic
excess - wrote:

"... So liberty has no home in any state except a democracy. Nothing can be
sweeter than liberty. Yet if it isn't equal throughout, it isn't liberty at
all. For how can liberty be equal throughout, I will not say in a monarchy,
where slavery is evident and unmistakable, but in those states where
everyone is free in name only ... For they have no share in the supreme
power, or in national decision-making, or in legal decisions (those are
made by specially appointed judges) ... ."
(De Republica, Bk I, 47, Penguin translation at 21-2

He concludes later on that a mixture of the elements of monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy (i.e. the Roman republican Constitution which we
are seeking to reconstruct) is best.

So give over, please, the persistent efforts to counterpose Republic to
Democracy. A Roman Republic is not a PURE democracy, but it has important
democratic elements.

Valete

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister

Subject:	[novaroma] Invalid Voter Codes
From:	Mike Macnair <MikeMacnair@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:18:15 -0500

Salvete Quirites!

The Rogatores have received the following invalid votes:

Tracking No. Voter Code

Concilium Plebis
1002 1183
1009 CEN321
1011 ROA112
1015 QLQ126
1023 MINOSSE
1029 LKY514
1033 APR023
1034 1138
1037 QXJ340

Comitia Tributa
3004 ROA112
3017 APR023
3019 0[zero]XN227
3021 1138
3026 QXJ340

Could citizens check their records of their votes against this list and, if
they find them listed, check back with the Censors on their voter codes and
re-vote with the correct code.

Valete,

Rogatores

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Invalid Voter Codes
From:	marcusaemiliusscaurus@--------
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:33:20 -0000

Salve Magister,

Sorry! Guess what? My e-mail address went down for a few days.
That makes two of us! We'd better not have this happen in the
december elections...

thanks for doing it though.

Valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

Subject:	Re: ADMIN NOTE: (wasRE: [novaroma] Yuck)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:15:50 +0100

Salvete Curatrix Sermonis et Quirites Novae Romae,

My apologies for getting carried away. It has nothing to do with any phase
of my life I might be in though, as Australicus suggested. However, no more
posting on this thread from me.

Vale et valete!
Draco

Subject:	[novaroma] Voilation of pubic Trust and Confidentiality!
From:	"Quintus Sertorius" <quintus-sertorius@-------->
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:19:01 -0600

26 Jan 2001

Salve All

With this issue still not resolved. We, the People of Nova Roma, still do
not know which citizen has violated the Trust and confidentiality of IM
conversations of Livia Marcia.

We know of two victims, Livia Marcia and Lucius Cornelius. But they are not
the only two people involved in this. Who is the person that is responsbile
for starting this sad scenario?

I believe that the People of Nova Roma have a right to know which citizen
has violated Livia Marcia trust and used her IM conversations without her
knowledge? And, actions should be taken accordingly. Maybe the Censors
should begin a Nota hearing in response to this violation of public morals?
Is this type of action in line with the Virtues of being a Roman? What kind
of Roman would do such an under-handed tactic to use his/her friends in such
an unethical manner? Once again, I declare the People of Nova Roma should
know who this citizen is so that we can take precautions and not be put into
the same situation that Livia Marcia was in.

Vale

Quintus Sertorius

Propraetor
Canada Occidentalis
quintus-sertorius@--------

Join the egroup for Canada Occidentalis
http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_CanOcc

Join the Sertorii egroup.
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sertorii


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What does this have to do with NR (was Re: Partially?!)
From:	djester6@--------
Date:	Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:46:15 EST

In a message dated 1/26/01 10:38:21 AM Central Standard Time,
JSmithCSA@-------- writes:

<< None of this talk about defining democracy and why
immigrants came to America has anything to do with
NovaRoma. I hope this will be nipped in the bud.
>>

I am aware this discussion is to stop, and this is the last I will say...this
has everything to do with NR. So much of American government is derived from
Roman practices (and Greek). By looking at America, we can better understand
and improve NR, weather it is by observing it's bad or good traits.

Vale,

Lugus Brigantius