Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list
From:	TClaudiusNero@--------
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 20:14:09 EDT

Salvete!

Whoah!

SPQR
Drusus Vipsanius Claudius
(or is it Druisius?)

In a message dated 5/5/2001 4:25:36 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
lsicinius@-------- writes:

<< Salve,

I Have visited Asia and Africa, so I've seen poverity on a scale that
few in the west can dream of. Most of the horrid conditions are caused
by corrupt governments, and a culture that clings to outmoded ideas.
This may sound hard, but the truth often is, If these people aren't
willing to leave these areas, or rise up in bloody revolt against
those who are causing them to live at this level, they deserve the
lifestyle they have.

I was born into what passes for poverity in the USA. I still remember
the day they installed a wonderful device in our house. It was called
a hot water heater. It was pure magic! To be able to just turn on the
tap and have hot water in seconds rather than waiting for the water to
boil on the stove. Of course when my cousins came to vist they thought
we were really wealthy since we had this luxary in addition to piped
in water rather than a well and an indoor bathroom rather than the
outhouse they used.

My parents were teenagers when I was born. They WORKED thier way out
of poverity rather than whining about being poor and waiting for
someone to come along and give them a middle class lifestyle. I don't
waste my time worrying over those who aren't willing to do what my
parents proved can be done. My concern is with those who are trying to
better themselves.

I've seen what passes for poverity in the west first hand, and I'll
tell you flat out, The vast majority of the "poor" (execpting
children) bought that condition apon themselves by choices they made
in the past, and will continue to live in poverity because they will
continue to make poor choices.

If we restrict the use of the word need to the bare minimum for
survival, they all anyone NEEDS is a cave, a bearskin, and spear with
a flint point. I can't say I need a car to get to work, because I
could spend about 5 hours each day WALKING to work and another 5
walking home, or seek a lower paying job that would only require a
couple of hours of walking each day.

I will not restrict my use of the word "need" to meeting the
definitation a caveman would place on it. I NEED a car to get to work.
Nova Roma NEEDS fast and relible communications.

Vale,
Lucius Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Fragged Hard Drive
From:	Marilyn Traber <margali@-------->
Date:	Sat, 05 May 2001 21:36:21 -0400

Well, being a military brat, and a military spouse, I use it in a
military manner ;-)

Typically, smoke coming out of a computer is not a good thing
*sigh*
My favorite techie is currently working with it, it appears that
when the bearings went, something seems to have way overheated
catastrophically and has partially melted one of the little disc
thingies inside to the point that it is visibly deformed. I did
have a bit of advanced warning it was going bad, it was getting
really cranky but I thought it was probably a software type
problem. I really didn't expect suicide.

I don't know anything much more technical than that - I still
think he fixes computers by opening them and sacrificing chickens
;-)

I do tend to know a bit more about using programs than actually
fixing the blasted things. On the plus side, I now have a
replacement compaq presario with a 40 gig hd and a cd r/w. ;-)

As soon as we confirm that the motherboard and other inner bits
are OK, I have another HD we can slap in. Then I will have a
second computer [not counting my amiga, that is ;-) ]
margali
Hyapatia Asinia
~~~~~~~~~~
the quote starts here:
It is sometimes possible to recover some or all of the data that
was
lost on a hard drive. What do you mean when you say "fragged"?
Normally this word is used for a drive that the data is
fragmented and
the computer works very slowly because it has to spend a lot of
time
gathering the data from all over the drive, but it still works.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Fragged Hard Drive
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 02:36:35 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Maril--------raber <margali@9...> wrote:
> Well, being a military brat, and a military spouse, I use it in a
> military manner ;-)
>
> Typically, smoke coming out of a computer is not a good thing
> *sigh*
> My favorite techie is currently working with it, it appears that
> when the bearings went, something seems to have way overheated
> catastrophically and has partially melted one of the little disc
> thingies inside to the point that it is visibly deformed. I did
> have a bit of advanced warning it was going bad, it was getting
> really cranky but I thought it was probably a software type
> problem. I really didn't expect suicide.
>

As a Nav Vet, I think there's a better military term for your drive,
foobar. (No translation will be provided for those who don't know the
term) ;o)
Sorry deformed platters fall into the range where it would cost many
times what your Compaq cost to recover any data, and with deformed
platters that recovery would be partial at best. On the other hand,
check out the drive makers web site. Most of them have a three year
warranty, so you may be able to get a replacement (blank) for about
US$ 5.00 shipping. I really lucked up on one of these last year. It
was a 1.5 gig drive, and Seagate was out of them and they sent me a 10
gig replacement! Most of the time you just get a reman drive the same
size, but Fortuna may smile on you as she did on me.

> I don't know anything much more technical than that - I still
> think he fixes computers by opening them and sacrificing chickens
> ;-)
>

This case calls for a white bull ;o)

> I do tend to know a bit more about using programs than actually
> fixing the blasted things. On the plus side, I now have a
> replacement compaq presario with a 40 gig hd and a cd r/w. ;-)
>
> As soon as we confirm that the motherboard and other inner bits
> are OK, I have another HD we can slap in. Then I will have a
> second computer [not counting my amiga, that is ;-) ]

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful than this, Use that CD r/w to back up
stuff that you don't want to lose if it happens again.

Drusus


Subject:	[novaroma] Slavery (was: Re: Two issues)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 22:42:06 -0400

Salve

First off, my apologies for being absent from the list these last few days.
I have been having hellacious problems with sending email (not connected to
the problems others have been having with yahoogroups) that have hopefully
now been resolved.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcassiusnerva@-------- [mailto:gcassiusnerva@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:00 AM
>
> Shortly after I left, there was some discussion on whether or not NR
should
> take a stand against slavery. This is a safe enough issue; I doubt we
have
> anyone who is in favor of slavery.
>
> I'm opposed to this however. What other issues then would NR have to take
> sides on? Should NR come out in favor of the Kyoto treaty? What about UN
> intervention in various world trouble spots? Will NR have to take a stand
on
> abortion too?
>
> I encourage NR members to get involved in any issues they are concerned
> with---as individuals. But let's leave NR out of it.

I must, respectfully, disagree. As issues facing the world go, slavery is
one of those which has a definitive association with Rome in the popular
mindset. It also happens to be one of the few facets of society in Roma
Antiqua which Nova Roma has unequivocally discarded. Even beyond the fact--
as you very rightly point out-- that slavery in the modern world is entirely
unacceptable, to take a definitive stance against its continuation in the
twenty- first century would be to affirm our own rejection of that aspect of
our cultural heritage.

In short, we should publically reject slavery because it is so closely
associated with ancient Rome, just as we have already rejected the the
disenfranchisement of women or the use of force of arms to achieve our
goals.

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 22:43:41 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcassiusnerva@-------- [mailto:gcassiusnerva@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:00 AM
>
> Another issue is the Religio and tax money, which L. Sinicius Drusus
> commented on on April 21 and which unfortunately got little response. I
> think one of the downsides of polytheism is that the adherent is bound to
> support several religious institutions instead of just one!

Actually, polytheism has nothing at all to do with religious institutions,
but with the number of deities to which honor is given. The ancient Celts,
to take only one example, were polytheistic, and yet they only had a single
religious institution; the Druids. Nova Roma's multiple religious
institutions are merely another of those wonderfully ideosyncratic aspects
of Roman life we embrace.

> But seriously, I
> am opposed to any tax money being used for the maintainence and
propogation
> of the Religio. If the Religio is important to those who practice it,
> certainly the practioners will take personal reponsibility for making
funds
> available. I do not believe in asking anyone to contribute to any
religious
> institutions other than their own.
>
> If the religio needs money, there could be a separate fund onto which
> practioners could make their own contributions.

I must say these are curious words indeed coming from someone who is the
adopted son of our own beloved Pontifex Maximus!

Nova Roma was originally founded as a vehicle for the expression of the
Religio Romana. It subsequently grew into the pan-Roman-culture organization
we have today, but the practice of the Religio has always been, and always
will be, the central reason for Nova Roma's existence. I believe this aspect
of Nova Roma has always been clear and presented prominently in our website
and other informational materials. I daresay few people have joined Nova
Roma who were unaware of our stance regarding the Religio Romana, and those
that were are most certainly able to leave or simply not pay any taxes that
the Senate may see fit to impose.

Indeed, I would be vastly surprised if some sort of Pantheon to the Roman
Gods, or some other manner of shrine or temple, was not among the first such
real-world building projects that Nova Roma undertook, most probably to
serve the needs of the State and cives in either (both?) Europe or America.
It will certainly be included in any sort of Nova Roman Forum which may
someday be constructed. Any taxes collected from our Citizens-- practioners
of the Religio or not-- will certainly be put towards such an effort. To
assume otherwise is to ignore our very raison d'etre, which has never been
hidden from anyone.

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 22:51:26 EDT

In a message dated 5/5/01 9:39:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
kristoffer.from@-------- writes:

> Age restrictions. Currently, as far as I'm aware, any citizen, of any
> age, may vote. However, most offices won't accept applicants below the
> age of 21. How about making this the age when one gets to vote as well?
> A "majority", of sorts. Until you're 21, you're considered a child/a
> youth, you don't have to pay taxes, but neither do you get to be elected
> into office. You may still serve as an appointed official, such as
> scriba, but until you've "come into your own", you won't be trusted in
> an office. Comments?

Salvete,

I was thinking about this post earlier today when it appeared on the list,
and now that it is in my mailbox, I'm ready to comment. I'm speaking from
the benefit of a few hours of conversation around the dinner table with
friends and family.

I've always wondered why it is that someone can join the military and
possibly die in an armed conflict in the interests of my country at 17 years
of age, but must wait another year to vote...and another four years to
partake of alcoholic beverages.

Since Nova Roma doesn't have an armed force per se, we can define the age of
majority as the same as that of eligibility for holding an office. I'm not
sure that it has to do with trust, but in all other respects I agree with
Titus Octavius Pius on this one. Just my two sestercia (sp?).

Valete,
L. Tiberius Sardonicus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Fragged Hard Drive
From:	Marilyn Traber <margali@-------->
Date:	Sat, 05 May 2001 22:57:59 -0400

I plan on using my new cd r/w a lot ;-)

I am sure my techie will do the return thing, I also lucked out
last year and got a replacement 10 gig for a 1.2 gig, which is
why I have a spare 10 gig. The new presario has a 40 gig, and is
the 800 MHz celeron, replacing a 450 MHz amd. I have noticed that
it is much zippier ;-)

I am sort of disconcerted, it has windows millennium and works
loaded, but didn't include the actual discs. I hate not having
the discs in case of another crash! I have an email in to them
asking about that!
margali
Hyapatia Asinia

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Age
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 23:08:41 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: from@-------- [mailto:from@--------]On Behalf Of
Kristoffer From
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 12:37 PM
>
> Age restrictions. Currently, as far as I'm aware, any citizen, of any
> age, may vote. However, most offices won't accept applicants below the
> age of 21. How about making this the age when one gets to vote as well?

If I may, as things currently stand, one may not even be a Citizen until one
attains the age of majority in one's macronation. I hope to change this with
an amendment to our Constitution this summer (which I had discussed back in
February and brought up again in my post in March entitled "Tidying up the
Constitution"). So, no, a six-year-old cannot technically be a Citizen right
now, or vote, or hold office.

> A "majority", of sorts. Until you're 21, you're considered a child/a
> youth, you don't have to pay taxes, but neither do you get to be elected
> into office. You may still serve as an appointed official, such as
> scriba, but until you've "come into your own", you won't be trusted in
> an office. Comments?

I find this a flawed idea. If we have open Citizenship to people of all
ages, and then establish an "age of adulthood", I might agree about voting
rights. However, I personally can imagine some instances-- provincial
quaestores once they're officially authorized, for example-- where age
limits for appointed positions might be beneficial. Too, participation in
the voting process is a far cry from serving in government; why should the
two functions have identical criteria? Some things just need older people,
and some things can be open to those who are younger. We cannot make a
blanket "you're old enough now to do everything" law; different things
should have different age-minimums.

Personally, I don't see any reason to coddle our younger cives and cater to
their natural impetuousness and impatience. I had to wait until I could
drive, vote, drink, and other things; I see no reason why Nova Roma needs to
be particularly Utopic in regards to giving young people rights and
advantages. Believe it or not, there are real reasons to require a minimum
age to assume a given office or exercise the power to vote.

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Fragged Hard Drive
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 03:40:32 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Maril--------raber <margali@9...> wrote:
> I plan on using my new cd r/w a lot ;-)
>
> I am sure my techie will do the return thing, I also lucked out
> last year and got a replacement 10 gig for a 1.2 gig, which is
> why I have a spare 10 gig. The new presario has a 40 gig, and is
> the 800 MHz celeron, replacing a 450 MHz amd. I have noticed that
> it is much zippier ;-)
>
> I am sort of disconcerted, it has windows millennium and works
> loaded, but didn't include the actual discs. I hate not having
> the discs in case of another crash! I have an email in to them
> asking about that!
> margali
> Hyapatia Asinia

I'd be disconcerted about the Windows ME. Microsoft has a history of
thier OS's having problems that have to be cured by an update or
service pack. That's why I still run Windows NT 4 on my Windows boxes
and will not move to Win2000 untill I see how service pack 2 turns
out, and why I would have stayed with Windows98 SE if I used the
consumer OS.

Microsoft is discourging PC makers from shipping discs to "prevent
piracy" and the makers have found they can save a couple of $$ by
leaving them out. I'm not sure what Compaq's policy is, but most PC
makers place the Install discs on the hard drive, which is worthless
if the drive crashes. Check out Compaq's website for directions on
making your Install CD's (If it's on the drive)

Drusus


Subject:	[novaroma] The name-change law (was RE: Alternatives)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 23:40:32 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:25 PM
>
> My first question. At a given moment a few weeks ago there were
> three versions of the Gender Edict

Actually, it's more properly titled the "Name Change Edict". Gender plays a
quite small part in its overall provisions.

> circulating here, and it was
> said all of them, or one of them, would be put up for a vote with
> the original one.

I must ask, who said that? I certainly didn't. Alternatives were offered,
but nothing regarding which versions would be offered for a vote was
mentioned, as far as I am aware.

> On the vote presented, however, these
> alternatives of both Marius and Vedius are absent. Why is that?

I mentioned my reasons for this when I published the proposed text of the
upcoming vote (look in the brackets after the text of the lex in question).
But, to go into a tad more detail...

> They seemed like good alternatives to me, and the people would
> have a choice between a few versions, instead of only one to
> either approve or disapprove of.

Maria's (aka "Marius") version is not offered for two reasons; not only had
she abandoned her own alternative in favor of my own compromise version, but
she had also resigned her Citizenship subsequent to the appearance of both
her alternative and my own.

As far as my own version of the lex goes, it was intended to foster some
sort of compromise between the competing versions. One of the people who was
responsible for the need to compromise in the first place is now gone. Can
one have a compromise between one point of view and no others?

Should the lex be defeated in the polls, I may very well be open to another
alternative; but let us first see how the Censors' wisdom is accepted by the
People. If it passes, I see no reason to bring the question up again. If it
fails, some alternative language may indeed be needed, and another vote
taken.

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Upcoming CPoT Vote
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 00:01:30 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: from@-------- [mailto:from@--------]On Behalf Of
Kristoffer From
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 6:56 PM
>
> The only thing remaining for the main list, would be some sort of
> response from the legislating official in question. Consul Vedius, any
> thoughts on my proposed modification of your lex? In private, if you'd
> like to keep it off the main list?

(Just as a reminder, I believe the proposed modification I am requested to
comment on is the idea that someone could not pay taxes and yet still run
for office if they were "sponsored" by an already-seated magistrate.)

I find this an appalling idea.

I beg you, not just you Titus Octavius Pius, but everyone, to stop peppering
us with nonsensical "what-if" scenarios. Our laws must work to benefit the
majority. They must not be swamped with innumerable clauses and special
cases catering to a minute minority or-- in some cases-- a hypothetical
minority.

Could it someday be that someone could be the perfect �ber-Consul, but be
unable to pay their taxes? Possibly, if completely unlikely. But must we
craft our laws to cater to the "what-if" needs of some hypothetical special
case? Must we burden our already over-worked magistrates with making sure
Citizens conform to specialized laws and exemptions? I say no!

If they're that good, they'll find some way to pay their taxes. If not,
someone else will, pride or not; Hel, if they're that good, I might pay
their taxes myself. But there is NO reason to change the proposed law to
accomodate innuerable special cases when a single standard will suffice.

Let us not find ways to lower the bar. Let us find ways to enable our
Citizens to overcome it.

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 04:07:48 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: g--------iusnerva@-------- [mailto:g--------iusnerva@--------]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:00 AM
> >
> > Another issue is the Religio and tax money, which L. Sinicius Drusus
> > commented on on April 21 and which unfortunately got little
response. I
> > think one of the downsides of polytheism is that the adherent is
bound to
> > support several religious institutions instead of just one!
>
> Actually, polytheism has nothing at all to do with religious
institutions,
> but with the number of deities to which honor is given. The ancient
Celts,
> to take only one example, were polytheistic, and yet they only had a
single
> religious institution; the Druids. Nova Roma's multiple religious
> institutions are merely another of those wonderfully ideosyncratic
aspects
> of Roman life we embrace.
>
> > But seriously, I
> > am opposed to any tax money being used for the maintainence and
> propogation
> > of the Religio. If the Religio is important to those who practice it,
> > certainly the practioners will take personal reponsibility for making
> funds
> > available. I do not believe in asking anyone to contribute to any
> religious
> > institutions other than their own.
> >
> > If the religio needs money, there could be a separate fund onto which
> > practioners could make their own contributions.
>
> I must say these are curious words indeed coming from someone who is the
> adopted son of our own beloved Pontifex Maximus!
>
> Nova Roma was originally founded as a vehicle for the expression of the
> Religio Romana. It subsequently grew into the pan-Roman-culture
organization
> we have today, but the practice of the Religio has always been, and
always
> will be, the central reason for Nova Roma's existence. I believe
this aspect
> of Nova Roma has always been clear and presented prominently in our
website
> and other informational materials. I daresay few people have joined Nova
> Roma who were unaware of our stance regarding the Religio Romana,
and those
> that were are most certainly able to leave or simply not pay any
taxes that
> the Senate may see fit to impose.
>
> Indeed, I would be vastly surprised if some sort of Pantheon to the
Roman
> Gods, or some other manner of shrine or temple, was not among the
first such
> real-world building projects that Nova Roma undertook, most probably to
> serve the needs of the State and cives in either (both?) Europe or
America.
> It will certainly be included in any sort of Nova Roman Forum which may
> someday be constructed. Any taxes collected from our Citizens--
practioners
> of the Religio or not-- will certainly be put towards such an effort. To
> assume otherwise is to ignore our very raison d'etre, which has
never been
> hidden from anyone.
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>

> email: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> ICQ: 106199729
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Salvete Omnes,

This looks like a good time to repeat my original Idea.

I personally would love to see some of the taxes used for supporting
the Religio, and would consider it wonderful if we had a temple that
wasn't virtual.

However Some of our citizens are not beleavers. Indeed some subscribe
to faiths that are hostile to the Religio. For some of our citizens
being forced to contribute to the Religio would be offensive to thier
own faith. Section II B 1 of the Constitution states citizens have
"Complete authority over their own personal and household rites,
rituals, and beliefs" and IMHO forcing citizens to contribute to the
Religio would be a violation of thier rights.

Even though I consider the promotion of the Religio one of Nova Roma's
highest goals, I don't want this to come at the cost of taking funds
from those unwilling to contribute.

That is why I made this proposal.

The Religio would be authorized to impose a surtax for it's purposes
on top of the Tributium. These funds would be kept in a seperate
account, and that NO use of funds from the Tributium could be applied
to the Religio, Nor could the Religio's funds be used for purposes
that should be covered by the Tributium.

Also failing to pay the Religio's surtax would NOT come under the
penalities for failing to pay the Tributium. Paying this additional
tax will be strictally voulantary, and I for one will gladly pay the
additional ammount.

I also think that having a seperate fund for the Religio will
encourage pius citizens to make extra donations above the tax and
could result in the Religio having more funds than it would have if it
relied on a portion of the tributium.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
"Next Year in the Temple"


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 01:31:49 EDT

Salve Lucius Sicinius

I would say that this is flawed thinking for the following reasons:

You cannot support the State without supporting the Religio which is an
integral, central part of the State. There is NO WAY the Religio can be
dissected out of the Republic. It is central to the Roman concept of the
world, government, and human life. The introductory material on our Web
site makes that clear from the start, I think. This is at the core of
Romanitas.

There are many people here who practice other religious traditions. As a
matter of fact, I would say that probably some who see themselves
followers of the Religio Romana are not practitioners of the Religio as
*I* see it - - I would probably be considered a practitioner of no formal
"religion" who finds the original Roman view of things divine to be
closely congruent with my own.

The point is that there is tremendous religious diversity here, just as
there was in Roma Antiqva, even within the Religio itself. As I believe
the Consul has stated, this is and has always been one of Rome's beauties
and strengths.

But the line is drawn in practice and in law: hostility toward the
Religio is not acceptable here. No-one has to practice it in preference
to their own religion, but anyone who wants to march with us has to agree
to at least respect the Religio and to not work against it.

Nobody can be forced to participate or contribute, therefore nobody's
"rights" are threatened. Being a citizen of Nova Roma entails some rights
but is not in itself a right. Anyone who chooses not to participate is
free to leave at any time. Anyone who is hostile to the Religio will most
likely end up being required to leave (it has happened a few times
already).

The restoration of the Religio is necessarily central to the restoration
of a Roman Republic. The latter cannot exist without the former.
Therefore anyone who refuses to contribute to the former is refusing to
support the latter. Such people would have no legitimate place here as
citizens. They could certainly remain as visitors, and participate in
discussions, get-togethers, etc., but it would be ridiculous for them to
be citizens, since to be a citizen implies some intent to be a
participant in a Roman Republic.

It occurs to me (not for the first time) that perhaps we need to offer a
separate official status for all of those who want to "hang around" here
but not to pay taxes, not to support the Religio, not to respect the
laws, and not to contribute to ultimately building an actual state.
Perhaps besides "citizenship" which we should make clear requires a
willingness to support all of the above, we could also offer an
"associate" status - call it "peregrinus" or "friend and ally" or
whatever. These people could register a Roman name and affiliate with a
gens, but would be free to not pay, not work, not contribute, not hold
office, and never have to offer a prayer to IOM.

There were always many foreigners hanging out at Rome - some in one way
and some in others ;-) (sorry for the gallows humor: it just sort of
slipped in there). Why not provide for that here? (- the status, that is,
not the hanging)

Vale,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
Senator

On 5/5/01 11:07 PM lsicinius@-------- (lsicinius@--------) wrote:

>
>Salvete Omnes,
>
>This looks like a good time to repeat my original Idea.
>
>I personally would love to see some of the taxes used for supporting
>the Religio, and would consider it wonderful if we had a temple that
>wasn't virtual.
>
>However Some of our citizens are not beleavers. Indeed some subscribe
>to faiths that are hostile to the Religio. For some of our citizens
>being forced to contribute to the Religio would be offensive to thier
>own faith. Section II B 1 of the Constitution states citizens have
>"Complete authority over their own personal and household rites,
>rituals, and beliefs" and IMHO forcing citizens to contribute to the
>Religio would be a violation of thier rights.
>
>Even though I consider the promotion of the Religio one of Nova Roma's
>highest goals, I don't want this to come at the cost of taking funds
>from those unwilling to contribute.
>
>That is why I made this proposal.
>
>The Religio would be authorized to impose a surtax for it's purposes
>on top of the Tributium. These funds would be kept in a seperate
>account, and that NO use of funds from the Tributium could be applied
>to the Religio, Nor could the Religio's funds be used for purposes
>that should be covered by the Tributium.
>
>Also failing to pay the Religio's surtax would NOT come under the
>penalities for failing to pay the Tributium. Paying this additional
>tax will be strictally voulantary, and I for one will gladly pay the
>additional ammount.
>
>I also think that having a seperate fund for the Religio will
>encourage pius citizens to make extra donations above the tax and
>could result in the Religio having more funds than it would have if it
>relied on a portion of the tributium.
>
>Valete,
>L. Sicinius Drusus
>"Next Year in the Temple"
>

nullae satisfactionis potiri non possum.

(I can't get no satisfaction.)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 01:31:46 EDT

Now that's what I call a really impressive contribution to this
discussion.

Would you care to elucidate?

Is this the kind of dialogue for which "Instant Internet" is so
"necessary?"

Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus

On 5/5/01 7:14 PM TClaudiusNero@-------- (TClaudiusNero@--------) wrote:

>Salvete!
>
>Whoah!
>
>SPQR
>Drusus Vipsanius Claudius
>(or is it Druisius?)

illud Latine dici non potest.

(You can't say that in Latin.)


Subject:	[novaroma] Age and rights
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 01:31:50 EDT

Salvete Omnes

I agree with Consul Germanicus on this point.

I don't think there is or has ever been any organized civilization on
this planet that has allowed the very young to assume high public office
as soon as they reach the age to participate in discussion or voting or
military service.

There are very good reasons why you can carry a pilum (or an M-16) in the
armed forces before you can run for President, Senator, Prime Minister,
Consul, Censor, etc.. The one is a role in which you need only perform
simple tasks and follow the orders of those who are older and (you pray)
wiser. The other is a role in which the welfare of a whole nation rests
to a large degree on your judgement, wisdom, and character. It is absurd
and disingenuous to equate the two roles.

This, like the notion that the younger among us shouldn't have to pay
their share of taxes, really doesn't deserve the bandwidth it is taking
up, in my opinion. Indeed, much of what has been posted here lately
doesn't seem worth the bandwidth, in my opinion. Just call me an old
fuddy-duddy, I guess.

"Why, I remember in the old days great men stood here and said important
things...."

(It's late!)

Valete,

L. Sergius Aust. Obst.

sic friatur crustum dulce.

(Thus the cookie crumbles.)


Subject:	[novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 22:02:18 -0400

Salve

First off, my apologies for being absent from the list these last few days.
I have been having hellacious problems with sending email (not connected to
the problems others have been having with yahoogroups) that have hopefully
now been resolved.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcassiusnerva@-------- [mailto:gcassiusnerva@--------]
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:00 AM
>
> Shortly after I left, there was some discussion on whether or not NR
should
> take a stand against slavery. This is a safe enough issue; I doubt we
have
> anyone who is in favor of slavery.
>
> I'm opposed to this however. What other issues then would NR have to take
> sides on? Should NR come out in favor of the Kyoto treaty? What about UN
> intervention in various world trouble spots? Will NR have to take a stand
on
> abortion too?
>
> I encourage NR members to get involved in any issues they are concerned
> with---as individuals. But let's leave NR out of it.

I must, respectfully, disagree. As issues facing the world go, slavery is
one of those which has a definitive association with Rome in the popular
mindset. It also happens to be one of the few facets of society in Roma
Antiqua which Nova Roma has unequivocally discarded. Even beyond the fact--
as you very rightly point out-- that slavery in the modern world is entirely
unacceptable, to take a definitive stance against its continuation in the
twenty-first century would be to affirm our own rejection of that aspect of
our cultural heritage.

In short, we should publically reject slavery because it is so closely
associated with ancient Rome, just as we have already rejected the the
disenfranchisement of women or the use of force of arms to achieve our
goals.

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Alternatives
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 10:43:42 +0200

Salvete Gaia Flacca et Priscilla Vedia,

>
> > IIIa. Citizens who are unemployed and/or psyhically handicapped.
>
> What happens when they become employed? Are they expected to pay?
> Most unemployment doesn't last a full year.
>

You make a point here. I guess they should notify both Censors and Quaestors
then.

> >
> > IIIb. Citizens under the age of 25 and above the age of 65.
> >
> All citizens under 25 are exempt from tax? Why? If they are
> students, certainly, but what if they are not? Do they still get out
> of paying taxes?
>

I assume that about 95% of all members of Nova Roma under 25 is either a
student or unemployed. Or, if they have a job, it is most likely not a
lucrative one. In most "civilized" countries people study until they about
25 (some 23, others even 27). People under that age who aren't students are
a small minority, and if they hold a job, it won't be one of great
importance.

> I would be interested in discussing this with you.
>
> Gaia Flacca Severa

Same here :).

On to the next one.... (somewhat long, but please bear with me).

> >>My second question. Since the number of debates the tax plan has
generated
> (and, let us admit it, in which I fiercely participated :-)), I've come up
> with somewhat of an alternative, too.>>
>
> I guess this is where I definitely come down as a "hard-liner". As I see
> it, not tossing people OUT of Nova Roma entirely for non-payment IS the
> alternative/compromise/nice-thing-to-do. I would *love* to belong to
> numerous clubs. Heck, there are at least seven magazines I would dearly
> love to subscribe to, but I cannot indulge myself on all of them. Do you
> think for even a second that *anyone* at *any* of these organizations is
> thinking "gee, she just had a baby, money must be tight, let's allow her
to
> receive the magazine but just tell her she cannot submit articles."? Of
> course not, the very thought is ridiculous. Quite frankly, in the real
world
> those that don't pay don't get the benefit of membership. Period. The
very
> fact that the Consul suggested a way to retain citizens at *all* who don't
> pay, as opposed to tossing them out, is enough of a
compromise/alternative.
>

As has been stated before, this is a micronation, which is in the uneasy
position between being a large club or simply a small nation. Right now we
seem to be both and neither, depending on the perspective. Problem is: some
people joined NR because it was free, and had no costs attached - costs they
could otherwise not afford or manage with difficulty. I will agree with you
that 12USD a year is hardly a fortune, but some people in countries less
developed than ours have other priorities, and, as has been stated before,
will have even more costs than the meager 12$ to get the money to the
central treasury. The proposed lex doesn't take those people in account, I
think, being unable to pay seems to be equal to being unwilling to pay, from
its wording.

> >>1.. An estimated amount of money, expressed in USD and Euros, set by the
> Senatus each year during the Kalends of January, shall be asked from the
> citizens of Nova Roma to be paid within the boundaries of the financial
year
> (starting on the Kalends of January, lasting until the next Kalends of
> January). This amount announced is subject to intercessio from the
> Tribuni.>>
>
> I would think that there ought to be a deadline of some sort for payment.
> For example, here in the USA all taxes are due by April 15th. I only put
> this forth because I would imagine a budget built on people paying
> "whenever" from 1/1 to 1/1 would be hard to count on.

You are right here. It'd be better to have a deadline installed; it eases
the work.

> I am open on this
> one, as I have minimal accounting experience with budgets, but it seems
> reasonable to require taxes paid by a certain date, with extensions
> available perhaps on a case-by-case basis. I don't honestly see the need
> for the amount be open to intercessio. This smacks of not trusting the
> Senate. Let's face it, if we don't trust them, we are in trouble. LOL I
> highly doubt the Senate will proclaim taxes in an absurd amount, so the
> intercessio seems like unnecessary watch-dogging.
>

The Senate isn't a gang of crooks, of course. But if we can truly trust the
Senate, then why not install the possibility of an intercession? It's one of
those things "just in case".

> >>Ia. This amount may differ for each province in a reasonable way, in
> cooperation with that province's governarial staff. Should a consensus not
> be reached, the dispute will be settled with the Quaestores, by whose
> judgement both parties must abide. This judgement is subject to
> intercessio.>>
>
> I don't care for this, honestly. However, I do realize that there might
be
> the *occasional* Province that needs extra consideration. The fact that
you
> include the word reasonable makes me feel slightly better, since in my
view
> there would need to be *very* clear reason for differing tax amounts or we
> open ourselves to a world of trouble as provinces compare themselves and
> perhaps dislike the different amounts.
>

Of course. Propraetores would need a very good reason.

> >>b.. The Propraetores (or Procuratores) of each province will decide the
> percentage of this money from the citizens of their province that goes to
> the provincial treasury, in co�peration with the Senatus, and on the
> condition that legal provisions are in place to protect the treasury from
> said provinces from corruption, embezzlement or otherwise illegal
practices
> as described and defined by the macrolegal laws of their home countries.>>
>
> The safe-guards against embezzlement are of course necessary across the
> board. However, I disagree that the Propraetores should decide what
> percentage they keep for their province. The Senate ought to set the
> percentage, and the Governors can always petition for an increase on a
case
> by case basis as needed.

That is good, too. All it came down to for me was cooperation, actually.

(snipped)

> >>c.. Citizens who fail to pay their yearly amount of tax, shall be placed
> in the 5th century for the next financial year. These citizens shall be
> relocated to other centuries from their taxes reaches Nova Roma.
Exceptions
> shall be made for following groups of citizens, on the condition that they
> contact the Senatus and the Quaestores regarding their special status:>>
>
> It is the very notion of exceptions that I disagree with, but I shall
> address each specifically.
>
> >>IIIa. Citizens who are unemployed and/or psyhically handicapped.>>
>
> Ummm, permit me to suggest that if one is unemployed, one has better ways
to
> spend one's time than wandering the internet world of Nova Roma. I would
> also ask how you plan for us to keep track of who is out of work for how
> long and what to do with those who subsequently find employment. Do they
> pay a prorated tax based on months worked? What about the chronically
> unemployed?

I was actually meaning the latter group, id est the chronically unemployed.
Not the people who lost their job for a month and then got a new one.
Regarding checks and safeguards, a local legate or govenor could check on
those people in case of suspected fraud, or doubt. But since you say that
people who joined here are overall pretty fair, why wouldn't it be the same
here?

> As for the handicapped, I would surmise that if they are doing
> well enough to have internet access they are doing well enough to pay
their
> share. There is also the notion of what defines a handicap. According to
> the Americans with Disabilities Act, obesity is a handicap. I am not sure
> "too fat to pay taxes" ought to be an option, yet if pressed such a person
> could *prove* they were handicapped.
>

LOL. Well, with handicapped people I mean, for example, people in
wheelchairs who have so much medical expenses that they can't afford paying
to NR. It's not because you're disabled that you can't have a deeply
experienced feeling of Romanitas, or be very intrested in the recreation of
ancient Rome.

> >>IIIb. Citizens under the age of 25 and above the age of 65.>>
>
> This is just silly! I can see a student tax rate, but why on earth should
> youth alone gain you a tax break?? I also cannot let this pass without
the
> comment that I find it very odd coming from you of all people. You have
made
> such a case for youth not impacting ability to function, and yet now you'd
> like to not have to pay taxes? I think not. There are many 22 year old
> married couples raising children, as well as many 70 year olds traveling
the
> world and doing quite well. I'll say it again, if you cannot afford the
> taxes, perhaps you need to consider you priorities.
>

As for the latter point: not having enough money doesn't mean you're unable
to hold some of the offices or feel as Roman as someone else. As for the
former point; see my comments to Gaia Flacca. These examples you mention do
exist, but they are the minority.

> >>IIIc. Citizens that live in macronations that is in a state of either
> economic, political or financial disarray and/or suffering severe
hardships
> due to natural or unnatural causes (examples include, but are not limited
> to: natural disasters, war, famine or extreme poverty).>>
>
> Okay, now this is bordering on the ridiculous! Here is a thought...if you
> live in a war zone, don't stop to check the Main List, don't stop to log
on
> and vote: MOVE! If you live in a famine zone, put the mouse down and go
> find food for your family!! As for nations in financial disarray I would
go
> head to head with anyone on debating whether the USA's financial situation
> is "in disarray". Certainly not in the way you mean to exempt us from
> taxes, but you see my point.
>

An example: you are a citizen from Israel. Israel is not stalked by famine,
but has some civil conflicts we all know; however, parts of the population
are pretty wealthy compared to western standards and most certainly eastern
standards. Now, suppose a true civil war breaks out in Israel, or that Syria
invades it. These citizens, while formerly joined NR (and still intrested in
it) need to shift their priorities, and won't be able to pay taxes. Once
they have moved or the conflict is settled, they could take up their intrest
in NR again.

> >>IIId. Citizens serving Nova Roma as Rogator or Quaestor.>>
>
> Why only these? Why not Consuls, Censors, etc etc? It seems quite
> arbitrary to provide a tax break for some and not others.
>

I think not. Rogator is one of the most unwanted jobs in NR; you can't vote
or be elegible for another office - the only advantage you have is that you
know election results sooner than the others do. Not having to pay tax
should stimulate citizens to run for Rogator. Quaestor is another story.
They are the financial magistrates themselves, so to "reward" them for their
services (finances are not the most exciting part of an organization) they
don't have to pay.

> >>(Should a citizen enjoy these exceptions unrightfully, he or she can be
> expelled from Nova Roma at the time of the discovery of such fraud, after
a
> trial held by the Praetores, as described elsewhere)>>
>
> And here is where we come to the crux of our disagreement. Are you
> volunteering to make the verification of financial claims your full-time
> job? Because that is what it would be. To suggest that every incidence
of
> fraud would need to be dealt with through a trial is absurd. We have not
> managed to convene any trials in circumstances that did warrant one. We
> certainly don't stand ready to prosecute every yahoo who falsifies their
> financial status. I will state that 90% of the cives in Nova Roma are
> probably quite honest and unlikely to lie. However, as Curatrix I see a
> high number of spammers, trolls and frauds attempting to post here to the
> Main List each month, why should we assume these individuals, if given the
> chance, would be honest? The solution you propose is simply unworkable in
> our current state. Much easier and better for all of us to draw the clear
> line: pay taxes or don't. If you don't, you'll get put in the special
> group. Period.
>

Yes, and lose the right to stand for office, which I find, in some
circumstances, absolutely not fair at all. Checking on frauds is indeed not
easy and for many provinces unworkable. But why should someone lie for a
mere 12$?

> I will conclude by re-stating an important point. We have already made
> provisions for the poor, the unemployed, the cheap and the lazy.

I find latter two terms sounding insulting, frankly.

> They are
> not being tossed out on their ears. However, to try and make provisions
> for
> every individual to enjoy equal treatment, even those who don't contribute
> equally is simply naive and a waste of our resources.

If people don't get treated equally, they'll simply leave. I'm not
suggesting the government should fulfill every whim of an individual, but
finances are a sensitive point in many households.

> >>Thank you for your attention.>>
>
> I appreciate your attempt here, I really do. I just think you need to
step
> back and realize that your proposal vastly increases the work-load (to
> untenable levels) and is unnecessary given that anyone can enjoy
membership
> here.

Granted that my proposal provides a lot more work for the Quaestores and
some other magistrates, but to be fair, over the past year all the
Quaestores need to do is to keep the treasury and make some financial
documents, while people like the Praetores don't do much at all, save from
publishing an edict now and then (this was especially the case in 2753). The
most overloaded offices, Censor and Consul, don't really get extra work.

Valete bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM

"Come, fly the teeth of the wind;
share my wings" (FSOL)

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list
From:	"Andrew Rielly" <arielly1@-------->
Date:	Sat, 5 May 2001 23:43:00 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: lsicinius@-------- <lsicinius@-------->
To: novaroma@-------- <novaroma@-------->
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:22 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list

<snip>
>I will not restrict my use of the word "need" to meeting the
>definitation a caveman would place on it. I NEED a car to get to work.
>Nova Roma NEEDS fast and relible communications.
>
<snip>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

And the terms of service say....

17.
b.
YAHOO MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THE SERVICE WILL
MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) THE SERVICE WILL BE
UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE
RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE
SERVICE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, (iv) THE QUALITY
OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER
MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH
THE SERVICE WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS, AND (V)
ANY ERRORS IN THE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED.

...which, in a nutshell, means if Nova Roma wants fast, reliable
communications it better invest in network infrastructure and programmers
for it's own system rather than relying on a free service supported by
advertising. If that is unrealistic at this time then be happy for the
service which Yahoo is providing. :)

Gaius Cornelius Publicus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	"Andrew Rielly" <arielly1@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 00:06:51 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus <germanicus@-------->
To: novaroma@-------- <novaroma@-------->
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2001 11:00 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)

>Salve
>
>First off, my apologies for being absent from the list these last few days.
>I have been having hellacious problems with sending email (not connected to
>the problems others have been having with yahoogroups) that have hopefully
>now been resolved.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gcassiusnerva@-------- [mailto:gcassiusnerva@--------]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:00 AM
>>
>> Shortly after I left, there was some discussion on whether or not NR
>should
>> take a stand against slavery. This is a safe enough issue; I doubt we
>have
>> anyone who is in favor of slavery.
>>
>> I'm opposed to this however. What other issues then would NR have to
take
>> sides on? Should NR come out in favor of the Kyoto treaty? What about
UN
>> intervention in various world trouble spots? Will NR have to take a
stand
>on
>> abortion too?
>>
>> I encourage NR members to get involved in any issues they are concerned
>> with---as individuals. But let's leave NR out of it.
>
>I must, respectfully, disagree. As issues facing the world go, slavery is
>one of those which has a definitive association with Rome in the popular
>mindset. It also happens to be one of the few facets of society in Roma
>Antiqua which Nova Roma has unequivocally discarded. Even beyond the fact--
>as you very rightly point out-- that slavery in the modern world is
entirely
>unacceptable, to take a definitive stance against its continuation in the
>twenty-first century would be to affirm our own rejection of that aspect of
>our cultural heritage.
>
>In short, we should publically reject slavery because it is so closely
>associated with ancient Rome, just as we have already rejected the the
>disenfranchisement of women or the use of force of arms to achieve our
>goals.
>
I am afraid I must point out that, according to statistics and data posted
by various organizations (including the CIA, World Watch, Earth Island
Journal, Covert Action Quarterly, etc) there are about 27 million slaves in
the world today (some UN studies place the number considerably higher than
this conservative estimate because the definition of slavery those studies
use is broader to include sex workers, displaced migrants due to regional
wars, and others that are not generally considered slaves). This is more
than any other time in history. It is a good thing to be publically
against.

Personally, I think that if Nova Roma wants to grow and prosper then it will
have to start acting more like a soveriegn nation...including taking public
positions on issues, fighting for what it believes is right, etc. If the
participants only want it to be a pleasant fiction, then, of course, why
bother with positions or debate?

Gaius Cornelius Publicus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 10:25:39 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, LSergAust@a... wrote:
>
> Salve Lucius Sicinius
>
> I would say that this is flawed thinking for the following reasons:
>
> You cannot support the State without supporting the Religio which is an
> integral, central part of the State. There is NO WAY the Religio can be
> dissected out of the Republic. It is central to the Roman concept of
the
> world, government, and human life. The introductory material on our Web
> site makes that clear from the start, I think. This is at the core of
> Romanitas.
>
Salve

In Roma Antiquita the Religio was closly tied to the state and relied
on the Tributium. Look where that led. The historical record shows
Temples in need of repair, while the pontifs set in the Senate and
ignored the problem. Why? Because the Religo was just another state
office, and the colleges were filled with ambitius politicans who saw
holding the title of pontif as a step towards more powerful office.

Clio has many lessons to teach us, so lets not ignore her. In Roma
Antiquita men who didn't beleave in the omens became Augors. The Papcy
was held by a man who openly gave offices to his bastard son in the
1400's. (Borgia) In the Russian Empire the Orthadox church was little
more than another tool of the Czar's power. In between these examples
are many more of religions that were corrupted by too close an
association with the power of the state.

I'm looking at Nova Roma as the begaining of a new nation, one that
will last long beyond the lives of the present citizens. I want to
establish an independance for the Religio that it didn't have in
Antiquita because I don't want to see the Religio treated as a poor
relative by a future Senate, as was too often the case in the past. I
want to avoid the apointment of Athesist Pontifs, which will happen if
the office is just another step in the road to power.

I Want an Independant Religio, and the most important step towards
creating and maintaing that independance is a Religio that has it's
own funds, so that it doesn't have to appear hat in hand before the
Senate begging for the money to repaint a temple.

If the Religio had been independant of the state 1800 years ago it
would have had a leadership that would have been willing to fight for
the survival of the ancient ways. Instead it's offices were filled
with lackys of the Emperor who were all too willing to let an alien
faith replace the faith that had sustained Roma for over a thousand years.

I'm all in favor of granting an Independant Religio a privileged place
in the Republic. A Place where it can guide us and our ancestors. One
where it will alsp be protected from becoming just another arm of a
secular government.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 07:32:28 EDT

Salve Consul,

<>

I don't think so, because religion is not the issue, but rather tax money is.
L. Sinicius Drusus pointed out that the Consitution says all os us have
"complete authority over their own personal and household rites, rituals, and
beliefs."

Now part of a household is it's income, and if tax money is to be collected,
this opens up the question of mandatory tax support for the religio. If
citizens are free on matters of religion, should they be required to
finacially support the religio? I do not think so, and that is why I support
a separate fund for religious purposes, either L. Sinicius idea, or some
variant. But religion itself is not at issue and there is no religious
controversy brewing here.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 07:32:52 EDT

Salve Publicus,

> "Personally, I think that if Nova Roma wants to grow and prosper
> then it will have to start acting more like a soveriegn nation...including
> taking public positions on issues, fighting for what it believes is right,
> etc."

But what does Nova Roma believe to be right on the question of Taiwan, or
relations with mainland China? Consul Germanicus made a good point that
slavery at least is an issue closely tied to ancient Rome. But what about
those other two issues above?

Gaius Cassius Nerva

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 07:32:48 EDT

Salve L. Sergius Australicus,

Your post speaks of hostility towards the religio and how it is
impossible for it to be "dissected out of the Republic", but I don't think
that is what is at issue here. There is no hostility going on anywhere I
know of.
If this were 8 months ago, this discussion would not be taking place.
But things have changed. Soon there will be a tax-system set up, and this
necessarily raises the question of tax support and whether all citizens will
be *required* to support a religion financially. This is a legitimate issue
on which reasonable people may disagree and discuss. The Consitution of Nova
Roma does not address this question directly, since it was written before
taxs were an issue.

Gaius Cassius Nerva

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 11:34:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Andrew Riell--------lt;ariell--------...> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsicinius@-------- <lsicinius@-------->
> To: novaroma@-------- <novaroma@-------->
> Date: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:22 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list
>
>
> <snip>
> >I will not restrict my use of the word "need" to meeting the
> >definitation a caveman would place on it. I NEED a car to get to work.
> >Nova Roma NEEDS fast and relible communications.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> And the terms of service say....
>
> 17.
> b.
> YAHOO MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THE SERVICE WILL
> MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) THE SERVICE WILL BE
> UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE
> RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE
> SERVICE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, (iv) THE QUALITY
> OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER
> MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH
> THE SERVICE WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS, AND (V)
> ANY ERRORS IN THE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED.
>
> ...which, in a nutshell, means if Nova Roma wants fast, reliable
> communications it better invest in network infrastructure and
programmers
> for it's own system rather than relying on a free service supported by
> advertising. If that is unrealistic at this time then be happy for the
> service which Yahoo is providing. :)
>
> Gaius Cornelius Publicus

Lets not forget this item from the terms of service

12. MODIFICATIONS TO SERVICE

Yahoo reserves the right at any time and from time to time to modify
or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Service (or any part
thereof) with or without notice. You agree that Yahoo shall not be
liable to you or to any third party for any modification, suspension
or discontinuance of the Service.

Which means we are depending on a service that could be changed to the
point that is worthless to us or discontinued at any time.

We don't need to invest in "network infrastructure and programmers"
however.

All we need is one PC attached to a high speed connection, or even
better a virtual hosting account with an ISP.(A single PC can go down)
My account with Earthlink costs me US$ 30.00 a month. With taxes I
think Nova Roma can find that in her budget. That small cost takes
care of the Network.

As for Programers, The Free Software Foundation allready has the
programers maintaing the software we would need, and the cost is free!

The FSF's Mailman program would be the best choice for Nova Roma. It
has the web based adminastrative and web page for users just like
Yahoo. Unlike yahoo the pages the enduser sees can be customized to
meet our needs.

This is Mailman's feature list.
* Web based list administration for nearly all tasks, including
list configuration, moderation (post approvals), management of user
accounts.
* Web based subscribing and unsubscribing, and user configuration
management. Users can temporarily disable their accounts, select
digest modes, hide their email addresses from other members, etc.
* A customizable home page for each mailing list.
* Per-list privacy features, such as closed-subscriptions, private
archives, private membership rosters, etc.
* Configurable (per-list and per-user) delivery mode

* Regular (immediate) delivery
* MIME digest
* Plain (RFC 934) digests
* Integrated bounce detection within an extensible framework.
Automatic disposition of bouncing addresses (disable, unsubscribe).
* Integrated spam filters.
* Automatic web-based Hypermail-style archiving, with hooks for
external archivers such as MHonArc.
* Integrated Usenet gatewaying.
* Integrated auto-replies.
* Majordomo-style email based commands.
* Multiple list owners and moderators are possible.
* Support for virtual domains.
* Runs on most Un*x-like systems, compatible with most web servers
and browsers, and most SMTP servers. Requires Python 1.5.2 or newer
(works with Python 1.6 and 2.0).
* An extensible mail delivery pipeline.

And this is an example of mailman in action. It's the mail page for a
software project called Aphrodite that I'm working on.
http://aphrodite.mozdev.org/list.html

Mailman isn't just used for small lists like this example. Apple
Computers and Red Hat use Mailman to manage list with thousands of
subscribers.

Mailman has it's own archive software, but it isn't very good. However
it can be configured to use MHonArc as it's archiver. With MHonArc you
can do searches like this
http://www.hpc.uh.edu/majordomo-users/
which would come in very handy when you need to find something in the
archives.

To sum it up the combination of Mailman and MHonArc would give us a
feature set that is better than what Yahoo offers at a fairly low cost
for the internet service, and no cost for the software.

Mailman's home is
http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman.html

More info on Mailman can be found at
http://www.list.org/

MHonArc has a page at
http://www.mhonarc.org/

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 11:53:06 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, gcassiusnerva@c... wrote:
> Salve Publicus,
>
> > "Personally, I think that if Nova Roma wants to grow and prosper
> > then it will have to start acting more like a soveriegn
nation...including
> > taking public positions on issues, fighting for what it believes
is right,
> > etc."
>
> But what does Nova Roma believe to be right on the question of
Taiwan, or
> relations with mainland China? Consul Germanicus made a good point
that
> slavery at least is an issue closely tied to ancient Rome. But what
about
> those other two issues above?
>
> Gaius Cassius Nerva
>
Salve,

My take would be that in line with Nova Roma's renuncation of achiving
it's aims by use of arms we sould come out against any attempt by the
mainland to forcably incorparate Twaiwan into the mainlands system of
government, and since Nova Roma desires to have it's Independance
recognized, we should honor any attempt by Twaiwan to declare it's
Independance from the PRC. However I'm only a priviatus, and that
decession involves foriegn affairs, and belongs to the Senate.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 08:07:29 EDT

Salve Drusus,

I too am pro-Taiwan, anti-Communist to the hilt, and would gladly tell
the Mainland Chinese to hang themselves. But NR does have in it's membership
leftists who probably think the PRC is not all bad. They would whine about
having to support NR's "right wing" policies, and to be fair, I would object
if NR were to become some little leftist group. My point is, we don't need
the divisivness on such matters, which is why I disagree with Publicus.

Nerva

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: posting issues with the list
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 05:18:02 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Sicinie Druse.

I wanted to thank L. Sicinius Drusus for the comprehensive suggestion
he made recently, which you can read below. I really think that making
Nova Roma independent of outer infrastructures would not be as
difficult as some cives suggest, and it would certainly be an important
improvement for our Republic.

I think we really should try to make a task force to handle the
structural independence of Nova Roma. A large part of our citizens are
actually computer and telecomm technicians (me included), and we could
divide the amount of work amongst many individuals. This would require
a great organization effort, but it would be a worthy effort.

I think that, if we really want to grow, if we really take Nova Roma
seriously, we have to make her independent of outer organizations. And
the first step is to create a self-contained infrastructure that will
allow us to continue growing without worrying about Yahoo or others.

The "happy" 90's are over. Internet-based companies are facing the
reality of market laws. And many will disappear in the following years.
If we want to survive, we have to adapt to the circumnstances. And
building our own infrastructure will solve all those problems, as well
as some others.

And if we are going to have taxes, what better way to spend them could
there be than ensuring a better and safer service to our citizens?

Bene Valete!

Gnaeus Salix Astur, civis romanus.

--- lsicinius@-------- wrote:

(snipped)

> All we need is one PC attached to a high speed connection, or even
> better a virtual hosting account with an ISP.(A single PC can go
> down)
> My account with Earthlink costs me US$ 30.00 a month. With taxes I
> think Nova Roma can find that in her budget. That small cost takes
> care of the Network.
>
> As for Programers, The Free Software Foundation allready has the
> programers maintaing the software we would need, and the cost is
> free!
>
> The FSF's Mailman program would be the best choice for Nova Roma. It
> has the web based adminastrative and web page for users just like
> Yahoo. Unlike yahoo the pages the enduser sees can be customized to
> meet our needs.
>
> This is Mailman's feature list.
> * Web based list administration for nearly all tasks, including
> list configuration, moderation (post approvals), management of user
> accounts.
> * Web based subscribing and unsubscribing, and user configuration
> management. Users can temporarily disable their accounts, select
> digest modes, hide their email addresses from other members, etc.
> * A customizable home page for each mailing list.
> * Per-list privacy features, such as closed-subscriptions,
> private
> archives, private membership rosters, etc.
> * Configurable (per-list and per-user) delivery mode
>
> * Regular (immediate) delivery
> * MIME digest
> * Plain (RFC 934) digests
> * Integrated bounce detection within an extensible framework.
> Automatic disposition of bouncing addresses (disable, unsubscribe).
> * Integrated spam filters.
> * Automatic web-based Hypermail-style archiving, with hooks for
> external archivers such as MHonArc.
> * Integrated Usenet gatewaying.
> * Integrated auto-replies.
> * Majordomo-style email based commands.
> * Multiple list owners and moderators are possible.
> * Support for virtual domains.
> * Runs on most Un*x-like systems, compatible with most web
> servers
> and browsers, and most SMTP servers. Requires Python 1.5.2 or newer
> (works with Python 1.6 and 2.0).
> * An extensible mail delivery pipeline.
>
> And this is an example of mailman in action. It's the mail page for a
> software project called Aphrodite that I'm working on.
> http://aphrodite.mozdev.org/list.html
>
> Mailman isn't just used for small lists like this example. Apple
> Computers and Red Hat use Mailman to manage list with thousands of
> subscribers.
>
> Mailman has it's own archive software, but it isn't very good.
> However
> it can be configured to use MHonArc as it's archiver. With MHonArc
> you
> can do searches like this
> http://www.hpc.uh.edu/majordomo-users/
> which would come in very handy when you need to find something in the
> archives.
>
> To sum it up the combination of Mailman and MHonArc would give us a
> feature set that is better than what Yahoo offers at a fairly low
> cost
> for the internet service, and no cost for the software.
>
> Mailman's home is
> http://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman.html
>
> More info on Mailman can be found at
> http://www.list.org/
>
> MHonArc has a page at
> http://www.mhonarc.org/
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 12:27:50 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, gcassiusnerva@c... wrote:
> Salve Drusus,
>
> I too am pro-Taiwan, anti-Communist to the hilt, and would
gladly tell
> the Mainland Chinese to hang themselves. But NR does have in it's
membership
> leftists who probably think the PRC is not all bad. They would
whine about
> having to support NR's "right wing" policies, and to be fair, I
would object
> if NR were to become some little leftist group. My point is, we
don't need
> the divisivness on such matters, which is why I disagree with Publicus.
>
> Nerva

Salve Nerva,

LOL, Yes we allready have enough divisivness regarding Nova Roma's
Internal affairs, but there are some matters that I think the vast
majority of our citizens could agree on.

One would be a denoucement of any attempt by the PRC to achive it's
aims through military force against Twaiwan. One of the things that
Roma Antiquita is well known for is it's use of military power to
compell other nations to do it's bidding, and that policy, like
slavery is one that Nova Roma has renounced. I see little diferance
between denoucing modern slavery and modern impearlistic acts of war.

Another item that I think most of us could agree on is a statement
about the Taliban's destruction of Ancient shrines in Afganistan, or
thier law that decrees the death penality for anyone who converts to a
non-Islamic religion. A Citizen of Afganistan faces the death penality
if he embraces the Roman Religio, so this is a matter that touches
Nova Roma.

Vale,
Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Funding Religion (was RE: Two issues)
From:	Michel <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 10:20:09 -0300

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gcassiusnerva@-------- [mailto:gcassiusnerva@--------]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 9:00 AM
> >
> > Another issue is the Religio and tax money, which L. Sinicius Drusus
> > commented on on April 21 and which unfortunately got little response. I
> > think one of the downsides of polytheism is that the adherent is bound to
> > support several religious institutions instead of just one!
>
> Actually, polytheism has nothing at all to do with religious institutions,
> but with the number of deities to which honor is given. The ancient Celts,
> to take only one example, were polytheistic, and yet they only had a single
> religious institution; the Druids. Nova Roma's multiple religious
> institutions are merely another of those wonderfully ideosyncratic aspects
> of Roman life we embrace.
>
> > But seriously, I
> > am opposed to any tax money being used for the maintainence and
> propogation
> > of the Religio. If the Religio is important to those who practice it,
> > certainly the practioners will take personal reponsibility for making
> funds
> > available. I do not believe in asking anyone to contribute to any
> religious
> > institutions other than their own.
> >
> > If the religio needs money, there could be a separate fund onto which
> > practioners could make their own contributions.
>
> I must say these are curious words indeed coming from someone who is the
> adopted son of our own beloved Pontifex Maximus!
>
> Nova Roma was originally founded as a vehicle for the expression of the
> Religio Romana. It subsequently grew into the pan-Roman-culture organization
> we have today, but the practice of the Religio has always been, and always
> will be, the central reason for Nova Roma's existence. I believe this aspect
> of Nova Roma has always been clear and presented prominently in our website
> and other informational materials. I daresay few people have joined Nova
> Roma who were unaware of our stance regarding the Religio Romana, and those
> that were are most certainly able to leave or simply not pay any taxes that
> the Senate may see fit to impose.
>

The Religio has to be honoured by NovaRoma,
but generally speaking a citizen of
any nation should not be forced to give any of his money to any
religion. All
enforced religious taxes are illegal because they are against the Human
Rights.

So yes, I too think there should be a separate religious fund, with
voluntarly contributions, just in order to respect the human rights
which include freedom of religions thoughts (some religions strongly
prohibit sacrificing anything to another god). Old Rome had a long
history of religious tolerance we should not change that.

> Indeed, I would be vastly surprised if some sort of Pantheon to the Roman
> Gods, or some other manner of shrine or temple, was not among the first such
> real-world building projects that Nova Roma undertook, most probably to
> serve the needs of the State and cives in either (both?) Europe or America.

That is great and don t need to come from a religious fund: the temples
are civic buildings meant to offer the possibility to gather as a civic
being celebrating the civic religion. But the priests should not be
maintained by the state, the sacrifices should not be done with state
money etc.

In some place we need to disguinsh between the civic functions of the
Religio and the religious/spiritual functions which must be left out of
the State.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

> It will certainly be included in any sort of Nova Roman Forum which may
> someday be constructed. Any taxes collected from our Citizens-- practioners
> of the Religio or not-- will certainly be put towards such an effort. To
> assume otherwise is to ignore our very raison d'etre, which has never been
> hidden from anyone.
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> ICQ: 106199729
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age and rights
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 15:01:58 +0200

LSergAust@-------- wrote:
> I don't think there is or has ever been any organized civilization on
> this planet that has allowed the very young to assume high public office
> as soon as they reach the age to participate in discussion or voting or
> military service.

Salve, L. Sergi Aust. Obst.

In Sweden, you're allowed to vote at 18, your majority, and are then
also allowed to stand for whatever public office you feel like. I could
become...hmm..I think "prime minister" would be the proper
translation...at age 18, if the people voted for an eighteen year old,
that is. I thought the same could be done in, for example, the United
States, but I guess not.

In Sweden, also, you're not allowed to enter into military service until
you're 18. One age, all rights. The only exception to this would be when
you're allowed to buy alcohol. Since this is considered a matter of
physical maturity, and not mental or social, you will still have to wait
a few year to buy alcohol upon reaching your majority.

However, the part about "as soon as they reach the age to participate in
discussion", I'm not sure whence it cameth, so I shan't comment upon it,
except to say I'd not want five-year-olds deciding on my future, if the
issue ever was up for debate.

My main point; When you vote, you participate in deciding upon the
future of your nation. If you're judged mature enough to do that, why
shouldn't you be able to do more than just vote?

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

---- BEGIN RP CODE BLOCK ----
RPaWfC R+++ H+++/--- I+++ M+++/- C- A+++ S+ G+ P+++/--- XPG
---- END RP CODE BLOCK ----


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 15:13:15 +0200

Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice.

I re-read the post "Tidying up the Constitution" (TUC), and realized
that the matter I was discussing is essentially the same as the one you
bring up there regarding children as citizens, and their rights. There
are just two points I'd like to comment:

1. In the upcoming proposal, how about a "generic" age for full voting
privilegies in Nova Roma, instead of different ages depending on the
regulations of the macronation in question? Say, for example, 21?

2. The consequences of being young and not paying taxes are close to
identical, since one cannot be elected for an office before 21, and you
cannot be a citizen and vote until you've reached majority in your
macronation. I'm not sure what you had in mind in TUC, but I for one
don't think citizens below a certain age should be allowed to vote, and
I feel you had the same idea. Up until you are of an age to vote,
however, you might as well not pay taxes. There is, after all, no
further "punishments". Why not make this official, just saying that if
"children" want to donate money to our beloved Res Publica, they may do
so, and if not, they don't have to, because they are, after all,
children?

That the age limit I proposed should coincide with the age where one may
stand for office, is a matter of me moving the age I feel suitable
downwards to adjust for the current Nova Roman legislation. I'd be quite
happy with a majority at 25, or maybe 30, but since I don't appreciate
the thought of minors holding office, I adjusted so that anyone old
enough to hold an office, would also be considered an adult. I.E., only
adults should get to vote and hold office, thereby influencing the
future of Nova Roma and all her citizens.

Don't think I want to allow ALL offices at age 21, I fully support the
cursus honorum concept, although some age limitations there are somewhat
low for my taste.

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

---- BEGIN RP CODE BLOCK ----
RPaWfC R+++ H+++/--- I+++ M+++/- C- A+++ S+ G+ P+++/--- XPG
---- END RP CODE BLOCK ----

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
From:	"Gnaeus Salix Astur" <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 14:37:35 -0000

Salvete omnes!

In recent discussions, I have heard comments to a previous post by
our Excellentissimus Consul Germanicus named "Tidying up the
Constitution". Curiousity led me to look it up, and I found it
extremely interesting. I did not discuss it at the time it was issued
simply because, at that time, I was not even aware of the existence
of Nova Roma (I wish I had, though). But I wanted to make a few
comments on it as I think it handles very interesting issues. I wish
this will reopen a general discussion on this list.

> There are four things I think should be changed in our current
Constitution:
>
> 1) Change the Citizenship section to allow for children to be
Citizens (with
> some limitations on voting and holding office, naturally).

I think this is a wonderful idea. As they say: "You are never too
young to join!".

> 2) Change the provinces and governors section to make it more
flexible. Back
> when the Constitution was being written (or re-written) it seemed a
good
> idea to have some hard-and-fast rules for provinces, governors'
titles, what
> sorts of staff the governors could appoint, etc. But in practice,
especially
> now that we're getting to the point where a lot of real-world
activity is
> taking place and local chapters are being formed, both the Senate
and the
> governors need more flexibility. Basically, there would still be
such
> standards, but they'd be put in place by Senatus Consultum. The
Senate could
> consider different titles for governors (depending on the
circumstances),
> and could enable governors to appoint assistants other than legati.
Once
> again, I'll come up with some specifics later on.
>

I think this issue should also be considered of great importance. The
birth of Nova Roma was as a virtual community, but I think an obvious
direction to grow is to transform it into a real world community,
mainly through local chapters. I think local chapters should be
strongly encouraged by the Republic, as they could form a new
backbone to our organization, complementing (if not fully
substituting) the virtual community we have today.

I am currently deeply involved in the organization of Hispania, and I
have to say that the degree of freedom given to provincial governors
can be sometimes misleading. What we tend to do is to look at how
older provinces have organized themselves, and to try to adapt it to
local circumstances. But I think a major reorganization of the
provincial system is in order.

About the different titles for governors, I completely agree.
Propraetors should only be former praetors. A new denomination system
should be implemented.

> 3) Clean up the gens section. This is more in the realm of
a "housekeeping"
> item I noticed while looking something up recently. It currently
states "The
> paterfamilias may, at his or her discretion, expel members of their
gens, or
> accept new members into it." which could be construed as saying a
> paterfamilias could bring people into their gens against their
will! I would
> just want to clean it up to make it clear that they could accept
_willing_
> people into their gens.
>

I have been thinking about our gens system, and my ideas go much
further than those expressed in this statements. I would like that
our gens-familia system resembled more closely to the ancient Roman
system. After all, gentes were like clans (families bond together by
common ancestors), and a paterfamilias was the head of a family, and
not a gens. I think that the gentes of Nova Roma should be limited to
the ancient Roman gentes (Fabia, Claudia, Iulia, Cornelia, etc...)
and that, among every gens, several families (and several
paterfamilias) should be included. In that way, familiae would be
patrician or plebeian, instead of gentes (and a plebeian could be
named "Claudius", which would be more historically accurate). I know
that this would be a very difficult issue to implement, as many
citizens have long-stated names that do not correspond to Roman
gentes (or that are not Roman at all). I would just like to see some
discussion on this issue.

> 4) Clean up the Tribunis Plebis section. This, too, is more of a
> "housekeeping" item. The Tribunes need to be given the power to
administer
> the law and to appoint scribes. This was an oversight; now that
we're in the
> process of putting together the civil law code, it needs to be
rectified.
>
> As I said, there's no rush on any of this; I just wanted to give
you all
> some indicator of what I was contemplating, and possibly to get
some input
> from you all.

I think that our Tribuni are underpowered under actual law. I would
also like our Constitution to be closer to ancient Roman historical
customs in this issue. I think that Tribuni should be allowed to veto
actions of magistrates by themselves, and not in coalition. The
Tribuni would have the power of intercessio over eah other, but they
should not be required to agree on the veto. Besides, Tribuni should
be allowed to veto the actions of any magistrate or of the Senate,
even when they do not violate the letter of the Constitution. I know
this point was implemented to avoid Tribuni being too powerful, but
it has left some kind of Democratic deficit in our Republic. Tribuni
should defend the citizens from the actions of magistrates and
senatores, and not solely the Constitutio.

I hope no one feels offended by my statements. These are simply my
ideas and impressions. If you do not agree with me, that's all right.

I really hope this post will arise some comments and ideas. As you
know, I try to be very open minded, so I will accept and considerate
your points of view as we try to get to a satisfactory compromise.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 09:48:08 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Gai Cassi,

> But what does Nova Roma believe to be right on the question of Taiwan, or
> relations with mainland China? Consul Germanicus made a good point that
> slavery at least is an issue closely tied to ancient Rome. But what about
> those other two issues above?

Those, I think, we should ignore. It is not our business to interfere
in the affairs of much larger nations, and will only attract their
anger (if we are noticed at all).

Furthermore, our own people may be deeply divided on such issues, and
any attempts to take a position on such macronational issues will needlessly
create conflict on this list.

Slavery is something we can take a stand against, as it is abhorred by
all civilized people, and publishing our position on such has the advantage
to us of showing that we have rejected ancient Rome's most distasteful
aspect.

Vale, O.

---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jerry=20Anguston?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 01:27:00 +1000 (EST)

Ave Titus Octavius et omnes,

I feel really offended by this posting. Now, I am
currently 20 going on 21 next birthday, but by your
definition I would not be able to have a vote until I
turn 21! Now, I have had experience with this type of
thing, and am stunned at the fact that I coul be
turned down for an age dispensation over a matter of
about 7 months. It seems to me that you are
overlooking one major fact: in the majority of
macronations around the world, 18 is the age where one
can vote, drink, smoke, bet etc.

Let me put it this way....by your proposal, you are
eliminating any reason for people below 21 to pay
taxes. Why pay taxes if you can't contribute to Nova
Roma through public offices, and at the same time
aren't allowed to have your say in a vote? I am not
sure about this, but weren't Roman citizens allowed to
vote once they donned the toga virilis? And besides
which, what are we really worried about? It's not as
if Nova Roma has such a proportion of youngsters that
they can actually greatly affect the outcome of an
election. What are we really worried about here? It's
not as if one day I might walk into the senate and
during the middle of a debate have to endure kids up
the back playing video games, or having Junior become
dictator, now is it?;-)

I'll re-iterate the call of Cornelius Moravius
Laurentibus in saying:

Voting is not just a right, it is a duty!

And I emphasise the word "Right"!

Valete bene omnes,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

Legatus Australia Medius

--- Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@--------> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice. 
 
I re-read the post "Tidying up the
Constitution" (TUC), and realized 
that the matter I was discussing is essentially the
same as the one you 
bring up there regarding children as citizens, and
their rights. There 
are just two points I'd like to comment: 
 
1. In the upcoming proposal, how about a
"generic" age for full voting 
privilegies in Nova Roma, instead of different ages
depending on the 
regulations of the macronation in question? Say, for
example, 21? 
 
2. The consequences of being young and not paying
taxes are close to 
identical, since one cannot be elected for an office
before 21, and you 
cannot be a citizen and vote until you've reached
majority in your 
macronation. I'm not sure what you had in mind in TUC,
but I for one 
don't think citizens below a certain age should be
allowed to vote, and 
I feel you had the same idea. Up until you are of an
age to vote, 
however, you might as well not pay taxes. There is,
after all, no 
further "punishments". Why not make this
official, just saying that if 
"children" want to donate money to our
beloved Res Publica, they may do 
so, and if not, they don't have to, because they are,
after all, 
children? 
 
That the age limit I proposed should coincide with the
age where one may 
stand for office, is a matter of me moving the age I
feel suitable 
downwards to adjust for the current Nova Roman
legislation. I'd be quite 
happy with a majority at 25, or maybe 30, but since I
don't appreciate 
the thought of minors holding office, I adjusted so
that anyone old 
enough to hold an office, would also be considered an
adult. I.E., only 
adults should get to vote and hold office, thereby
influencing the 
future of Nova Roma and all her citizens. 
 
Don't think I want to allow ALL offices at age 21, I
fully support the 
cursus honorum concept, although some age limitations
there are somewhat 
low for my taste. 
 
Vale, 
 
Titus Octavius Pius, 
Consiliarius Thules, 
Praeco Anarei Thules, 
Scriba to the Curator Araneum 
 
AKA Kristoffer From 
 
--- 
 
 Si hoc signum legere
potes, 
 operis boni in rebus
latinis alacribus 
 et fructuosis potiri
potes. 
 


- Not-so-famous quotation 
 
 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- 
Version: 3.1 
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--)
N 
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5-
X- 
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++
!x- 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ 
 
---- BEGIN RP CODE BLOCK ---- 
RPaWfC R+++ H+++/--- I+++ M+++/- C- A+++ S+ G+
P+++/--- XPG 
---- END RP CODE BLOCK ---- 
 
 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 04:46:23 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes!

--- TSardonicus@-------- wrote:
> In a message dated 5/5/01 9:39:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> kristoffer.from@-------- writes:
>
> > Age restrictions. Currently, as far as I'm aware, any citizen, of
> any
> > age, may vote. However, most offices won't accept applicants below
> the
> > age of 21. How about making this the age when one gets to vote as
> well?
> > A "majority", of sorts. Until you're 21, you're considered a
> child/a
> > youth, you don't have to pay taxes, but neither do you get to be
> elected
> > into office. You may still serve as an appointed official, such as
> > scriba, but until you've "come into your own", you won't be
> trusted in
> > an office. Comments?

I was waiting for someone to rebate this statement, but as no one has
done it yet, I think I will be the first. I do not intend to offend
anyone, I will just express my opinions. Please forgive any misdemeanor
and blame it to my lack of knowledge of the English language.

Quoting the Constitutio:

"II. Citizens and Gentes

A. Citizenship

1. Any person who is sui juris by the municipal laws of his or her
domicile may apply for citizenship.

2. A person who is not sui juris by the municipal laws of his or her
domicile may, with the written permission of their parent or legal
guardian by the relevant municipal law, petition the pater or
mater-familias of a Nova Roma gens for admission to that gens. Should
the paterfamilias assent, that person shall be considered a member of
the gens and may participate in the religious and social life of Nova
Roma. Such gens members who are not full citizens are the sole
responsibility of the paterfamilias, and need not be registered with
the censors."

I think the procedures are pretty clear. Here, in Europe, you can vote
when you reach the age of 18, so you are "tui iuris" at that age.
Usually, you can also drink, drive, and have full sexual relations at
that age. As our municipal laws tend to be more or less the same (with
a few exceptions to the age to drink alcohol or having consented sexual
relations, usually giving consent BEFORE the age of 18) in the whole
continent, I think it would be anticonstitutional to approve a law that
did not allow citizens to vote until they reached the age of 21.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 17:56:31 +0200

Salve Tite Octavi et alii,

I suppose some of you were waiting until I opened my big mouth on this one
;-). Here goes...

The age of legal Roman majority was about 15. Civilized people of today
wouldn't even think about making 15 the legal age of majority, and so
wouldn't Nova Roma. In Rome, it was also customary for a man to start his
cursus honorum when he was in his thirties or even his fourties. We, today,
consider this requirement too severe. That is why here Roman customs don't
really apply; we live in a different world with different educational and
social patterns.

For me the age of legal majority, which is 18 in most countries, is fine to
vote and to stand for small offices like Rogator (unfortunately, the limits
are higher than that, according to the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate). Age
requirements should be indeed higher for offices that hold true importance
(Consul, Censor, Praetor, Quaestor). However, I find age to be not the most
correct criterium in judging a person, and to know if he or she is able to
hold an office or not. In most cases an age criterium will more or less
apply, yes, but by holding on to it too tightly, you will anger and turn
away some people. I'm not only speaking for myself here, but for many other
NovaRomans younger than 25.

Why should you make the overall pretty fair age limits (with an exception
here and there) even higher? It has little use.

Vale bene!
Draco

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 17:59:07 +0200

Salve Nerva,

> I too am pro-Taiwan, anti-Communist to the hilt, and would gladly tell
> the Mainland Chinese to hang themselves. But NR does have in it's
membership
> leftists who probably think the PRC is not all bad. They would whine
about
> having to support NR's "right wing" policies, and to be fair, I would
object
> if NR were to become some little leftist group.

Small note: I would object if NR were to become some little rightist group,
too.

> My point is, we don't need
> the divisivness on such matters, which is why I disagree with Publicus.
>
> Nerva

Vale bene,
Draco


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 18:07:01 +0200

Jerry Anguston wrote:
> I feel really offended by this posting. Now, I am
> currently 20 going on 21 next birthday, but by your
> definition I would not be able to have a vote until I
> turn 21! Now, I have had experience with this type of
> thing, and am stunned at the fact that I coul be
> turned down for an age dispensation over a matter of
> about 7 months. It seems to me that you are
> overlooking one major fact: in the majority of
> macronations around the world, 18 is the age where one
> can vote, drink, smoke, bet etc.

Salvete, Gai Senti Brutti Sura et omnes.

I'm deeply sorry that my simple proposal caused this kind of reaction. I
merely meant to have ONE age for all to become full citizens/gain voting
rights, since we presently accept whatever a given macronation feel
sensible.

As I said, I'd be more satisfied with a "majority" at 25, which would
deny me as well my right to vote. This post was in no way intended as an
insult, overt or covert, aimed towards you or any other "young" citizen.
I humbly apologize for any affronted feelings on your behalf, or on any
other who might feel the same way as you regarding my post. However, I
still retain the opinions stated therein, and hopes that you won't hold
them against me.

I agree with your sentiment that 18 is the "universal" age of ascension,
however, this fact, as of itself, is no reason for Nova Roma to choose
the same path. Obviously, if you're below 21, you're not deemed suitable
for holding office. Therefore, why not have 21 as the official Nova
Roman age of "majority", to avoid some minor hassle that might arise?

Just a suggestion, I could live with 18. The only major point is that I
want all Nova Romans treated as equals, regardless of macronational
origin. If you reach your majority at 21 in Sweden (We don't, just as an
example) and at 14 in Norway (They don't, still just an example), you
should still have reached your majority in Nova Roma as soon as you turn
18/21/Whatever, not before, and not after. Equal rights, that can't be
offensive? (I hope)

Valete,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

---- BEGIN RP CODE BLOCK ----
RPaWfC R+++ H+++/--- I+++ M+++/- C- A+++ S+ G+ P+++/--- XPG
---- END RP CODE BLOCK ----


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	Michel <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 13:47:16 -0300

Salve,

In reaction to various posts asking for a unique age.

Unique age is really uncommon among todays nation, most of them have
different
minimum ages for different things : alcohol, cars, voting, marying,
being elected (diff. ages by diff. offices) etc. I don t see why this
would not be the case for NovaRoma.

Specifically for being elected to the various offices I remember the lei
Villia which fixed (under the republic) the different minimum ages for
the offices and created de facto a cursus honorum. Such a law is
benefic. I can also cite various bicameral macronations where the
minimum age to become a member of the higher chamber is much larger then
the one to enter the lower chamber which sometimes (but not always) is
the minimum age for voting.

For voting, here in Brasil the majority is 16 years, being elected to
the lower chamber it is 21. Driving a car 18.
France : voting/elected lower chamber 18, driving a small motorbike 14,
a larger 16 a car 18.

Extremely variable as you can see.

Now, I think it would be good to define universal minimum ages for
all this (that do not depend on the macronational laws).

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	Michel <loos@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 13:52:37 -0300

Salve,

I didn t get the original post , so I am responding to an answer.

"S. Apollonius Draco" wrote:
>
> Salve Nerva,
>
> > I too am pro-Taiwan, anti-Communist to the hilt, and would gladly tell
> > the Mainland Chinese to hang themselves. But NR does have in it's
> membership
> > leftists who probably think the PRC is not all bad. They would whine
> about
> > having to support NR's "right wing" policies, and to be fair, I would
> object
> > if NR were to become some little leftist group.

Leftist I am.

All depends on the statement you make: Anticommunist, I will of course
oppose it, Anti-Imperialist I will support it.

What is your goal ?

Help Taiwan ? Make an anti-imperialist statement (coherent with our
constitution where we state we will not use the force to reconquer our
place under the sun) and it will be difficult for anyone to oppose it.

Hinder China ? Why ? This makes you an imperialist which wants to impose
his system to others and of course you will earn opposition.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 18:58:26 +0200

Salve Limitane,

The original posting came from Gaius Cassius Nerva.

Vale bene,
Draco

> > Salve Nerva,
> >
> > > I too am pro-Taiwan, anti-Communist to the hilt, and would gladly
tell
> > > the Mainland Chinese to hang themselves. But NR does have in it's
> > membership
> > > leftists who probably think the PRC is not all bad. They would whine
> > about
> > > having to support NR's "right wing" policies, and to be fair, I would
> > object
> > > if NR were to become some little leftist group.
>
> Leftist I am.
>
> All depends on the statement you make: Anticommunist, I will of course
> oppose it, Anti-Imperialist I will support it.
>
> What is your goal ?
>
> Help Taiwan ? Make an anti-imperialist statement (coherent with our
> constitution where we state we will not use the force to reconquer our
> place under the sun) and it will be difficult for anyone to oppose it.
>
> Hinder China ? Why ? This makes you an imperialist which wants to impose
> his system to others and of course you will earn opposition.
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
From:	"Domna Claudia Auspicata" <comptess@-------->
Date:	Mon, 7 May 2001 07:49:36 +1200

Salve Cn. Salix Astur!

Just a small historical correction concerning my gens Claudia...

The gens Claudia became a patrician gens at the beginning of the Republic. However there were plebeian offshoots throughout the Republic, eg. the Claudii Marcelli and the Clodii. I understand your desire to conform more to Roma Antiqua in this way because there are great names from our Roman ancestry that are worthy of remembrance and honour. Indeed I believe our Censors have subtly altered the Citizenship form which has had the effect of encouraging new citizens to join already existing gens. But we are many generations removed from Roma Antiqua and the new gens names reflect that. As the gens of ancient Rome moved and adapted, so have we. This is not new. I personally would like to hope that those forming new gens have seriously thought about their name and even if their names do not directly reflect those great families of antiquity, I welcome those gens that flourish with honour in the spirit of Romanitas lending more great names to our history.

Vale bene
Domna Claudia Auspicata
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:37 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution

<snip>

I have been thinking about our gens system, and my ideas go much
further than those expressed in this statements. I would like that
our gens-familia system resembled more closely to the ancient Roman
system. After all, gentes were like clans (families bond together by
common ancestors), and a paterfamilias was the head of a family, and
not a gens. I think that the gentes of Nova Roma should be limited to
the ancient Roman gentes (Fabia, Claudia, Iulia, Cornelia, etc...)
and that, among every gens, several families (and several
paterfamilias) should be included. In that way, familiae would be
patrician or plebeian, instead of gentes (and a plebeian could be
named "Claudius", which would be more historically accurate). I know
that this would be a very difficult issue to implement, as many
citizens have long-stated names that do not correspond to Roman
gentes (or that are not Roman at all). I would just like to see some
discussion on this issue.


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 21:57:55 +0200

Salve Amice!

The Regula of Thule is in part based on this statement ("Tidying up the
Constitution") by the Senior Consul and partly built on a disussion with
the eestemed Consul and a few other high officials..

The main "variant" in the Regula is my expansion of the conceptions of
"Legati" and "Scribae". Furthermore it also includes the founding of a kind
of Provincial Senate, the "Consilium Provincale Thules". All this
"conceptions" have, as I see it, shown to be workable and useful in our
Provincia.

I like the freedom of legislation that my work have had and while I think
it would be good with a kind of minimalistic "Normal-Constitution" for the
Provinces in general. I still think it should be up to the specific
Governor and his assistants what the specifics should be.

I too strongly support the development of Local chapters, but I think that
we first have to have some Provincial structure. We will hopefully come to
a variant of a first local community her in Thule soon.

Be sure that I will be active when this issue is put on the table by the
Senior Consul. But now I am into, up over my head, the developing of the
Nova Roma Academia Thules (still Honorable Caius Curius Saturninus is doing
the main work) and the Edictum about the New re-enactment Legio in Thule.
Be sure that I will back later about these issues.

>> 2) Change the provinces and governors section to make it more
>flexible.

>I think this issue should also be considered of great importance. The
>birth of Nova Roma was as a virtual community, but I think an obvious
>direction to grow is to transform it into a real world community,
>mainly through local chapters. I think local chapters should be
>strongly encouraged by the Republic, as they could form a new
>backbone to our organization, complementing (if not fully
>substituting) the virtual community we have today.
>
>I am currently deeply involved in the organization of Hispania, and I
>have to say that the degree of freedom given to provincial governors
>can be sometimes misleading. What we tend to do is to look at how
>older provinces have organized themselves, and to try to adapt it to
>local circumstances. But I think a major reorganization of the
>provincial system is in order.
>
>About the different titles for governors, I completely agree.
>Propraetors should only be former praetors. A new denomination system
>should be implemented.

Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://www.acc.umu.se/~kerish/novaroma/main.html
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, amice gratissime Fabie Quintiliane.

--- Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@--------> wrote:
> Salve Amice!
>
> The Regula of Thule is in part based on this statement ("Tidying up
> the
> Constitution") by the Senior Consul and partly built on a disussion
> with
> the eestemed Consul and a few other high officials..
>
> The main "variant" in the Regula is my expansion of the conceptions
> of
> "Legati" and "Scribae". Furthermore it also includes the founding of
> a kind
> of Provincial Senate, the "Consilium Provincale Thules". All this
> "conceptions" have, as I see it, shown to be workable and useful in
> our
> Provincia.
>
> I like the freedom of legislation that my work have had and while I
> think
> it would be good with a kind of minimalistic "Normal-Constitution"
> for the
> Provinces in general. I still think it should be up to the specific
> Governor and his assistants what the specifics should be.

What I meant was exactly what you call 'a minimalistic
"Normal-Constitution"'. I was by no means suggesting that we should
reduce the level of flexibility that the actual system allows to the
Provincial governments.

>
> I too strongly support the development of Local chapters, but I think
> that
> we first have to have some Provincial structure. We will hopefully
> come to
> a variant of a first local community her in Thule soon.

Please keep me informed, for I am very interested in doing the very
same thing here in Hispania.

>
> Be sure that I will be active when this issue is put on the table by
> the
> Senior Consul. But now I am into, up over my head, the developing of
> the
> Nova Roma Academia Thules (still Honorable Caius Curius Saturninus is
> doing
> the main work) and the Edictum about the New re-enactment Legio in
> Thule.
> Be sure that I will back later about these issues.
>

Your words, like always, are wise and clear, and they have helped me to
better understand my own opinions and ideas.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Another thought about the Constitution
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 13:56:38 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes.

I have been thinking about the Constitutio, and I have come to a
question. Is there a limit to the validity of magisterial edicta?

Under ancient Roman law, edicta were issued by a magistrate, but lasted
solely during that magistrate's term. They were also called 'one-year
laws' because of that.

A new magistrate usually issued his first edictum to make clear which
of the previous edicta were still valid under that term.

In that way, Romans avoided edicta becoming de facto laws not voted by
the Comitia. They were always subjected to the will of subsequent
magistrates, while leges were firm, and needed a new comitial vote to
be overruled.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)
From:	"Andrew Rielly" <arielly1@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 10:09:02 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: gcassiusnerva@-------- <gcassiusnerva@-------->
To: novaroma@-------- <novaroma@-------->
Date: Sunday, May 06, 2001 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Slavery (was RE: Two issues)

>Salve Publicus,
>
>> "Personally, I think that if Nova Roma wants to grow and prosper
>> then it will have to start acting more like a soveriegn
nation...including
>> taking public positions on issues, fighting for what it believes is
right,
>> etc."
>
>But what does Nova Roma believe to be right on the question of Taiwan, or
>relations with mainland China? Consul Germanicus made a good point that
>slavery at least is an issue closely tied to ancient Rome. But what about
>those other two issues above?
>
>Gaius Cassius Nerva
>
Right. What does it believe. If it is to be something serious and real
world rather than a nice game decide (as a group) and act consistently.

Gaius Cornelius Publicus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Sun, 6 May 2001 15:10:59 -0700 (PDT)

Salve, Domna Claudia Auspicata; et salvete omnes.

Thank you for the information. I was aware that there were plebian
Claudii. That's what I meant when I said that gentes and familiae
should not be confounded terms.

I wish we could make a better approach to gentes and familiae, an
approach that was closer to the ancient Roman system, but trying to
avoid the hassle and troubles of renaming 75% of the Novoroman
population.

Does anyone have any ideas on this issue?

Gnaeus Salix Astur, civis romanus.

--- Domna Claudia Auspicata <comptess@--------> wrote:
> Salve Cn. Salix Astur!
>
> Just a small historical correction concerning my gens Claudia...
>
> The gens Claudia became a patrician gens at the beginning of the
> Republic. However there were plebeian offshoots throughout the
> Republic, eg. the Claudii Marcelli and the Clodii. I understand your
> desire to conform more to Roma Antiqua in this way because there are
> great names from our Roman ancestry that are worthy of remembrance
> and honour. Indeed I believe our Censors have subtly altered the
> Citizenship form which has had the effect of encouraging new citizens
> to join already existing gens. But we are many generations removed
> from Roma Antiqua and the new gens names reflect that. As the gens
> of ancient Rome moved and adapted, so have we. This is not new. I
> personally would like to hope that those forming new gens have
> seriously thought about their name and even if their names do not
> directly reflect those great families of antiquity, I welcome those
> gens that flourish with honour in the spirit of Romanitas lending
> more great names to our history.
>
> Vale bene
> Domna Claudia Auspicata
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
> To: novaroma@--------
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:37 AM
> Subject: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
>
>
> <snip>
>
> I have been thinking about our gens system, and my ideas go much
> further than those expressed in this statements. I would like that
> our gens-familia system resembled more closely to the ancient Roman
>
> system. After all, gentes were like clans (families bond together
> by
> common ancestors), and a paterfamilias was the head of a family,
> and
> not a gens. I think that the gentes of Nova Roma should be limited
> to
> the ancient Roman gentes (Fabia, Claudia, Iulia, Cornelia, etc...)
> and that, among every gens, several families (and several
> paterfamilias) should be included. In that way, familiae would be
> patrician or plebeian, instead of gentes (and a plebeian could be
> named "Claudius", which would be more historically accurate). I
> know
> that this would be a very difficult issue to implement, as many
> citizens have long-stated names that do not correspond to Roman
> gentes (or that are not Roman at all). I would just like to see
> some
> discussion on this issue.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age
From:	"Raina Faolan" <GuruPoet@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 14:19:40 -0400

Salve,

Excuse me for interupting what seems to be a good discussion. But could
someone tell me who are you referring to as "children" is there a specific
age range? And just what if the "children" are able to pay taxes surely
these "kids" should have the right to vote.

Bene Vale,
Aeternia

>From: Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Age
>Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 15:13:15 +0200
>
>Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice.
>
>I re-read the post "Tidying up the Constitution" (TUC), and realized
>that the matter I was discussing is essentially the same as the one you
>bring up there regarding children as citizens, and their rights. There
>are just two points I'd like to comment:
>
>1. In the upcoming proposal, how about a "generic" age for full voting
>privilegies in Nova Roma, instead of different ages depending on the
>regulations of the macronation in question? Say, for example, 21?
>
>2. The consequences of being young and not paying taxes are close to
>identical, since one cannot be elected for an office before 21, and you
>cannot be a citizen and vote until you've reached majority in your
>macronation. I'm not sure what you had in mind in TUC, but I for one
>don't think citizens below a certain age should be allowed to vote, and
>I feel you had the same idea. Up until you are of an age to vote,
>however, you might as well not pay taxes. There is, after all, no
>further "punishments". Why not make this official, just saying that if
>"children" want to donate money to our beloved Res Publica, they may do
>so, and if not, they don't have to, because they are, after all,
>children?
>
>That the age limit I proposed should coincide with the age where one may
>stand for office, is a matter of me moving the age I feel suitable
>downwards to adjust for the current Nova Roman legislation. I'd be quite
>happy with a majority at 25, or maybe 30, but since I don't appreciate
>the thought of minors holding office, I adjusted so that anyone old
>enough to hold an office, would also be considered an adult. I.E., only
>adults should get to vote and hold office, thereby influencing the
>future of Nova Roma and all her citizens.
>
>Don't think I want to allow ALL offices at age 21, I fully support the
>cursus honorum concept, although some age limitations there are somewhat
>low for my taste.
>
>Vale,
>
>Titus Octavius Pius,
>Consiliarius Thules,
>Praeco Anarei Thules,
>Scriba to the Curator Araneum
>
>AKA Kristoffer From
>
> ---
>
> Si hoc signum legere potes,
> operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
> et fructuosis potiri potes.
>
> - Not-so-famous quotation
>
>
>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
>Version: 3.1
>GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N
>o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X-
>R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !x-
>------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
>---- BEGIN RP CODE BLOCK ----
>RPaWfC R+++ H+++/--- I+++ M+++/- C- A+++ S+ G+ P+++/--- XPG
>---- END RP CODE BLOCK ----
>
>

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 15:39:20 -0700

Ave,

As Censor of Nova Roma, let me comment on this issue. First off, the
Censors have tried to subtly suggest to prospective citizens to join
existing Gentes. Over 85% of the time we are successful. However, we
have also realized that the true success of this matter will involve the
complete involvement of Paters/Maters in the leadership of their Gens.

For simplicity sake, I will use the Gens Cornelia as an example, as I
have first hand knowledge. There are distinct lines of organization in
the Gens Cornelia. I am the Paterfamilias, but there is also a House
Priest, M. Cornelius Felix. As the Gens Cornelia has grown there has
been the development of organizational structure to help the
paterfamilias conduct his responsibility.

Given that the Gens Cornelia has almost 40 members, our organizational
structure has developed in two directions. First would be the internal
development (Keeping Gens members informed of elections, promoting Gens
involvement, promoting involvement within NR, etc). The second
direction that the gens organization has taken would be the regulation
of gens behavior (for lack of a better word).

To answer these two directions, I came up with the idea of various
committees. I know this word sounds formal...but in reality it is not
such a formal business. In the Gens Cornelia there are three
committees. First, to promote the Gens by recruitment of new members.
The recent influx of about 5 Gens members that have been recently
accepted in the Gens Cornelia shows this so far has been very
successful. The Second committee deals with promotion of current Gens
Cornelia members within the Gens (ie., the email list, gens website,
gens gatherings in local communities, etc) and within Nova Roma as well
(a desire to serve as a magistrate, a religio officer, helping in the
establishment of a Sodalitas, etc). Finally, we have a committee to
help mediate disputes and quarrels. In this committee, I rely on the
experience and assistance of my fellow Cornelians to help me make
educated decision regarding any number of issues. So far, in the past 4
months this has been implemented the Gens has grown to about 10 new
members, and mediated a couple of disputes.

Now, back to what I think is the crux of the matter. If the Gentes is
to be structured as it was in ancient Rome we would need much more
involvement of paters/maters in their own Gens. IMHO, I feel that it is
this role that should be even more important than a provincial role.
Families should always be more important. However, since the Censors
have promulgated the edict on closing Gentes for Pater/Mater's failure
to respond, I have closed over 75 Gentes. That is a very sad state of
affairs, in my honest opinion.

I wish there was a simple answer to answer your question. I have heard
many people ask for a moratorium (sp.) to halt the creation of new
Gentes. I have even been in favor of such a step. However, what is the
use of that when we have paters/Maters who still do not respond to
censor requests when it comes to admitting new people in their Gentes.

So, I think there should be at least some more legislation dealing with
the role of Pater/Mater, even to the point of removing one if there is
sufficient grounds. As we have seen there are a couple of cases where a
need has been shown. And, I have even seen Gentes dispute just who is
the Pater of a Gens. This issue would never have happened in ancient
Rome. Yet, because of a failure of the Pater/Mater this is now an issue
that we will see more and more as NR grows. I fear.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salve, Domna Claudia Auspicata; et salvete omnes.
>
> Thank you for the information. I was aware that there were plebian
> Claudii. That's what I meant when I said that gentes and familiae
> should not be confounded terms.
>
> I wish we could make a better approach to gentes and familiae, an
> approach that was closer to the ancient Roman system, but trying to
> avoid the hassle and troubles of renaming 75% of the Novoroman
> population.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas on this issue?
>
> Gnaeus Salix Astur, civis romanus.
>
> --- Domna Claudia Auspicata <comptess@--------> wrote:
> > Salve Cn. Salix Astur!
> >
> > Just a small historical correction concerning my gens Claudia...
> >
> > The gens Claudia became a patrician gens at the beginning of the
> > Republic. However there were plebeian offshoots throughout the
> > Republic, eg. the Claudii Marcelli and the Clodii. I understand your
> > desire to conform more to Roma Antiqua in this way because there are
> > great names from our Roman ancestry that are worthy of remembrance
> > and honour. Indeed I believe our Censors have subtly altered the
> > Citizenship form which has had the effect of encouraging new citizens
> > to join already existing gens. But we are many generations removed
> > from Roma Antiqua and the new gens names reflect that. As the gens
> > of ancient Rome moved and adapted, so have we. This is not new. I
> > personally would like to hope that those forming new gens have
> > seriously thought about their name and even if their names do not
> > directly reflect those great families of antiquity, I welcome those
> > gens that flourish with honour in the spirit of Romanitas lending
> > more great names to our history.
> >
> > Vale bene
> > Domna Claudia Auspicata
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gnaeus Salix Astur
> > To: novaroma@--------
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 2:37 AM
> > Subject: [novaroma] Re: Tidying up the Constitution
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I have been thinking about our gens system, and my ideas go much
> > further than those expressed in this statements. I would like that
> > our gens-familia system resembled more closely to the ancient Roman
> >
> > system. After all, gentes were like clans (families bond together
> > by
> > common ancestors), and a paterfamilias was the head of a family,
> > and
> > not a gens. I think that the gentes of Nova Roma should be limited
> > to
> > the ancient Roman gentes (Fabia, Claudia, Iulia, Cornelia, etc...)
> > and that, among every gens, several families (and several
> > paterfamilias) should be included. In that way, familiae would be
> > patrician or plebeian, instead of gentes (and a plebeian could be
> > named "Claudius", which would be more historically accurate). I
> > know
> > that this would be a very difficult issue to implement, as many
> > citizens have long-stated names that do not correspond to Roman
> > gentes (or that are not Roman at all). I would just like to see
> > some
> > discussion on this issue.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Census: was Tidying up the Constitution
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Sun, 06 May 2001 23:57:11 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,

Snip

> Families should always be more important. However, since the Censors
> have promulgated the edict on closing Gentes for Pater/Mater's failure
> to respond, I have closed over 75 Gentes. That is a very sad state of
> affairs, in my honest opinion.
>
> I wish there was a simple answer to answer your question. I have heard
> many people ask for a moratorium (sp.) to halt the creation of new
> Gentes. I have even been in favor of such a step. However, what is the
> use of that when we have paters/Maters who still do not respond to
> censor requests when it comes to admitting new people in their Gentes.
>
> So, I think there should be at least some more legislation dealing with
> the role of Pater/Mater, even to the point of removing one if there is
> sufficient grounds. As we have seen there are a couple of cases where a
> need has been shown. And, I have even seen Gentes dispute just who is
> the Pater of a Gens. This issue would never have happened in ancient
> Rome. Yet, because of a failure of the Pater/Mater this is now an issue
> that we will see more and more as NR grows. I fear.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>

Ave Luci Corneli,

I think that these Paters/Maters who are failing to respond are a
symptom of a larger problem. An inflated Census. We don't really have
the 849 citizens that our home page mentions. What we have is a list
that is inflated with the names of citizens who left without bothering
to resign. Perhaps they joined on a whim, and didn't find what they
were looking for. Perhaps they left in anger over one of the disputes
that came up in the past. Perhaps they found another persuit that they
found more fullfilling to thier needs than Nova Roma. The reason
doesn't matter, They have left us and only exist as names on a list now.

I think it's time for Nova Roma to hold a Census. We need to know just
how many citizens we really have. In Antiquita the Census was closely
tied to taxiation, and since we are about to apply taxes, now seems to
be an excellent time to hold a Census.

We could start by looking at the records from the December elections.
Citizens who voted then would be considered to active. Next would be
the Citizens who have joined since then, who would also be considered
active. If my memory is correct about 200 citizens voted last December
and about 200 new citizens have enrolled since then. This leaves us
with roughly 450 citizens to account for.

I would suggest that each of these 450 citizens be sent an e-mail 3
times at one week intervals. One week after the last attempt to
contact these citizens, we should publish a list of those citizens who
failed to respond. If any Citizen knows the reason why we were unable
to contact the inactive citizens they could contact the Censors
regarding this. The remainder would be declared legally dead, and
thier names removed from the Album Civium. For those who were the
Pater/Mater of a Gens, The active citizen who had held membership the
longest would be declared the new Pater/Mater of that Gens. Gens with
no "living" Citizens would be striken from the Album Gentium.

I think that this would solve most of the problems that we are having
with Paters/Maters that fail to respond. Since some of these inactive
citizens are the Pater/Mater of Gens with illustrous names it will
allow us to have new Citizens adpot these names so they will play a
role in our new republic as they did in the ancient republic. It would
also be of some help to the Senate when they debate on what the tax
rate is going to be. Knowing how many citizens we really have will
allow the Senate to make a closer estimate of how much revenue a given
tax rate will generate.

It may be a blow to our pride to see the number of Citizens fall by
several hundred, but at least we will know how many real citizens we
have instead of wondering how many of that 849 are "ghosts"

Vale
Lucius Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/