Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:07:26 -0000

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@y...> wrote:
> You should consider that most Europeans nations (if not all of them;
> there are exceptions for everything) have laws that play the same
role
> as American Civil Rights laws.
> However, Solaris is right in stating that this kind of lawsuits are
> less common in Europe. I am not sure why.
>

Here are some possible answers:

a) Americans are greedier than Europeans.

b) Americans have developed a blame someone else mentality for their
actions than take personal responsibilty. Once upon a time if you
spilled hot coffee on yourself you'd be angry at yourself for
clumsyness. Now its the fault of [insert your favorite take out
place here] for giving me hot coffee. I'm surprised that someone
hasn't sued the maker of their hair conditioner because they had
a "bad hair day" <G>

c) Too many cases where frivilous lawsuits result in large
settlements as most cases never see a courtroom but are settled
because a company/organization would rather pay a small sum rather
than take chances of a jury awarding a lot more. Let's face it, I
have better chances of receiving a settlement in a frivilous lawsuit
than hitting the lottery.

d) Too damn many lawyers! The law of supply and demand, lawyers
demand money for their services. If people don't use those
services..... I think you get the picture.

e) All of the above

Remember anytime you see a product safety warning which makes you say
to yourself, "No kidding really, you shouldn't run an electric fan
in the shower?", that's because someone, somewhere did and sued!

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:10:50 -0500

Salve:

As an attorney, these lay-persons rants against the American justice system are rather hackneyed and tiresome. For one, JURIES, made up of regular folks, give out the ridiculous awards. A representative government is only as good as the people it represents, and that goes for the justice system as well.

Any society is judged, and will be judged by posterity, by the accessibility of its common citizens to a some sort of justice. America truly has the rule of law. How many countries would you feel safe in investing money in, say, real estate, and feel confident that its rule of law would protect your ownership rights? How many countries would it be an absolute nightmare to get caught up in its criminal justice system? Take Italy, as an example. You are guilty until proven innocent. The defendant has no right to enter evidence on his own behalf, nor may he cross examine state witnesses, nor may he call witnesses. Three judges preside over your trial, and one of the judges is the PROSECUTOR!!! And Italy has one of the "better" systems in Western Europe.

There can never be enough laws. Laws in any growing society will be as numerous and complicated as the humans that reside in it and reflect the incalculable circumstances of the human condition.








The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Vitellius Ligus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question



"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm at work right now. I am forbidden from hanging a
poster of a model in a swimsuit by my desk because it
could result in a sexual harrasment lawsuit. All it
would take is one woman claiming that the poster made
her uncomfortable. It wouldn't matter if no other
woman that worked here cared, and that a few of them
were turned on by my poster. All that matters is that
one woman felt the poster harrased her. Companies have
lost lawsuits over this.

It dosen't matter if we have had a 100 Monotheists
that had no problem with our oath. All that matters is
that one person felt that taking that oath would
violate his religious views. He has grounds for a
civil rights suit.



I must admit you're absolutely right. In these days of frivolous lawsuits and idiotic judges awarding massive settlements for ridiculous lawsuits, it's not unreasonable to believe that NR could be sued for religious persecution based upon Drusus' outline...and they would probably win. At the rate things are going, I figure a person could probably pick a company at random and sue them for no other reason than not having a reason to sue them...and probably be awarded damages...Another good example would be suing of an aircraft manufacturer for a crash that caused the loss of life while flying an aircraft manufactured in the 1960's. It has happened in the past, and the only reason it doesn't happen as much now is former Pres Clinton managed to get it limited to aircraft younger than 18 years...But that's another story alltogether...

Off my soapbox...





M. Vitellius Ligus
Optio, Legio III Avgvsta
Paterfamilias, Gens Vitellia, Nova Roma




---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Praetor's Comment: Macronational legal systems
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:46:46 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Could we please confine comments on the legal system and subsequent
analysis, whether professional or nonprofessional, unless the
comments within the posts have a direct bearing on Nova Roma legal
systems.

We are not here to justify/unjustify the legal systems of any one
macronation. As one poster pointed out, they are all different; and
I can see where we could get into an explosive argument about all of
this, and accomplish nothing constructive toward the building of our
micronation here.

Hey, no problem with pointing out how a system compares to the Roman
system, or how it perhaps presents a viable legal route for Nova
Roma. But otherwise, such discussions are really veering off topic.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia
Praetor et List Moderator


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	01 Aug 2002 21:59:17 -0300

Em Qui, 2002-08-01 ās 21:07, quintuscassiuscalvus escreveu:
> Salve,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@y...> wrote:
> > You should consider that most Europeans nations (if not all of them;
> > there are exceptions for everything) have laws that play the same
> role
> > as American Civil Rights laws.
> > However, Solaris is right in stating that this kind of lawsuits are
> > less common in Europe. I am not sure why.
> >
>
> Here are some possible answers:
>
> a) Americans are greedier than Europeans.
>
> b) Americans have developed a blame someone else mentality for their
> actions than take personal responsibilty. Once upon a time if you
> spilled hot coffee on yourself you'd be angry at yourself for
> clumsyness. Now its the fault of [insert your favorite take out
> place here] for giving me hot coffee. I'm surprised that someone
> hasn't sued the maker of their hair conditioner because they had
> a "bad hair day" <G>
>
> c) Too many cases where frivilous lawsuits result in large
> settlements as most cases never see a courtroom but are settled
> because a company/organization would rather pay a small sum rather
> than take chances of a jury awarding a lot more. Let's face it, I
> have better chances of receiving a settlement in a frivilous lawsuit
> than hitting the lottery.
>
> d) Too damn many lawyers! The law of supply and demand, lawyers
> demand money for their services. If people don't use those
> services..... I think you get the picture.
>
> e) All of the above
>
> Remember anytime you see a product safety warning which makes you say
> to yourself, "No kidding really, you shouldn't run an electric fan
> in the shower?", that's because someone, somewhere did and sued!

Other reason: In most european countries, a judge has to accept your
case in a non-contradictory hearing.
If most judges dismiss the silly cases in this initial phase, the cost
is only for the one that intends to sue. This keeps the number of cases
low. And usually you don't have the choice of the judge it is determined
by the location of the defender.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:40:24 -0500

More American bashing and/or self loathing. A canadian once wrote:

Americans are the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars! into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles.

You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon -! not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!








The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.
----- Original Message -----
From: quintuscassiuscalvus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping


Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@y...> wrote:
> You should consider that most Europeans nations (if not all of them;
> there are exceptions for everything) have laws that play the same
role
> as American Civil Rights laws.
> However, Solaris is right in stating that this kind of lawsuits are
> less common in Europe. I am not sure why.
>

Here are some possible answers:

a) Americans are greedier than Europeans.

b) Americans have developed a blame someone else mentality for their
actions than take personal responsibilty. Once upon a time if you
spilled hot coffee on yourself you'd be angry at yourself for
clumsyness. Now its the fault of [insert your favorite take out
place here] for giving me hot coffee. I'm surprised that someone
hasn't sued the maker of their hair conditioner because they had
a "bad hair day" <G>

c) Too many cases where frivilous lawsuits result in large
settlements as most cases never see a courtroom but are settled
because a company/organization would rather pay a small sum rather
than take chances of a jury awarding a lot more. Let's face it, I
have better chances of receiving a settlement in a frivilous lawsuit
than hitting the lottery.

d) Too damn many lawyers! The law of supply and demand, lawyers
demand money for their services. If people don't use those
services..... I think you get the picture.

e) All of the above

Remember anytime you see a product safety warning which makes you say
to yourself, "No kidding really, you shouldn't run an electric fan
in the shower?", that's because someone, somewhere did and sued!

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:42:26 -0000

Salvete omnes,

other reasons include:

1.) A "pactum de quota litis" (yes we have a Roman connection here,
valued Praetrix) is considered unethical/illegal in most of the
European countries I know. So on top of that the loser pays for his
own and the winner's lawyer, there is no incentive for lawyers to
take on frivolous cases with potential high returns (not likely in
Europe anyway because of the absence of juries in civil trials).

2.) Ambulance chasers and the like are not a common sight in Europe
as advertising is heavily regulated and usually considered
unethical/illegal. So people do not get confronted everyday by
commercials almost begging them to sue if they tripped over a stair
and hurt themselves.

And then there is this nice quote I found in a forensics journal:

"....Then, as now, the public perception of lawyers included an
awareness of the potential for chicanery, double dealing, and an
unbridled cynicism among lawyers. In ancient Rome, terms like
shyster and ambulance chaser were as familiar as they are now.
Contemporary distrust and anxiety about lawyers is foreshadowed by
identical public attitudes at the time the profession of lawyering
first took shape.

This suggests it may be the nature of the profession itself that
elicits this persistent perception."

Ave et Vale

Marcus Marcius Rex

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Michel Loos <loos@q...> wrote:
> Other reason: In most european countries, a judge has to accept your
> case in a non-contradictory hearing.
> If most judges dismiss the silly cases in this initial phase, the
cost
> is only for the one that intends to sue. This keeps the number of
cases
> low. And usually you don't have the choice of the judge it is
determined
> by the location of the defender.
>
> Vale
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Gens Hopping
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:44:25 -0000

Salve,

I believe that this has been quoted and commented on before on this
list.

Marcus Marcius Rex



--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@k...> wrote:
> More American bashing and/or self loathing. A canadian once wrote:
>



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Victoria In Urbe
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:46:45 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Quirites Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salvete Amici,

Yes, my friends, at long last the Gods have triumphed, and there is a victory in the City. That's right, fellow citizens, finally I can get rid of the foreigner part of my signature. Finally, I am a citizen! But you know what that means. That just means I get to talk more and start doing more. But maybe that isn't good for any political opponents I may gather over the years. Anyway, what can I say, I'm so happy. I've been waiting for this since, oh, well it's been due for a while. But I'll shut up now and stop wasting valuable message space for when I decide to test my oratory strength.

Optime Valete,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"


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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Messages
From:	antoniaoctavia@webtv.net
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:46:20 -0400 (EDT)

I haven't gotten any messages from this group. Wondering if I am
connected.

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:06:22 -0700

Avete Omnes,

This paragraph is very telling, again it shows the intent behind those individuals who are intent on promulgating this law. Do they have the best motives for Nova Roma? You citizens are the judges.
-----
Additionally, I don't think anything is wrong with safeguarding the rights
of the individual. Nova Roma is in the first place a religious and cultural
recreation of Roma Antiqua, and far less so a political one, and certainly
not a social one. Some people here seem to attempt to do the opposite. Would
people here really want this micronation to be an anachronism? I'm sorry
folks, but if the Roman Empire had survived, it sure would have evolved.
Good progression is progression that benefits everyone, and if a -
potentially - powerful minority loses some of their imagined power in that
process, that's too bad.


Solaris, I am not interested if I lose any Cornelian because of this law. Because if they had any issues that could not be resolved I would be more than happy to let them go. Since, it is far more important to me that members of the Gens Cornelia have a pleasurable experience in Nova Roma. Besides, I do not control anyone, Nova Roma is a voluntary organization. There is nothing I could do to prevent them from leaving Nova Roma in the first place. So, if this law is passed do you really think that I am going to lose Cornelians? I do not think so. Do you really think my allies are going to lose their gens members as well? I don't think so either. So, this is clearly not an issue of a "powerful minority" (if that is what us traditionalists are) concerned about. You, and most of our opponents have failed to grasp that or have ignored it. I don't know the answer to that.

If the mission and goals as stated in the Nova Roma website and constitution were changed to say that we were reconstructing only the BEST of Nova Roma then I would not be here arguing. But I must point out that I might have issues with just who decides just what is the BEST of ancient Rome. However, the Nova Roma website does not say that. Baring that, I and my allies have taken the traditional approach to look first to the ancients.

It has been pointed out in the Senate and to me privately that there would be benefits to myself and the Gens Cornelia if this law was adopted. That's probably true. That even my dignitas might be enhanced because it will show that I truly do not control the Gens. Thats probably true as well. I recognize the fact that my dignitas has probably suffered because of the hard-line stance. But I have to stand with my principles and principles only mean something when they are uncomfortable and potentially unpopular. In addition, I can say this in all honesty, that I have never striven for popularity. I have never gone out of my way to court popular opinion. Instead, I have always acted out of a sense of duty and responsibility and what I felt was within the Mos Maiorum. And I feel obligated to stand up with my principles and defend the Roman Family, which is the foundation of Roman Civilization.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?
From:	tekwkp@attbi.com
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 22:27:31 +0000

Agreed! It was in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday.
Sort of makes one roll their eyes among other things. A
real fool, is he.

L. Cornelius Drusus
>
> --- MVariusPM@aol.com wrote:
> SNIP
> ." Honestly,
> > that is one of the silliest (read: petty) things
> > I've heard in ages.
> >
> Oh? This tops it.
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20020726/
> hl_nm/fastfood_dc
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:25:47 -0500

Salvete Corneli Consul omnesque

> If the mission and goals as stated in the Nova Roma website and
> constitution were changed to say that we were reconstructing only
> the BEST of Nova Roma then I would not be here arguing.

The second "Nova" in that sentence aside, perhaps you missed, "NOVA ROMA
is more than a historical recreation society, although we are that. We
are more than a pagan religious organization, although we are that, too.
We are more than a classical studies group, but that falls within our
purview as well. We are nothing less than a sovereign nation; an attempt
to re-create the BEST of classical pagan Rome..." (emphasis mine)

If there is one thing that potential cives read before applying, it is
most likely this statement displayed prominently on the main page of our
Web site. Indeed, the "best of classical pagan Rome" statement has been
with us since the very beginning.

> But I must point out that I might have issues with just who decides
> just what is the BEST of ancient Rome.

As do we all. This is the very fundament of the majority of Nova Roma's
political strife. And if we are to survive, we need to come to a
collective answer to that implied question while working very hard
indeed to remain civil and friendly to one another.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:36:18 EDT

Salvete,

Even though the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law has been withdrawn so that it
may be amended, discussion seems to continue. Citizens such as Lucius
Cornelius Sulla continue to declare that the proposed law is against the 'mos
maiorum' - a departure from Roman tradition.

I hate to say this folks, but the REAL departure from tradition is our Gens
system as it stands. It was a good first effort, but the *entire system*
would need to be broken down and rebuilt before it could be considered
anything like 'tradition'.

However, I must say that if our Gentes were broken down and totally
restructured, there would be no need for the "Lex Octavia Salacia" gens law.
Why? Because the positions of Pater and Materfamilae as they now stand in NR
would be eliminated *completely*.

What would need to happen to make the Gentes in Nova Roma truly traditional
and historical?

1. The Pater and Materfamiliae positions as we know them would have to
abandoned entirely. A Paterfamilias does not preside over an entire Gens...
merely one Familiae within a Gens. The power and influence of our current
Paters and maters would cease to exist - they would have no influence except
over their own household.

2. Our Adoption system would need to cease to exist. New Citizens would not
require approval from a "pater" or "mater" to enter a Gens... they would be
able to choose a Gens name and start their OWN FAMILIA within that Gens.
Frankly, this would simplify the NR system a lot... we wouldn't have
prospective Citizens sitting around for a month or two waiting for inactive
Paters or Maters to get back to the Censors.

3. The basic unit of organization within NR would cease to be the Gens, but
instead become the Familia. Each household would be it's own Familia, be it a
household of one, or a dozen members. Each pater or mater of each household
would be responsible for their own Familiae rites, should they be
practitioners of the Religio. No Pater or Mater of any familia would owe
allegiance to any other pater or mater - the Romans had no traditional
concept of a "clan leader".

4. The power of a Pater or Materfamilias would no longer stretch around the
world, but would in fact end at their own front door. No longer would they
have any claim over any Citizen who happened to share the same Nomen. This
would mean in essence total disempowerment of our current "Gens leaders" and
"Gens system", and a total *empowerment* of Citizenship at the household
level.

So folks, what's it to be. Do we want to make our current system less
oppressive, or do we want to champion "tradition"? If it's the latter, our
Gentes system must be destroyed and rebuilt.

I don't know what else to say. Our Gens system is the way it is not because
it's "right". It's the way it is because it was the best Germanicus, myself
and the other early folks could come up with given the information and
experience we had. \

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Paterfamilias, Gens Cassia




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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:43:52 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Civibus Novae Romae S.P.D.

Salvete,

I have nothing to add to the comments of the Praetor Labienus Fortunatus, although I would like to emphasize his last sentence:

"And if we are to survive, we need to come to a collective answer to that implied question while working very hard indeed to remain civil and friendly to one another."

The last phrase receiving much emphasis, because we should all in every proceeding, both public and private, "...remain civil and friendly to one another."

Bene Valete,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:48:12 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,
The postion of "Paterfamilis" mentioned in point 1
implies head of a family, and Germanicus did in fact
consider his immediate Family and his Gens to be one
and the same. "Adoption" is mentioned in point two as
the means of entering a Gens. "Adoption" is the
process where someone become a member of a family.

Now when you have adoption by a Paterfamilis, the
result is a person becoming a member of the Pater's
family. I Can't see any other way this can be
interpated. This may not have been the intent of some
of the Paters, but "I Didn't understand Adoption ment
Adoption" is hardly an excuse.

The Roman concept of family went beyond the idea of
just the people living in a household. It was closer
to what is called an extended family today. Your
Grandfather, Your Father, Your Uncles and Your Cousins
were all part of the family to a Roman, not just the
narrow idea of the people who share a house with you.

You couldn't just enter a Gens in Antiquita. There
were several ways to become a member of a Gens. The
first was birth, if the Father accepted the Child. A
Newborn was laid on the ground at the fathers feet. If
the Father picked the Child it it was accepted into
the Gens. If he turned away the Child was not accepted
into the Gens and didn't even have Roman citizenship.

The second way is adoption into a family that was a
member of a Gens. Adoptions into a family had to have
the approval of a Paterfamilis.

The Third way was Freedmen. Only a Paterfamilis could
free a slave that belonged to the family. The Freedman
then became a Roman Citizen, a member of his former
Master's Gens, and a client of his former master. The
Freedman's status was now he was Paterfamilis of a
Plebian Family regardless of the possible Patrician
Status of his Patron.

The Fourth way was a Paterfamilis could allow a Client
to become a member of his Gens. This was mainly used
during the time of the Kings, and was rae during the
Republic. The Client became a Plebian Paterfamilis
regardless of the Status of his Patron.

The Fifth way and the most important to us was a
forigner could be sponserd by a Paterfamilis of the
Gens, when he wanted to become a citizen. A ProConsul
or ProPraetor had the Imperium to grant indiviuals
citizenship, and the new citizen became a member of
the Proconsul or Propraetor's Gens or the Gens of a
member of his staff who sponsered the new citizen.

In Cases where large groups of people became Citizens
like when the Italians were granted Citizenship they
did not enter an existing Gens but the Italian Gens
(or clan in the case of Celts) became a Roman Gens.

In all the cases where a citizen entered a Gens, the
permission of one of the Paterfamilis was needed.
There was no Pater over the entire Gens, in Theory all
the Paters were peers (though Clint/Patron
relationships complicated this) and ANY of the Paters
could approve a new citizen starting a new family in
thr Gens and becoming it's Pater.

The best way to handle our situation without causing
mass confussion is first we make the changes to the
Constitution that would Legalize Multiple Paters in a
Gens. At This point each Gens would Be a Gens with a
single Family in it. Each Pater could then (at his
discrection) emancipate members of his Gens allowing
them to become a Paterfamilis of his own Family within
the Gens.

New Citizens could be adopted into an existing family
in the Gens, or if any one of the Paters approved it
by forming a new family in the Gens. If NONE of the
Paters was willing to approve a new citizen, then he
couldn't enter that Gens. Any new family formed by a
new citizen would be a Plebian Family regardless of
the Status of The Pater who approved him.

This new arrangement would also cause a change in how
we handle names. Currently a Nomen is used to track a
Gens/Family and nothing more. We would have to have
the Cognomen used as the common name for a family in a
Gens.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Even though the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law has
> been withdrawn so that it
> may be amended, discussion seems to continue.
> Citizens such as Lucius
> Cornelius Sulla continue to declare that the
> proposed law is against the 'mos
> maiorum' - a departure from Roman tradition.
>
> I hate to say this folks, but the REAL departure
> from tradition is our Gens
> system as it stands. It was a good first effort, but
> the *entire system*
> would need to be broken down and rebuilt before it
> could be considered
> anything like 'tradition'.
>
> However, I must say that if our Gentes were broken
> down and totally
> restructured, there would be no need for the "Lex
> Octavia Salacia" gens law.
> Why? Because the positions of Pater and Materfamilae
> as they now stand in NR
> would be eliminated *completely*.
>
> What would need to happen to make the Gentes in Nova
> Roma truly traditional
> and historical?
>
> 1. The Pater and Materfamiliae positions as we know
> them would have to
> abandoned entirely. A Paterfamilias does not preside
> over an entire Gens...
> merely one Familiae within a Gens. The power and
> influence of our current
> Paters and maters would cease to exist - they would
> have no influence except
> over their own household.
>
> 2. Our Adoption system would need to cease to exist.
> New Citizens would not
> require approval from a "pater" or "mater" to enter
> a Gens... they would be
> able to choose a Gens name and start their OWN
> FAMILIA within that Gens.
> Frankly, this would simplify the NR system a lot...
> we wouldn't have
> prospective Citizens sitting around for a month or
> two waiting for inactive
> Paters or Maters to get back to the Censors.
>
> 3. The basic unit of organization within NR would
> cease to be the Gens, but
> instead become the Familia. Each household would be
> it's own Familia, be it a
> household of one, or a dozen members. Each pater or
> mater of each household
> would be responsible for their own Familiae rites,
> should they be
> practitioners of the Religio. No Pater or Mater of
> any familia would owe
> allegiance to any other pater or mater - the Romans
> had no traditional
> concept of a "clan leader".
>
> 4. The power of a Pater or Materfamilias would no
> longer stretch around the
> world, but would in fact end at their own front
> door. No longer would they
> have any claim over any Citizen who happened to
> share the same Nomen. This
> would mean in essence total disempowerment of our
> current "Gens leaders" and
> "Gens system", and a total *empowerment* of
> Citizenship at the household
> level.
>
> So folks, what's it to be. Do we want to make our
> current system less
> oppressive, or do we want to champion "tradition"?
> If it's the latter, our
> Gentes system must be destroyed and rebuilt.
>
> I don't know what else to say. Our Gens system is
> the way it is not because
> it's "right". It's the way it is because it was the
> best Germanicus, myself
> and the other early folks could come up with given
> the information and
> experience we had. \
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Paterfamilias, Gens Cassia
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:52:25 -0700

Avete Omnes,

This sounds like a workable plan and in keeping with the Mos Maiorum. Propraetor, in May I asked you if you could write up this law. Has your schedule cleared up enough that you could help prepare this draft. Because if you could I will present it to the People to have it promulgated hopefully in this month or in October (when I hold the Fasces again).

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: L. Sicinius Drusus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...


Salve,
The postion of "Paterfamilis" mentioned in point 1
implies head of a family, and Germanicus did in fact
consider his immediate Family and his Gens to be one
and the same. "Adoption" is mentioned in point two as
the means of entering a Gens. "Adoption" is the
process where someone become a member of a family.

Now when you have adoption by a Paterfamilis, the
result is a person becoming a member of the Pater's
family. I Can't see any other way this can be
interpated. This may not have been the intent of some
of the Paters, but "I Didn't understand Adoption ment
Adoption" is hardly an excuse.

The Roman concept of family went beyond the idea of
just the people living in a household. It was closer
to what is called an extended family today. Your
Grandfather, Your Father, Your Uncles and Your Cousins
were all part of the family to a Roman, not just the
narrow idea of the people who share a house with you.

You couldn't just enter a Gens in Antiquita. There
were several ways to become a member of a Gens. The
first was birth, if the Father accepted the Child. A
Newborn was laid on the ground at the fathers feet. If
the Father picked the Child it it was accepted into
the Gens. If he turned away the Child was not accepted
into the Gens and didn't even have Roman citizenship.

The second way is adoption into a family that was a
member of a Gens. Adoptions into a family had to have
the approval of a Paterfamilis.

The Third way was Freedmen. Only a Paterfamilis could
free a slave that belonged to the family. The Freedman
then became a Roman Citizen, a member of his former
Master's Gens, and a client of his former master. The
Freedman's status was now he was Paterfamilis of a
Plebian Family regardless of the possible Patrician
Status of his Patron.

The Fourth way was a Paterfamilis could allow a Client
to become a member of his Gens. This was mainly used
during the time of the Kings, and was rae during the
Republic. The Client became a Plebian Paterfamilis
regardless of the Status of his Patron.

The Fifth way and the most important to us was a
forigner could be sponserd by a Paterfamilis of the
Gens, when he wanted to become a citizen. A ProConsul
or ProPraetor had the Imperium to grant indiviuals
citizenship, and the new citizen became a member of
the Proconsul or Propraetor's Gens or the Gens of a
member of his staff who sponsered the new citizen.

In Cases where large groups of people became Citizens
like when the Italians were granted Citizenship they
did not enter an existing Gens but the Italian Gens
(or clan in the case of Celts) became a Roman Gens.

In all the cases where a citizen entered a Gens, the
permission of one of the Paterfamilis was needed.
There was no Pater over the entire Gens, in Theory all
the Paters were peers (though Clint/Patron
relationships complicated this) and ANY of the Paters
could approve a new citizen starting a new family in
thr Gens and becoming it's Pater.

The best way to handle our situation without causing
mass confussion is first we make the changes to the
Constitution that would Legalize Multiple Paters in a
Gens. At This point each Gens would Be a Gens with a
single Family in it. Each Pater could then (at his
discrection) emancipate members of his Gens allowing
them to become a Paterfamilis of his own Family within
the Gens.

New Citizens could be adopted into an existing family
in the Gens, or if any one of the Paters approved it
by forming a new family in the Gens. If NONE of the
Paters was willing to approve a new citizen, then he
couldn't enter that Gens. Any new family formed by a
new citizen would be a Plebian Family regardless of
the Status of The Pater who approved him.

This new arrangement would also cause a change in how
we handle names. Currently a Nomen is used to track a
Gens/Family and nothing more. We would have to have
the Cognomen used as the common name for a family in a
Gens.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Even though the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law has
> been withdrawn so that it
> may be amended, discussion seems to continue.
> Citizens such as Lucius
> Cornelius Sulla continue to declare that the
> proposed law is against the 'mos
> maiorum' - a departure from Roman tradition.
>
> I hate to say this folks, but the REAL departure
> from tradition is our Gens
> system as it stands. It was a good first effort, but
> the *entire system*
> would need to be broken down and rebuilt before it
> could be considered
> anything like 'tradition'.
>
> However, I must say that if our Gentes were broken
> down and totally
> restructured, there would be no need for the "Lex
> Octavia Salacia" gens law.
> Why? Because the positions of Pater and Materfamilae
> as they now stand in NR
> would be eliminated *completely*.
>
> What would need to happen to make the Gentes in Nova
> Roma truly traditional
> and historical?
>
> 1. The Pater and Materfamiliae positions as we know
> them would have to
> abandoned entirely. A Paterfamilias does not preside
> over an entire Gens...
> merely one Familiae within a Gens. The power and
> influence of our current
> Paters and maters would cease to exist - they would
> have no influence except
> over their own household.
>
> 2. Our Adoption system would need to cease to exist.
> New Citizens would not
> require approval from a "pater" or "mater" to enter
> a Gens... they would be
> able to choose a Gens name and start their OWN
> FAMILIA within that Gens.
> Frankly, this would simplify the NR system a lot...
> we wouldn't have
> prospective Citizens sitting around for a month or
> two waiting for inactive
> Paters or Maters to get back to the Censors.
>
> 3. The basic unit of organization within NR would
> cease to be the Gens, but
> instead become the Familia. Each household would be
> it's own Familia, be it a
> household of one, or a dozen members. Each pater or
> mater of each household
> would be responsible for their own Familiae rites,
> should they be
> practitioners of the Religio. No Pater or Mater of
> any familia would owe
> allegiance to any other pater or mater - the Romans
> had no traditional
> concept of a "clan leader".
>
> 4. The power of a Pater or Materfamilias would no
> longer stretch around the
> world, but would in fact end at their own front
> door. No longer would they
> have any claim over any Citizen who happened to
> share the same Nomen. This
> would mean in essence total disempowerment of our
> current "Gens leaders" and
> "Gens system", and a total *empowerment* of
> Citizenship at the household
> level.
>
> So folks, what's it to be. Do we want to make our
> current system less
> oppressive, or do we want to champion "tradition"?
> If it's the latter, our
> Gentes system must be destroyed and rebuilt.
>
> I don't know what else to say. Our Gens system is
> the way it is not because
> it's "right". It's the way it is because it was the
> best Germanicus, myself
> and the other early folks could come up with given
> the information and
> experience we had. \
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Paterfamilias, Gens Cassia
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 20:59:38 -0700 (PDT)

I will have some time this weekend. I'll start with
the changes that would have to be made to the
Constitution so it can be presented to the Senate
while I review the current Leges to see what changes
need to be made to them.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
>
> This sounds like a workable plan and in keeping with
> the Mos Maiorum. Propraetor, in May I asked you if
> you could write up this law. Has your schedule
> cleared up enough that you could help prepare this
> draft. Because if you could I will present it to
> the People to have it promulgated hopefully in this
> month or in October (when I hold the Fasces again).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul of Nova Roma
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: L. Sicinius Drusus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 8:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our
> Gentes...
>
>
> Salve,
> The postion of "Paterfamilis" mentioned in point 1
> implies head of a family, and Germanicus did in
> fact
> consider his immediate Family and his Gens to be
> one
> and the same. "Adoption" is mentioned in point two
> as
> the means of entering a Gens. "Adoption" is the
> process where someone become a member of a family.
>
> Now when you have adoption by a Paterfamilis, the
> result is a person becoming a member of the
> Pater's
> family. I Can't see any other way this can be
> interpated. This may not have been the intent of
> some
> of the Paters, but "I Didn't understand Adoption
> ment
> Adoption" is hardly an excuse.
>
> The Roman concept of family went beyond the idea
> of
> just the people living in a household. It was
> closer
> to what is called an extended family today. Your
> Grandfather, Your Father, Your Uncles and Your
> Cousins
> were all part of the family to a Roman, not just
> the
> narrow idea of the people who share a house with
> you.
>
> You couldn't just enter a Gens in Antiquita. There
> were several ways to become a member of a Gens.
> The
> first was birth, if the Father accepted the Child.
> A
> Newborn was laid on the ground at the fathers
> feet. If
> the Father picked the Child it it was accepted
> into
> the Gens. If he turned away the Child was not
> accepted
> into the Gens and didn't even have Roman
> citizenship.
>
> The second way is adoption into a family that was
> a
> member of a Gens. Adoptions into a family had to
> have
> the approval of a Paterfamilis.
>
> The Third way was Freedmen. Only a Paterfamilis
> could
> free a slave that belonged to the family. The
> Freedman
> then became a Roman Citizen, a member of his
> former
> Master's Gens, and a client of his former master.
> The
> Freedman's status was now he was Paterfamilis of a
> Plebian Family regardless of the possible
> Patrician
> Status of his Patron.
>
> The Fourth way was a Paterfamilis could allow a
> Client
> to become a member of his Gens. This was mainly
> used
> during the time of the Kings, and was rae during
> the
> Republic. The Client became a Plebian Paterfamilis
> regardless of the Status of his Patron.
>
> The Fifth way and the most important to us was a
> forigner could be sponserd by a Paterfamilis of
> the
> Gens, when he wanted to become a citizen. A
> ProConsul
> or ProPraetor had the Imperium to grant indiviuals
> citizenship, and the new citizen became a member
> of
> the Proconsul or Propraetor's Gens or the Gens of
> a
> member of his staff who sponsered the new citizen.
>
> In Cases where large groups of people became
> Citizens
> like when the Italians were granted Citizenship
> they
> did not enter an existing Gens but the Italian
> Gens
> (or clan in the case of Celts) became a Roman
> Gens.
>
> In all the cases where a citizen entered a Gens,
> the
> permission of one of the Paterfamilis was needed.
> There was no Pater over the entire Gens, in Theory
> all
> the Paters were peers (though Clint/Patron
> relationships complicated this) and ANY of the
> Paters
> could approve a new citizen starting a new family
> in
> thr Gens and becoming it's Pater.
>
> The best way to handle our situation without
> causing
> mass confussion is first we make the changes to
> the
> Constitution that would Legalize Multiple Paters
> in a
> Gens. At This point each Gens would Be a Gens with
> a
> single Family in it. Each Pater could then (at his
> discrection) emancipate members of his Gens
> allowing
> them to become a Paterfamilis of his own Family
> within
> the Gens.
>
> New Citizens could be adopted into an existing
> family
> in the Gens, or if any one of the Paters approved
> it
> by forming a new family in the Gens. If NONE of
> the
> Paters was willing to approve a new citizen, then
> he
> couldn't enter that Gens. Any new family formed by
> a
> new citizen would be a Plebian Family regardless
> of
> the Status of The Pater who approved him.
>
> This new arrangement would also cause a change in
> how
> we handle names. Currently a Nomen is used to
> track a
> Gens/Family and nothing more. We would have to
> have
> the Cognomen used as the common name for a family
> in a
> Gens.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> --- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> > Salvete,
> >
> > Even though the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law
> has
> > been withdrawn so that it
> > may be amended, discussion seems to continue.
> > Citizens such as Lucius
> > Cornelius Sulla continue to declare that the
> > proposed law is against the 'mos
> > maiorum' - a departure from Roman tradition.
> >
> > I hate to say this folks, but the REAL departure
> > from tradition is our Gens
> > system as it stands. It was a good first effort,
> but
> > the *entire system*
> > would need to be broken down and rebuilt before
> it
> > could be considered
> > anything like 'tradition'.
> >
> > However, I must say that if our Gentes were
> broken
> > down and totally
> > restructured, there would be no need for the
> "Lex
> > Octavia Salacia" gens law.
> > Why? Because the positions of Pater and
> Materfamilae
> > as they now stand in NR
> > would be eliminated *completely*.
> >
> > What would need to happen to make the Gentes in
> Nova
> > Roma truly traditional
> > and historical?
> >
> > 1. The Pater and Materfamiliae positions as we
> know
> > them would have to
> > abandoned entirely. A Paterfamilias does not
> preside
> > over an entire Gens...
> > merely one Familiae within a Gens. The power and
> > influence of our current
> > Paters and maters would cease to exist - they
> would
> > have no influence except
> > over their own household.
> >
> > 2. Our Adoption system would need to cease to
> exist.
> > New Citizens would not
> > require approval from a "pater" or "mater" to
> enter
> > a Gens... they would be
> > able to choose a Gens name and start their OWN
> > FAMILIA within that Gens.
> > Frankly, this would simplify the NR system a
> lot...
> > we wouldn't have
> > prospective Citizens sitting around for a month
> or
> > two waiting for inactive
> > Paters or Maters to get back to the Censors.
> >
> > 3. The basic unit of organization within NR
> would
> > cease to be the Gens, but
> > instead become the Familia. Each household would
> be
> > it's own Familia, be it a
> > household of one, or a dozen members. Each pater
> or
> > mater of each household
> > would be responsible for their own Familiae
> rites,
> > should they be
> > practitioners of the Religio. No Pater or Mater
> of
> > any familia would owe
> > allegiance to any other pater or mater - the
> Romans
> > had no traditional
> > concept of a "clan leader".
> >
> > 4. The power of a Pater or Materfamilias would
> no
> > longer stretch around the
> > world, but would in fact end at their own front
> > door. No longer would they
> > have any claim over any Citizen who happened to
> > share the same Nomen. This
> > would mean in essence total disempowerment of
> our
> > current "Gens leaders" and
> > "Gens system", and a total *empowerment* of
> > Citizenship at the household
> > level.
> >
> > So folks, what's it to be. Do we want to make
> our
> > current system less
> > oppressive, or do we want to champion
> "tradition"?
> > If it's the latter, our
> > Gentes system must be destroyed and rebuilt.
> >
> > I don't know what else to say. Our Gens system
> is
> > the way it is not because
> > it's "right". It's the way it is because it was
> the
> > best Germanicus, myself
> > and the other early folks could come up with
> given
> > the information and
> > experience we had. \
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Paterfamilias, Gens Cassia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:42:13 -0400

Salve Marcus Cassius,


> So folks, what's it to be. Do we want to make our current system less
> oppressive, or do we want to champion "tradition"? If it's the latter, our
> Gentes system must be destroyed and rebuilt.


I would vote for destroying the current gens system and rebuilding the

gens/familia system properly. And, as you said, the currently proposed

legislation would be unnecessary (although, it wouldn't have a practical
effect on our current system either), so instead of fumbling over an
already compromised system - we see how much it's tripping us up - let's
do it the right way.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:21:50 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Omnes,

just on ething to say about all this:

Too much freedom kills Freedom...

Valete,

--- "James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com> wrote:
> Salve:
>
> As an attorney, these lay-persons rants against the American justice system
> are rather hackneyed and tiresome. For one, JURIES, made up of regular folks,
> give out the ridiculous awards. A representative government is only as good
> as the people it represents, and that goes for the justice system as well.
>
> Any society is judged, and will be judged by posterity, by the accessibility
> of its common citizens to a some sort of justice. America truly has the rule
> of law. How many countries would you feel safe in investing money in, say,
> real estate, and feel confident that its rule of law would protect your
> ownership rights? How many countries would it be an absolute nightmare to get
> caught up in its criminal justice system? Take Italy, as an example. You are
> guilty until proven innocent. The defendant has no right to enter evidence on
> his own behalf, nor may he cross examine state witnesses, nor may he call
> witnesses. Three judges preside over your trial, and one of the judges is the
> PROSECUTOR!!! And Italy has one of the "better" systems in Western Europe.
>
> There can never be enough laws. Laws in any growing society will be as
> numerous and complicated as the humans that reside in it and reflect the
> incalculable circumstances of the human condition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
> 417 East 13th Street
> Kansas City, Missouri 64106
> (816).471.2111
> (816).510.0072(cell)
> (816).471.8412(Fax)
> The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and
> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
> or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the
> contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original
> message to the sender. Thank you.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marcus Vitellius Ligus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
>
>
>
> "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm at work right now. I am forbidden from hanging a
> poster of a model in a swimsuit by my desk because it
> could result in a sexual harrasment lawsuit. All it
> would take is one woman claiming that the poster made
> her uncomfortable. It wouldn't matter if no other
> woman that worked here cared, and that a few of them
> were turned on by my poster. All that matters is that
> one woman felt the poster harrased her. Companies have
> lost lawsuits over this.
>
> It dosen't matter if we have had a 100 Monotheists
> that had no problem with our oath. All that matters is
> that one person felt that taking that oath would
> violate his religious views. He has grounds for a
> civil rights suit.
>
>
>
> I must admit you're absolutely right. In these days of frivolous lawsuits
> and idiotic judges awarding massive settlements for ridiculous lawsuits, it's
> not unreasonable to believe that NR could be sued for religious persecution
> based upon Drusus' outline...and they would probably win. At the rate things
> are going, I figure a person could probably pick a company at random and sue
> them for no other reason than not having a reason to sue them...and probably
> be awarded damages...Another good example would be suing of an aircraft
> manufacturer for a crash that caused the loss of life while flying an
> aircraft manufactured in the 1960's. It has happened in the past, and the
> only reason it doesn't happen as much now is former Pres Clinton managed to
> get it limited to aircraft younger than 18 years...But that's another story
> alltogether...
>
> Off my soapbox...
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Vitellius Ligus
> Optio, Legio III Avgvsta
> Paterfamilias, Gens Vitellia, Nova Roma
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 01:27:31 -0700 (PDT)

--- "James LaSalle, Esq." <jlasalle@kc.rr.com> wrote:
SNIP
>
> There can never be enough laws. Laws in any growing
> society will be as numerous and complicated as the
> humans that reside in it and reflect the
> incalculable circumstances of the human condition.
>
This is an idea that would have seemed alien to the
Romans. They managed an area about as large as the
Continental US with a far smaller law code than many
modern nations. Part of the reason was they didn't
have to deal with modern inventions, but a larger part
was they were content to leave many aspects of life in
private hands. The Roman state didn't become intrusive
until the late Empire and as it became more intrusive
into private life it enjoyed less support from it's
citizens, reaching the point where it had to employ
mrecenary armies because it's citizens were no longer
willing to defend it.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Edictum Propraetoricium I
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:05:23 -0700 (PDT)

Ex Officio Propraetoris Galliae

Appointment of Scriba Propraetoris

It is a great pleasure for me to appoint Honorable Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
as Scriba Propraetoris.

Honorable Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix will help in the building of our
Provincia in various fields.

Following the Lex Iunia de Iusiurando, Honorable Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
is asked to swear his public oath on the Nova Roma main list and on the
NR_Gallia List.

This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given August 2nd, in the year of the consulship of Marcus Octavius
Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix 2755 AUC.

Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Victoria In Urbe
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:06:21 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

a warm welcome in Nova Roma!!,

> Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
> Civis Novae Romae

Vale,

=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Hand of Friendship to...Hero YES!
From:	Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:06:34 -0700 (PDT)

SORRY tried to send but didn't go through!
HAIL ROMA
First let me say "A hand of friendship taken let not be broken".2nd A hero is a person with the senses of right,when other chose to ex it.A Hero pops up to end conflicted with the uses of intl not harsh words or theat s.The diff can very from person to person,and in this case you tried to put a stop to the strife.Sometimes the group forgets its dealing with people that just started or wants to join but for what every reason has not.I've been on other web sites and groups that are looking for a group like this, whom love Roma as much as I or your self or anyone! I do belive that if you've got something good share it for if you die and do not then you life would hav been in vain."VANITY OH VANITY ALL FOR VANITY SAKE" To make a long store short there is alot of people that should be looking in on use.Which I say "bring us life bring us friends!!"To the 3rd All of the people in Gen. Portica are famliy,friends and ne.When I get some time a way from all my projects I'm going to get a group of us to go to the festaviles they have out here,and get a booth with smarter people from NR to tell about NR and recruit for a lurger crowed out here.
I'm glad I may call you Brother and friend..You do your house proud,Cassius is lucky to have you.May your Gods or God keep YOU!

G.Porticus Brutis



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Predestined Changes (was Gens Hopping)
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 02:10:21 EDT

In a message dated 8/1/02 6:01:43 PM Central Daylight Time,
qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com writes:


> Until all the contamination crept
> in.
>

Salveto,

Contamination? Contamination from where? Whom? What? Margaret Mead
postulated that an "uncontaminated population of aboriginal people might have
maintained a pristine form of culture that could have been studied
appropiately." She was (of course) being facetious. There is no such thing as
a culture that does not interact with others. Even in the most isolated
examples of anthropology groups have interaction. "Contamination" is
"contact" spelled differently. Contact leads to the exchange of ideas. The
exchange of ideas leads to growth. Growth is good. Lack of growth leads to
stagnation and death. [Plato: "Republic"]

Valete,
M. Varius


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 02:19:50 EDT

In a message dated 8/1/02 7:32:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
jlasalle@kc.rr.com writes:


> America truly has the rule of law.

Salveto,

In my humble opinion, America has the rule of force. Law has very little to
do with it. We can argue ad infinitum about the judicial system in the
macronation of the United States and probably find some ground on which to
agree to disagree. However, the judicial system of the US is fast losing
ground in the larger world context. A nation that staunchly refuses to
examine itself closely is a nation doomed to fail. It was so in the time of
Rome it is true in the time of now. It is not so much what a nation professes
to be. It is more what a nation shows itself to be.

Valete,
M. Varius (P.S. Britian and the EU have adopted the "innocent until proven
guilty" process and they also require better anti-discrimitation laws than
the United States - which the US objects to)


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] What Is It That Nova Roma Stands For?
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 02:03:37 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Senatui Populoque Novo Romano S.P.D.

Salvete Venerabiles,

It could easily be used against me that I, though I wish it were different, have not been a citizen for long enough to talk about anything, political, religious, or otherwise, as an addressing to the people. In fact, as I write this, I have not been a citizen for an entire twelve hours, but as a citizen, if I were to let my length of citizenship bar me from speaking what I feel needs to be said, then what kind of Roman does that make me? In all honesty, I would, and I would hope you would all agree, say that makes me not a Roman at all, but rather what I was before, a foreigner, however if I say nothing, that makes me even less than that, it makes me merely a living thing, and nothing more than that. That said, I must say what I have to say.

I first started 'admiring' Nova Roma about two years ago, when I first began my studies as a student of Latin my freshman year of high school. My admiration for it was because I admired what Republican Rome was, so in Nova Roma, I found a restoration of something I love. And as my studies continued, my admiration grew, and I began to attach myself more and more to the workings of Nova Roma, up to my application for citizenship in May, and my recent approval. I applied because I took it upon myself to read what I could about Nova Roma, in particular the Personal and Public Virtues, and in whole, the Via Romana. And for those I stand, among other things. But I also joined to revive the mos maiorum, which I have within myself so vowed to restore and live both up to and by, and this is what I had come to understand Nova Roma to stand for.

And that is what I still understand Nova Roma to stand for, if nothing else: the revival of the mos maiorum, inclusive of the Republican Roman state, and the Religio Romana. But what I have seen in recent weeks, sadly, is something different than that. If this is what I perceive it to be, an attempt to restore what was the Roman Republic, with very few minor concessions, in fact, as few and as minor as possible. And in my opinion that would be conservatism, but very necessitated conservatism. However, though I don't entirely disagree with liberalism, when I see the liberalist regimes which are attempting to command Nova Roma, I see exactly what transformed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire; I see a greed and a want and a perceived need for sole rule and authority not superceded by anything but the Gods, and perhaps not even by them. And that, my friends and fellow citizens, frightens me beyond even the scope of death.

I joined Nova Roma happily hoping to be a member of a Roman Republic, not a Roman Empire. I joined to command myself by the laws and edicts of my fellow citizens which I have both elected and voted for, and that which I have elected against and voted contrary to I still choose to live under, because it is a group-oriented affair, and thus I must be a part of the group. I joined to restore what Rome was, and what Rome had the potential to be, had She not been adulterated by the Imperialist personalities of the last century B.C.E. And that is why I am here, and I hope to contribute in any and every way I can to achieve that goal.

But recently I have come to understand that Nova Roma does not stand for what I have thought it to be, a family of people coming together for the common goal above stated. However, I may be wrong. And so, my fellow citizens, I have to ask, so that I may fully understand why I'm here, and so that we all may understand why we're here, what it is that Nova Roma truly stands for. I would have to say that there is only one man who could fully answer this without just objection from anyone here, but I call upon not only him, but also everyone else, including myself, to determine this. Because this is central to our proceedings dealing with Nova Roma, from now until either Her death, which will not happen, or Eternity. And it will ultimately determine how She conducts Herself, and how we, as a people, conduct Ourselves.

I call upon you all to help me with this, as we will be all helping each other in this.

Bene Valete,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"Amanda Bowen" <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 02:33:12 -0500

>Too much freedom kills Freedom...

That, sir, is a self-contradicting statement. It is also incorrect.

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 04:31:59 -0700 (PDT)

Salve amice,

theoritically I agree with you, but since my freedom stops where other people's
freedom starts...

Vale,

--- Amanda Bowen <reason_prevails@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Too much freedom kills Freedom...
>
> That, sir, is a self-contradicting statement. It is also incorrect.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>
>
>


=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:40:34 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete Quirites

That, imho, isn't correct neither. My freedom stops
where _it violates_ other people's freedom/rights...
;o)

Valete bene,
A. Hirtius Helv.

--- Sextus Apollonius Scipio
<scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> wrote: > Salve amice,
>
> theoritically I agree with you, but since my freedom
> stops where other people's
> freedom starts...
>
> Vale,
>
> --- Amanda Bowen <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >Too much freedom kills Freedom...
> >
> > That, sir, is a self-contradicting statement. It
> is also incorrect.


__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Absentia Pompeia Cornelia
From:	"Susan Brett" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 07:54:04 -0400

Salvete Omnes:

I shall be absent this weekend, attending the Fort Malden Military Timeline
Event in Windsor/Detroit area (Amhearstburg) with members of Legio XXIV,
Legio QC Nova Gallia and citizens of Canada Orientalis Provincia.

During my absence, Senatrix P. Cassia has kindly agreed to tend to mainlist
matters.

I will *see* you all next week :)

Bene vale,
Pompeia



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Predestined Changes (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:05:14 -0700 (PDT)

--- MVariusPM@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/1/02 6:01:43 PM Central
> Daylight Time,
> qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com writes:
>
>
> > Until all the contamination crept
> > in.
> >
>
> Salveto,
>
> Contamination? Contamination from where? Whom?
> What? Margaret Mead
> postulated that an "uncontaminated population of
> aboriginal people might have
> maintained a pristine form of culture that could
> have been studied
> appropiately." She was (of course) being facetious.
> There is no such thing as
> a culture that does not interact with others. Even
> in the most isolated
> examples of anthropology groups have interaction.
> "Contamination" is
> "contact" spelled differently. Contact leads to the
> exchange of ideas. The
> exchange of ideas leads to growth. Growth is good.
> Lack of growth leads to
> stagnation and death. [Plato: "Republic"]
>
> Valete,
> M. Varius
>
>
Growth is good?
Tell that to a cancer patent who has been told his
tumor is growing.

The exchange of ideas between two cultures is not
always good. The introduction of alcohol into Native
American cultures was a disaster. Native Americans
lacked any Cultural restraints on the consumption of
Alcohol and it's sudden appearance was devistating.

The wholesale adoption of modern ideas will quickly
overwheam the Roman culture we are attempting to
revive leaving us as Roman as a bad Hollywood movie.

If we want to revive the Culture of Roma we have to
start by recreating as much of it as possible, and
then examine that restoration to determine which parts
are unworkable and change them.

After we reach that stage then we can allow the new
Roman culture to freely interact with other modern
cultures and to change in a natural matter.

Any talk of "if Roma hadn't fallen it would have done
this" is nothing more than an unprovable guess. For
every utopian Roma that never Fell it is just as easy
to imigine a Nightmarish Roma that never Fell, ie
Roman and Parthian empires that maintained a 1000 year
long war that only ended in mutal destruction with the
development of Nuclear Weapons. There is NO way of
knowing how Roma would have developed and changed, to
even know if a Roman Utopia would take the form of the
modern Wellfare state that some think is the only
formula for a Utopia. It could have been a radicaly
diferent concept.

All we have is the historic Roma. Let's recreate that
Roma, and then let her find her natural fate instead
of attempting to create a fictional Roma out of
flights of fancy.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:07:24 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

what are the chances that the needs of my freedom meet exactly other people's?
So, by definition, we could say that my freedom violates any other the matter
what... :^O

Vale,

--- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites
>
> That, imho, isn't correct neither. My freedom stops
> where _it violates_ other people's freedom/rights...
> ;o)
>
> Valete bene,
> A. Hirtius Helv.
>
> --- Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> wrote: > Salve amice,
> >
> > theoritically I agree with you, but since my freedom
> > stops where other people's
> > freedom starts...
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > --- Amanda Bowen <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >Too much freedom kills Freedom...
> > >
> > > That, sir, is a self-contradicting statement. It
> > is also incorrect.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
> Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de
>


=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:26:16 -0700 (PDT)

Freedom ends when Force enters the equation.

--- Sextus Apollonius Scipio
<scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> what are the chances that the needs of my freedom
> meet exactly other people's?
> So, by definition, we could say that my freedom
> violates any other the matter
> what... :^O
>
> Vale,
>
> --- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites
> >
> > That, imho, isn't correct neither. My freedom
> stops
> > where _it violates_ other people's
> freedom/rights...
> > ;o)
> >
> > Valete bene,
> > A. Hirtius Helv.
> >
> > --- Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> wrote: > Salve
> amice,
> > >
> > > theoritically I agree with you, but since my
> freedom
> > > stops where other people's
> > > freedom starts...
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > --- Amanda Bowen <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >Too much freedom kills Freedom...
> > > >
> > > > That, sir, is a self-contradicting statement.
> It
> > > is also incorrect.
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
> > Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten?
> http://grusskarten.yahoo.de
> >
>
>
> =====
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> Propraetor Galliae
> Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
> French Translator
>
> Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
> Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 05:36:19 -0700 (PDT)

> Freedom ends when Force enters the equation.

And that does not leave any hope either...;o>


> --- Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > what are the chances that the needs of my freedom
> > meet exactly other people's?
> > So, by definition, we could say that my freedom
> > violates any other the matter
> > what... :^O
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > --- "A. Hirtius Helveticus" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
> > wrote:
> > > Salvete Quirites
> > >
> > > That, imho, isn't correct neither. My freedom
> > stops
> > > where _it violates_ other people's
> > freedom/rights...
> > > ;o)
> > >
> > > Valete bene,
> > > A. Hirtius Helv.
> > >
> > > --- Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > > <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com> wrote: > Salve
> > amice,
> > > >
> > > > theoritically I agree with you, but since my
> > freedom
> > > > stops where other people's
> > > > freedom starts...
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > --- Amanda Bowen <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >Too much freedom kills Freedom...
> > > > >
> > > > > That, sir, is a self-contradicting statement.
> > It
> > > > is also incorrect.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
> > > Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten?
> > http://grusskarten.yahoo.de
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> > Propraetor Galliae
> > Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
> > French Translator
> >
> > Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
> > Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> > http://health.yahoo.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	02 Aug 2002 09:46:02 -0300

Salve,
<SNIP>
> The best way to handle our situation without causing
> mass confussion is first we make the changes to the
> Constitution that would Legalize Multiple Paters in a
> Gens. At This point each Gens would Be a Gens with a
> single Family in it. Each Pater could then (at his
> discrection) emancipate members of his Gens allowing
> them to become a Paterfamilis of his own Family within
> the Gens.

Since the citizen did not join a family but a gens, this would not
be correct. Better considering a family/citizen, and beginning the
procedure of adoptions in order to form a lesser number of families in
each gens.
Without this the actual problem stays inact if the the actual
"patergentis" refuses the right of the members of his gens to form their
own families.

>
> New Citizens could be adopted into an existing family
> in the Gens, or if any one of the Paters approved it
> by forming a new family in the Gens. If NONE of the
> Paters was willing to approve a new citizen, then he
> couldn't enter that Gens. Any new family formed by a
> new citizen would be a Plebian Family regardless of
> the Status of The Pater who approved him.

Agreed.

>
> This new arrangement would also cause a change in how
> we handle names. Currently a Nomen is used to track a
> Gens/Family and nothing more. We would have to have
> the Cognomen used as the common name for a family in a
> Gens.
>

Not necessarely this was not always the ancient usage.
Ther idea family = name is a rather modern one, more specifically
from northern europe where even women use their husbands name,
not a roman usage were the filiation is designed by "son of xxx,
grandson of xxx", the other commmon usage is the praenomen designates
the specific family (1-3 praenomes by family).

Better then restricting the cognomen, it would be to use this way.
ex:

Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus if he joins the family of Lucius
Cornelius Sulla will be called:

M. Cornelius Gualterus Graecus L. f.


Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"tlfortunatus" <labienus@texas.net>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 12:54:43 -0000

Salvete Corneli Consul omnesque

> This sounds like a workable plan and in keeping with the Mos
> Maiorum. Propraetor, in May I asked you if you could write up this
> law. Has your schedule cleared up enough that you could help
> prepare this draft. Because if you could I will present it to the
> People...

When Cn Salix, myself, and some others proposed almost exactly the
same revisions to our gens system on the Vedian_Baths and
NovaRomaLaws lists, you were the among their loudest and staunchest
opponents, O consul. In an attempt at compromise, I suggested the
very simple and mild semi-solution of changing the wording of the
constitution to read "familia" where it now says "gens". And yet,
you fought against even this. What is so different about this
proposal that you now embrace the idea of gens reform?

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:09:22 -0700 (PDT)

--- Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br> wrote:
> Salve,
> <SNIP>
> > The best way to handle our situation without
> causing
> > mass confussion is first we make the changes to
> the
> > Constitution that would Legalize Multiple Paters
> in a
> > Gens. At This point each Gens would Be a Gens with
> a
> > single Family in it. Each Pater could then (at his
> > discrection) emancipate members of his Gens
> allowing
> > them to become a Paterfamilis of his own Family
> within
> > the Gens.
>
> Since the citizen did not join a family but a gens,
> this would not
> be correct. Better considering a family/citizen, and
> beginning the
> procedure of adoptions in order to form a lesser
> number of families in
> each gens.
> Without this the actual problem stays inact if the
> the actual
> "patergentis" refuses the right of the members of
> his gens to form their
> own families.
>
I Have already pointed out that our system can be
interpated as the Gens and Families being the same
thing, and there are Gens that consider themselves a
family. You may not agree with this interpatation, but
if the Gens who do consider themselves a single family
aren't allowed to remain as such, then this proposal
will not be placed before the Centuries by the Junior
Consul, and likely would be vetoed by him if the
Senior Consul attempted to bring it before the
Centuries.

I Intend to present a proposal to the Junior Consul
that stands a chance of being enacted this year. It
may not be what eveyone considers an ideal solution,
but it will be one we can vote on this year.

This has been a subject of debate for a long time, and
if we seek the perfect solution it will be debated
forever without action. It's time to place a proposal
before the Senate and the Centuries.

The inital proposal will be nothing more than a change
to the Constitution that makes multi family Gens
possible. As far as posible, how a multifamily Gens
will work will be left up to the families of that
Gens, or by a regular Lex, not part of the
Constitution.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:18:33 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> You may not agree with this interpatation, but
> if the Gens who do consider themselves a single family
> aren't allowed to remain as such, then this proposal
> will not be placed before the Centuries by the Junior
> Consul, and likely would be vetoed by him if the
> Senior Consul attempted to bring it before the
> Centuries.

Similarly, I will veto any gens reform lex that does not allow
for persons to leave a family/gens by their own choice.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:50:13 -0700 (PDT)

--- Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > You may not agree with this interpatation, but
> > if the Gens who do consider themselves a single
> family
> > aren't allowed to remain as such, then this
> proposal
> > will not be placed before the Centuries by the
> Junior
> > Consul, and likely would be vetoed by him if the
> > Senior Consul attempted to bring it before the
> > Centuries.
>
> Similarly, I will veto any gens reform lex that does
> not allow
> for persons to leave a family/gens by their own
> choice.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Marcus Octavius Germanicus
> Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
> Curator Araneum et Senator

The inital proposal I'll be making to the Junior
Consul will neither affirm or deny a citizens ability
to leave a Gens. Feel free to make whatever changes
you, the Junior Consul, and the Senate feel are
needed.
My assignment for the admendment covers no more than
making a draft of the changes that need to be made to
Nova Roma's constitution, and presenting this draft to
the Junior Consul for possible submission to the
Senate and the Centuries.

The scope of this amendment is nothing more or less
than making multi family Gens possible.

L. Sicinius Drusus



L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Apollonia Acta
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:00:19 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Omnes,

lastest roman archeology news at:

http://www.fr-novaroma.com/Archeology/

Optime valete,

=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Absentia Pompeia Cornelia
From:	Jenny Harris <J.Harris@awgais.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:29:55 -0600

Pompeia Soror,

It's about time you took a vacation :-)...... Safe trip, will look forward
to hearing about it upon your safe return.

Vale Bene,
Aeternia

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Brett [mailto:trog99@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 5:54 AM
To: SodalitasMilitarium@yahoogroups.com;
Senatusromanus@yahoogroups.com; Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Absentia Pompeia Cornelia

Salvete Omnes:

I shall be absent this weekend, attending the Fort Malden
Military Timeline
Event in Windsor/Detroit area (Amhearstburg) with members of
Legio XXIV,
Legio QC Nova Gallia and citizens of Canada Orientalis
Provincia.

During my absence, Senatrix P. Cassia has kindly agreed to
tend to mainlist
matters.

I will *see* you all next week :)

Bene vale,
Pompeia




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:42:07 +0200

Salvete Quirites omnes,

I'll try to concisely bundle my replies to the replies and remarks made in
reaction to my e-mail. Here we go.

Lucius Sicnius scripsit:
<< As long as rights are defined according to the Libertarian concept that
rights are only violated through the use of force.>>

MOS: Seems like an acceptable definition, although I'm not sure what exactly
you mean by force. People can be oppressed by violence, but also by
psychological (think pestering or blackmail) or economical force (think
sweatshops).

---------------------
---------------------

Marcus Cornelius scripsit:
<< It [modernisation] would happen one law at a time, gradually creeping up
on us. It's better to make a stand now than gamble on the future. That the
sovereignty clause might be interpreted by some as allowing this "right" is
also a problem, and should be removed *along with* revamping the
gens/family system. >>

MOS: Whoa. So you think someone should be able to be kept in his or her
familia/gens against their will?

<< The hopping doesn't have to be rampant to break the principle of the
issue. But, while we're enforcing a tradition power relationship in a
family - which is what a gens functionally right is (in other words, what a
gens is now is what a "family" would essentially be once we revamped the
system) - we might as well clarify the definition of gens, family, and align
everything more along historical models to get rid of ambiguities. >>

MOS: I would only accept such a "power"-relationship if the people involved
were actually related and/or living under the same roof. Thāt would be
historical. Otheriwise it's just an absurd fantasy.

<< Rights according to whom? The macronation or ancient Rome? >>

MOS: Basic human rights, which include freedom of opinion, expression and
affiliation. This has nothing to do with macro- or micronations.

<< It seems to me that the position you champion is not reconcilable with a
"restoration" effort of ancient Rome. >>

MOS: It's *Nova* Roma, not Roma Duplicata. Restoration, renovation and
renewal are not mutually exclusive.

<< We are not here to create a utopian society, where every foundational
principle is open to being questioned so that we can perfect the system. We
are all, presumably, starting with the assumption that ancient Rome had it
mostly right, and that we need to resume that system today, with only those
few concessions necessary not to be destroyed through the fears, prejudices,
and proclivities of modern society. We are, essentially, a society looking
back in time in a hope that the future can be improved through following
what *was*. That does not seem to be what I hear echoing in your vision of
progress. >>

MOS: So, if I get this correctly, you think it's wrong to question
foundational principles of a system such as this one? It's not because I
admire elements of ancient Roman society, that I gave up reasonable thinking
and sceptical inquiry. You (and others), so it seems me, appear to have a
very uniform, tight vision about ancient Rome and wish to see that projected
on the future. I think that is more of a Utopia than what I'm advocating. Do
you really think there were no rebellious or progressive Romans? That all
familiae strongly relied on paternal authority? Roman society was as diverse
as ours, and to re-create all or nearly all of it would be a waste of time
and money. Being "Roman" is, in my opinion, not about blindly following
historical models.

---------------------
---------------------

Quintus Fabius scripsit:
<< Actually we do not know that [what Rome would be if the republic had
survived]. If the Dynasts had not come along, we are not sure what would
have happened. We can postulate several things but we can't be sure.That
was why NR was the ideal experiment. Until all the contamination crept in.
>>

MOS: As has been said here, you can't avoid contact. The use of the word
"contamination" also has a connotation which reeks of 19th and early
20th-century ideologies which have all been proven wrong, or at least not as
important as assumed (ideologies on ideal cultures, nations or races).

<< I believe that all things move in cycles. Being a historian one sees
patterns repeating themselves over and over. This is just one such pattern
and it makes for a fascinating study. >>

MOS: Absolutely. But not all historians believe in patterns or cycles, and
most of them disagree on what a cycle is composed of.

---------------------
---------------------

Lucius Cornelius scripsit:
<< This paragraph [see Sulla's reply on "the Slippery Slope"] is very
telling, again it shows the intent behind those individuals who are intent
on promulgating this law. Do they have the best motives for Nova Roma?...
>>

MOS: Of course not. I am EVIL Sorry, but I suggest you find arguments rather
than insinuations next time.

<< Solaris, I am not interested if I lose any Cornelian because of this law.
Because if they had any issues that could not be resolved I would be more
than happy to let them go. Since, it is far more important to me that
members of the Gens Cornelia have a pleasurable experience in Nova Roma.
Besides, I do not control anyone, Nova Roma is a voluntary organization.
There is nothing I could do to prevent them from leaving Nova Roma in the
first place. So, if this law is passed do you really think that I am going
to lose Cornelians? I do not think so. Do you really think my allies are
going to lose their gens members as well? I don't think so either. So,
this is clearly not an issue of a "powerful minority" (if that is what us
traditionalists are) concerned about. You, and most of our opponents have
failed to grasp that or have ignored it. I don't know the answer to that.
>>

MOS: Well, I'm glad to hear these things. As for your last point: I do know
what you're trying to say. You - and your supporters - simply believe (1)
more in authority than I do, (2) that gentes/familiae can closely resemble
actual families without having blood ties and (3) that a pater- or
materfamilias with more authority is more historical in the light of Nova
Roma's mission to reconstruct.

My replies in a nutshell: I don't believe in irrational authority, I don't
believe in "family ties" with people who aren't family and I also don't
believe it's Nova Roma's mission to reconstruct the social life to that
extent. Maybe, just maybe, it may one day happen. But why focus on these
details? I suggest to all the people wanting a reconstruction as accurate as
possible, that they first learn to eat and live like Romans, that they learn
to write and speak Latin, and personally explore the life of a poor,
injustly treated plebe as well as a wealthy, powerful patrician.

<<...But I have to stand with my principles and principles only mean
something when they are uncomfortable and potentially unpopular...>>

MOS: So much is true, and in all honesty I think that I have done the same.

---------------------
---------------------

Valete bene,
Marcus Octavius Solaris


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The REAL problem with our Gentes...
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:24:00 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus Propraetori L. Sicinio Druso S.P.D.

Salve,

Your ideas seem to be the most workable ones here, and I look forward to seeing what you have come up with when it is proposed to the People by the Junior Consul.

Bene Vale,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"Amanda Bowen" <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:16:23 -0500

>what are the chances that the needs of my freedom meet exactly other
>people's?
>So, by definition, we could say that my freedom violates any other the
>matter
>what... :^O

Not true. Ideally (ie: in a natural state- yes, there can always be too many
laws) you have every freedom in the world except force or fraud. I do too.
You couldnt name a thing that you could do that would violate my freedom or
my rights, so long as you do not commit force or fraud.

The belief that one man's freedom inherently violates another is one of the
greatest agents of moral degeneration in this society (didnt mean you
personally, mind you... and forgive the rant of this free-market anarchist)

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Predestined Changes (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:17:30 -0400

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus L. Sicinio Druso et Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete,

And again he speaks, and I can do nothing but agree. There is no way to determine what Rome could have, or would have been. But there is but one way to determine what Nova Roma can be, and will be, and that is to determine in ourselves.

As Drusus said, the only way we can become a recreation of Rome, is to recreate Rome in its entirety to the best of our ability, and from there make whatever concessions to modern times we must make. Because in doing so, we will have accomplished two goals which I think are at the focal point of things, and that is that we are supposed to be an attept to recreate the Republican Era of Rome, in it's both political and cultural sense, with a few modern concessions to modern times. If we recreate Rome as closely as we may to begin with, we will have then accomplished the first part of the goal. From there, as we grow and interact with other cultures, most of which we are from anyway, we then make, in doing so, the necessary concessions to get ourselves where we need to and want to be. But again, that's just my opinion based on those Roman Virtues I strive for so much.

Bene Vale,

Pro. Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus,
Civis Novae Romae

"Semper Sapiens et Cogitans, ut Cras Meliores Omnes Simus"


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:02:41 EDT

In a message dated 8/2/02 7:08:14 AM Central Daylight Time,
scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com writes:


> what are the chances that the needs of my freedom meet exactly other
> people's?
> So, by definition, we could say that my freedom violates any other the
> matter
> what... :^O

Salveto,

Ah, we're back to that argument again. I believe the previous time this
theme went around I offered a reference. I'll toss it out there, again:
"Ain't Nobldy's Business If You Do." By: Peter McWilliams. The basic
postulate is: "You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own
person and property, as long as you don't physically harm the person or
property of another."

It is a book on the philosophy of freedom, personal and in group settings.
It is very thorough, thoughtful and insightful. I recommend it to anyone
working on their own philosophical views of freedom and would highly
recommend it to anyone working on setting up forms of government. People who
have serious control issues will not like the book and I have found that
people who have rigid religious views often do not like it either.

I had an aquaintance who once who told me: "laws are the remains of a
group's dirty laundry. Read their laws and you'll know their foibles." I have
often found this to be true since that telling.

Vale,
M. Varius


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"Amanda Bowen" <reason_prevails@hotmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 11:25:37 -0500

>guilty" process and they also require better anti-discrimitation laws than
>the United States - which the US objects to)

Anti-discrimination laws always end up promulgating more descrimination. For
example our "Affirmative Action". People now have the temerity to wonder if
those covered by such law (mainly African Americans) got whatever job they
hold through their own merits or through Uncle Sam handing it to them. No
one should want that.

I dont think any country on earth has the true "rule of law", though gods
know I wish it was otherwise. The United States is still the best system out
there.

And now this is quite off topic, so I shall end my argument.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Predestined Changes
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:31:43 EDT

In a message dated 8/2/02 7:05:55 AM Central Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:


> Growth is good?
> Tell that to a cancer patent who has been told his
> tumor is growing.
>
> The exchange of ideas between two cultures is not
> always good.

Salveto,

To view the purposeful introduction of alcohol into the Native American
population by disreputable fur traders does not encompass "the exchange of
ideas" to me. And, Native Americans did not "lack the cultural constraints"
to deal with alcohol. They lacked a specific enzyme to break it down and
digest it (same problem shared by Asiatic populations), so it had a higher
effectivity and addiction rate.

The other point "tell that to a cancer patient," has some very interesting
potential. Since my wife is a hospice nurse (and I volunteer with the
organization), I have had a great deal of opportunity to view the dying
process first hand. It is a process that contains "growth." (absolutely no
pun intended). However, I was not talking about medical situations where
someone is facing difficult life choices. I was talking in reference to
political bodies. If a political group does not allow for change it will not
survive. There is no example of this occurring in history.

As for Nova Roma being "contaminated" by the introduction of "modern
ideas." I do not believe this to be a viable argument for discussion, since
it is completely theoretical. The group exists now. It is not possible to
turn back the hands of time (at least not with our current technology) and
place the group in a pristine historic time frame. Nor is it possible to set
up a group with a pristine historic foundation. If that were the goal we
would have to eliminate all forms of anti-discrimination and go back to a
strictly male ruled organization that stratified each member by their actual
economic and geneological circumstance. Who ever had the most money would be
on top of the pile and it would pyramid beneath them. I doubt seriously this
would be acceptable.

Personally, I wouldn't want to recreate Rome as it was at any single time
period. I don't disagree that studying it and using the best portions is a
noble goal. That was what I believed the goal of the group to be. However,
exactly duplicating Rome means the first thing we'd have to do is throw out
the computers. I don't believe the group would get very far at that rate.

It has been my experience that change often frightens people. I'm not
really sure why that is. I've always enjoyed the adventure - what ever it may
be - and view change as a time to learn. But, I do know this is not usually
the case with most other people. I've often also observed that change is
frequently viewed as a loss of control. This also illicits reactions of fear.
I, personally, have never been interested in controlling other people. I like
to be in control of myself and make the choices I believe are right for me.
I've never objected to the choices others make for themselves, even if I
didn't agree with them. I have also found this to be an uncommon position to
take. It is interesting to watch the group struggle with some of these issues
and to see what arguments arise as a result. I am sure it will determine the
shape of the organization as time moves forward.

Valete,
M. Varius



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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: freedom
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:36:06 -0400

As our Praetrix and list moderator mentioned earlier, the talk of
various national systems and other non-Roman topics is perhaps better
handled off-list. Please bring the discussion around to a Roman or Nova
Roman topic, or take it to private e-mail.

The question of gentes is of course on-topic. I encourage those
participating in the discussion to make their points more effectively by
communicating briefly and politely, without excessive quoting of
previous messages, and I thank those who have already done so.

-----
Patricia Cassia
Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
Nova Roma . pcassia@novaroma.org


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:46:04 -0700 (PDT)

--- "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
wrote:
> Salvete Quirites omnes,
>
> I'll try to concisely bundle my replies to the
> replies and remarks made in
> reaction to my e-mail. Here we go.
>
> Lucius Sicnius scripsit:
> << As long as rights are defined according to the
> Libertarian concept that
> rights are only violated through the use of force.>>
>
> MOS: Seems like an acceptable definition, although
> I'm not sure what exactly
> you mean by force. People can be oppressed by
> violence, but also by
> psychological (think pestering or blackmail) or
> economical force (think
> sweatshops).
>
Yes intimidation is a form of force, but not economics
unless slavery is involved.

Do you realize what the people in the third world's
primay objection to so called sweatshops is? That
there aren't more of them. They don't consider the
"Sweatshops" to be explotation, they consider them to
be some of the better paying jobs in their nation, and
a chance to advance. They complain that the West only
wants to import raw materials from their nations,
depriving them of a chance to advance.

Before anyone brings it up, The Child Labor in the
"Sweatshops" is an accepted part of their culture, as
it was in the West until about 125 to 100 years ago.
Children not working is a luxary that only the wealthy
can afford, and allmost everyone here is wealthy by
third world standards. Your Children don't work
because of the wealth that has accumulated in the
West. In other Areas they live as your ancesters did,
the Children work or the Family starves.

I keep hearing about "greedy" companies opening the
sweatshops, but the greedy people I see are the Trade
unionists who are trying to prevent the people in
third world nations from even having that small
opertunity that a sweatshop provides.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Decisiveness of Stirrups?
From:	"salixdavianus" <salixdavianus@terra.es>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:47:45 -0000

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml
(An Examination of the Mechanics of Shock Combat and the Development
of Shock Tactics)


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: freedom
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:55:07 -0700 (PDT)

To an extent it is on topic. The recurring subject of
Nova Roma's future has surfaced, and for a change some
of us are discussing the reasons behind the postions
we take on one Nova Roman issuse or another. This may
help the two factions understand each other better,
and it is a nice change from the accusations we hurl
at each other.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org> wrote:
> As our Praetrix and list moderator mentioned
> earlier, the talk of
> various national systems and other non-Roman topics
> is perhaps better
> handled off-list. Please bring the discussion around
> to a Roman or Nova
> Roman topic, or take it to private e-mail.
>
> The question of gentes is of course on-topic. I
> encourage those
> participating in the discussion to make their points
> more effectively by
> communicating briefly and politely, without
> excessive quoting of
> previous messages, and I thank those who have
> already done so.
>
> -----
> Patricia Cassia
> Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
> Nova Roma . pcassia@novaroma.org
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Decisiveness of Stirrups?
From:	labienus@texas.net
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:28:46 US/Central

Salvete

> http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml
> (An Examination of the Mechanics of Shock Combat and the Development
> of Shock Tactics)

Multas gratias tibi ago mi Daviane. That was quite interesting.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: freedom
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:45:43 EDT

In a message dated 8/2/02 12:36:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
pcassia@novaroma.org writes:


> the talk of
> various national systems and other non-Roman topics is perhaps better
> handled off-list. Please bring the discussion around to a Roman or Nova
> Roman topic, or take it to private e-mail.
>

Questions: does it not serve the purpose of Nova Roma to discuss the
structure of her political organization with reference to systems that do and
do not work? And, is it not impossible to set up a political structure
without discussing it? It is my firm belief that theories regarding societal
and private "freedoms" was an ongoing philosophical and political debate all
through Roman history. It was certainly one of the core topics during the
Republic and was a difficult topic during the Empire. Just an observation.

M. Varius


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:34:54 EDT

Salveto,

In a message dated 8/1/02 9:08:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:

> If the mission and goals as stated in the Nova Roma website and constitution
> were changed to say that we were reconstructing only the BEST of Nova Roma
> then I would not be here arguing.


From the Nova Roma website Collis Capitolinus: "We see ourselves as the
direct spiritual successors to the Roman Empire itself, although we have
deliberately turned back to the best of the Republican era for our political
insitutions and forms." (emphisis added)

From the Nova Roman Tabularium, Constitution, Preamble: "We hereby declare
our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of
ancient Rome." (emphasis added)

In a message dated 8/1/02 9:08:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:

> But I have to stand with my principles and principles only mean something
> when they are uncomfortable and potentially unpopular.

From Webster's Dictionary, 1981 edition: "prin-ci-ple, n. [ME, modif. of MF
principe, fr. L principium beginning, fr. princip-, princeps one taking the
first part -- more at prince] 1. a: a comprehensive and fundamental law,
doctrine, or asumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual
devotion to right principles <a man of ~>
c: the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial
device."

It is my opinion that the root nature of principals is that they do not
make for discomfort rather they are the foundation upon which a society bases
their belief system so that people can work together more effectively. If the
principals I lived by made me uncomfortable I would reexamine them. If the
principals I lived by were only effective and meant something when they were
unpopular I would also take a look. One of my basic philosophies of life is
that it does not have to be painful and full of hardship to be worthwhile.

In a message dated 8/1/02 9:08:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:


> <snipped> . . . the Roman Family, which is the foundation of Roman
> Civilization.
>
Actually, the "foundation" of Rome was a loose confederation of tribal
farmers in Italy. The primary motifs for great Romans, according to Plutarch,
are ". . . the valor and tenacity of the Roman people in war, and their
genius for political compromise." Also, ". . . the problems of statecraft and
the struggle for power between patrician and plebeian, the Senate and the
popular leaders."

These are actually the "foundations" of the civilization as we know it
today in the historical context. The idea that the family was the core
institution for Rome's greatness was a political tool used by Octavian,
Ceaser Augustus, to help justify reinstituting hereditary rule. And, although
we can use the historical information from the Empire period, it was my
understanding that we are trying to recreate the Republic.

Of course the family was an important component. But, that is true of any
agriculturally based society. You need more help with manual labor. More
children, more help. Large families have always been the norm in agrarian
settings. The same is still true today. Per capita, agricultrual locations
have larger families than urban locations, even though the planet is
overpopulated. Braudel's work on medieval economics is a good reference for
the relationship between population and economics and does provide reference
material for the Roman period. I recommend it for anyone studying the
structure and organization of agricultural systems.

It has been my observation in the course of this discussion that there is
still the basic rift in the group regarding control (i.e. power). It might
make for an interesting discussion to just bring that out into the light and
take a look at it for what it is. Because it will crop up when ever there is
a proposal that suggests members can only control themselves and cannot
control others.

On the flip side, it sure still looks to me like there is a strong faction
in this group that thinks controlling other people's choices is an okay thing
to do. I find this mildly disturbing. And, when I read the word "liberal"
equated with the concept that it is not okay to try and control others it
sends up red flags for me. I also happen to know this isn't the first time
the issue of controlling people has come up for this group. In fact, I think
- if I recall my discussions from long ago with friends involved - it is the
same issue clothed in a different context.

Valete,
M. Varius








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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 13:45:45 -0400

Salve,


> Marcus Cornelius scripsit:
> << It [modernisation] would happen one law at a time, gradually creeping up
> on us. It's better to make a stand now than gamble on the future. That the
> sovereignty clause might be interpreted by some as allowing this "right" is
> also a problem, and should be removed *along with* revamping the
> gens/family system. >>
>
> MOS: Whoa. So you think someone should be able to be kept in his or her
> familia/gens against their will?


In the familia, yes.


> << The hopping doesn't have to be rampant to break the principle of the
> issue. But, while we're enforcing a tradition power relationship in a
> family - which is what a gens functionally right is (in other words, what a
> gens is now is what a "family" would essentially be once we revamped the
> system) - we might as well clarify the definition of gens, family, and align
> everything more along historical models to get rid of ambiguities. >>
>
> MOS: I would only accept such a "power"-relationship if the people involved
> were actually related and/or living under the same roof. Thāt would be
> historical. Otheriwise it's just an absurd fantasy.


One could consider the entire project of reconstructing ancient Roman
culture an absurd fantasy. The family issue isn't just about "real"
(blood ties?) families in the same house. A hopping law would allow
those adopted who live on their own to leave. It's just incidental that
at this juncture everyone would be adopted.


> << Rights according to whom? The macronation or ancient Rome? >>
>
> MOS: Basic human rights, which include freedom of opinion, expression and
> affiliation. This has nothing to do with macro- or micronations.


Sorry, but that isn't correct. The idea that those human rights exist is
not universal and equally recognized under the ancient system as under
the modern. Suggesting that they are universal and timeless is a modern
"enlightenment" idea. Let's avoid that as much as possible, given our
constraints, and see what we end up with. After all, we're all here
because, I assume, we felt the ancient system largely had it right - and
that includes the moral and ethical foundation.


> << It seems to me that the position you champion is not reconcilable with a
> "restoration" effort of ancient Rome. >>
>
> MOS: It's *Nova* Roma, not Roma Duplicata. Restoration, renovation and
> renewal are not mutually exclusive.


I think the issue of cultural revival and the place the ancient moral,
ethical system, etc, in this reconstruction are made amply clear on our
own website. Restoration does not include tossing out elements we *can*
have, given modern political constraints, but don't feel like having
because of our macronational indoctrination in what is right and wrong
(such as our modern notion of "human rights"). Please see below for an
elaboration of this.


> << We are not here to create a utopian society, where every foundational
> principle is open to being questioned so that we can perfect the system. We
> are all, presumably, starting with the assumption that ancient Rome had it
> mostly right, and that we need to resume that system today, with only those
> few concessions necessary not to be destroyed through the fears, prejudices,
> and proclivities of modern society. We are, essentially, a society looking
> back in time in a hope that the future can be improved through following
> what *was*. That does not seem to be what I hear echoing in your vision of
> progress. >>
>
> MOS: So, if I get this correctly, you think it's wrong to question
> foundational principles of a system such as this one?


When designing the foundation for this society, yes.

Do
> you really think there were no rebellious or progressive Romans?


Sure there were, but they were rebelling against the aforementioned
base. Let's establish the base, and once that is in place and
functioning, we can then decide if we need to change it. Changing it now
is like deciding how a kitchen layout should changed before the house
foundation is poured.

That all
> familiae strongly relied on paternal authority? Roman society was as diverse
> as ours, and to re-create all or nearly all of it would be a waste of time
> and money.


Well, no offence intended, but if you don't feel the moral and ethical
foundation of ancient Rome should be part of a restoration effort, then
you're seemingly excising the soul from the project. Are you sure you
want to be part of such an effort? This is a grand experiment in
reviving a society that was lost as closely as possible given modern
constraints (such as no military empire, but even there, our declaration
states, "...and claim historical rights to all sites and territories
which were under the direct control or administration of the ancient
Roman Republic and Empire between 753 BCE and 395 CE." So, even on the
most unlikely point, we still lay a claim). If we can unequivocally lay
clam to an ancient land empire, it would naturally follow that more
attainable things, such as the moral and ethical revival, are also
within out vision. On the main page we say, "By promoting Roman culture,
we are in effect promoting nothing less than the revitalization of
Western society." For us, Roman culture is separate and distinct from
modern Western society, and it would be dishonest to claim that one is
promoting Roman culture without promoting the very foundation it stood
on: its moral and ethical system.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	Michel Loos <loos@qt1.iq.usp.br>
Date:	02 Aug 2002 16:45:32 -0300

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 14:46, L. Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> --- "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites omnes,
> >
> > I'll try to concisely bundle my replies to the
> > replies and remarks made in
> > reaction to my e-mail. Here we go.
> >
> > Lucius Sicnius scripsit:
> > << As long as rights are defined according to the
> > Libertarian concept that
> > rights are only violated through the use of force.>>
> >
> > MOS: Seems like an acceptable definition, although
> > I'm not sure what exactly
> > you mean by force. People can be oppressed by
> > violence, but also by
> > psychological (think pestering or blackmail) or
> > economical force (think
> > sweatshops).
> >
> Yes intimidation is a form of force, but not economics
> unless slavery is involved.
>
> Do you realize what the people in the third world's
> primay objection to so called sweatshops is? That
> there aren't more of them. They don't consider the
> "Sweatshops" to be explotation, they consider them to
> be some of the better paying jobs in their nation, and
> a chance to advance. They complain that the West only
> wants to import raw materials from their nations,
> depriving them of a chance to advance.
>
> Before anyone brings it up, The Child Labor in the
> "Sweatshops" is an accepted part of their culture, as
> it was in the West until about 125 to 100 years ago.
> Children not working is a luxary that only the wealthy
> can afford, and allmost everyone here is wealthy by
> third world standards. Your Children don't work
> because of the wealth that has accumulated in the
> West. In other Areas they live as your ancesters did,
> the Children work or the Family starves.
>
> I keep hearing about "greedy" companies opening the
> sweatshops, but the greedy people I see are the Trade
> unionists who are trying to prevent the people in
> third world nations from even having that small
> opertunity that a sweatshop provides.

Seems you are talking of what you don't know.
Greedy companies are the ones that don't share equitably (not equally)
the wealth produced by their workers. Companies that underpay
their 3rd world workpower (usually coherently with the other wages in
the country or a little better), still selling thir products the price
they would sell it with highly(relatively) paid 1st world manpower.

What we complain is the refusal of buying our manufactured products,
manufactured by national companies with national capital and manpower,
not that foreign companies don't exploit us.

Furthermore economic exploration is definitively a use of force that
should be restrained, but we can leave this discussion for later when we
will have land, manufactures and workers. Building that should be our
common goal right now.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:24:34 EDT

Salveto,

In a message dated 8/2/02 2:00:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
gualterus@erudition.net writes:


> > MOS: Whoa. So you think someone should be able to be kept in his or her
> > familia/gens against their will?
>
>
> In the familia, yes.

For what purpose? What is the goal where people cannot decide for themselves
to be affiliated with a gens?

In a message dated 8/2/02 2:00:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
gualterus@erudition.net writes:


> > MOS: So, if I get this correctly, you think it's wrong to question
> > foundational principles of a system such as this one?
>
>
> When designing the foundation for this society, yes.

Hmmm... not being allowed to question foundational principles. Interesting.
So... we set up a system where dialogue, questions and discussions are not
allowed. That doesn't sound like the Republic to me. And, certainly not
something I would want to participate in.

In a message dated 8/2/02 2:00:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
gualterus@erudition.net writes:


> Let's establish the base, and once that is in place and
> functioning, we can then decide if we need to change it.

To make decisions one would have to ask questions and have discussions. In
the statement above, it is clearly laid out that questions should not be part
of the process. These two approaches contradict one another.

In a message dated 8/2/02 2:00:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
gualterus@erudition.net writes:


> For us, Roman culture is separate and distinct from
> modern Western society,

Ah... the proverbial "us." I actually do not agree with that statement about
Roman culture. Is it possible you meant "you" view Roman culture as separate
and distinct from modern Western society, or were you speaking for a specific
sub-group.

Also, as mentioned in another post the website and the constitution both
state that the NR group is striving to reconstruct what was *best* about the
Roman Repulic. It does not say the group is trying to duplicate ancient Rome.
I, for one, do not find all the laws, processes, cultural viewpoints,
interpersonal relationships, bigotries and limitations of ancient Rome
appealing. There are qualities about the society that I admire and respect.
Not all of it, though. In my humble opinion, to want to reconstruct a system
without carefully examining the flaws and trying to work new solutions for
them is a waste of time. The system will not survive, because it didn't the
first time around. If you duplicate something that failed, you'll simply fail
again.

Valate,
M. Varius


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



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:38:21 -0700

Avete Omnes,

----- Original Message -----
From: MVariusPM@aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)


Salveto,

In a message dated 8/1/02 9:08:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:

> If the mission and goals as stated in the Nova Roma website and constitution
> were changed to say that we were reconstructing only the BEST of Nova Roma
> then I would not be here arguing.


From the Nova Roma website Collis Capitolinus: "We see ourselves as the
direct spiritual successors to the Roman Empire itself, although we have
deliberately turned back to the best of the Republican era for our political
insitutions and forms." (emphisis added)

From the Nova Roman Tabularium, Constitution, Preamble: "We hereby declare
our Nation to stand as a beacon for those who would recreate the best of
ancient Rome." (emphasis added)

Sulla: Thats fine. I consider the Roman Family as one of the best and most thrilling aspects of reconstruction in ancient Rome, and the one aspect where we all can make a substantial difference in the lives of each of our citizens. Also, it is one of the hardest because it requires organization, dedication, love, conflict managment skills, and the ability to listen and take criticism. My ability to help educate, explain various facets of Roman Civilization and motiviate members of the Gens Cornelia has been a pleasure that I cannot describe in words. Yet it is in this capacity that my adversaries have stated that I have been role playing. I believe that there is simply no way we can reconstruct anything unless the proper foundation has been established that foundation (in monarchy and republic) was the family. And, as Nova Roma's official timeline begins in 753 bce, it was the family that was the foundation of Roman Culture and Life.


In a message dated 8/1/02 9:08:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:

> But I have to stand with my principles and principles only mean something
> when they are uncomfortable and potentially unpopular.

From Webster's Dictionary, 1981 edition: "prin-ci-ple, n. [ME, modif. of MF
principe, fr. L principium beginning, fr. princip-, princeps one taking the
first part -- more at prince] 1. a: a comprehensive and fundamental law,
doctrine, or asumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual
devotion to right principles <a man of ~>
c: the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial
device."

I prefer the definition from dictionary.com myself: especially emphasizing Item 2.

prin·ci·ple Pronunciation Key (prns-pl)
n.
1.. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2..
1.. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
2.. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3.. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4.. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.
5.. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion.
6.. Chemistry. One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect.
7.. A basic source. See Usage Note at principal.

It is my opinion that the root nature of principals is that they do not
make for discomfort rather they are the foundation upon which a society bases
their belief system so that people can work together more effectively.

Sulla: They do not make for discomfort in and of themselves. Only when there are clashes of a variety of different principles that are inconsistent with each other. Such as this case where there is a difference between following the ancients and Mos Maiorum and bringing in modern legal notions as individual rights. Or to simplify it the rights of the family and community vs that of the individual.

If the
principals I lived by made me uncomfortable I would reexamine them.

Sulla: My principles do not make me uncomfortable. What makes me uncomfortable is the fact that the opposition believes my motives are something entirely different. And they play on that as if THAT was the principle I believed in. Please reference the post of my colleague and his gens member Solaris and your very own post (the final two paragraphs.)

If the
principals I lived by were only effective and meant something when they were
unpopular I would also take a look.

Sulla: I do not believe my principles are only effective and meant something when they were unpopular, your twist on my words is very interesting. I stand by my principles in every action I take. Not all of my actions have been unpopular, I believe. But the whims of popularity are like that of the wind. One day they blow east, one day they blow west. Sometimes they blow strongly and sometimes they blow weakly. To rely on the majority only creates the tyranny of the majority. I believe in a more Utilitarian structure as explained by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and I also believe in balance.

One of my basic philosophies of life is
that it does not have to be painful and full of hardship to be worthwhile.

Sulla: That maybe perfect for you. But I do not believe in situational ethics and the fly by the seat morality. When I entered Nova Roma I consciously strove was to keep Nova Roma on track by staying as closely as possible to the ancients. Because it was the ancients who made Rome the best and greatest. And, because of their impact upon civilization NR was inspired. Diluting that, especially when it is not necessary and to the extreme opposite direction does not strike me as a concession to modern sensibilites, but as a complete betrayal to the Romanitas of Nova Roma. And, my basic philosophy of life is that one should stay true to one's vision. I have striven for that since my very first day in Nova Roma and as long as I am in Nova Roma I will continue to fight for that

In a message dated 8/1/02 9:08:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:


> <snipped> . . . the Roman Family, which is the foundation of Roman
> Civilization.
>
Actually, the "foundation" of Rome was a loose confederation of tribal
farmers in Italy. The primary motifs for great Romans, according to Plutarch,
are ". . . the valor and tenacity of the Roman people in war, and their
genius for political compromise." Also, ". . . the problems of statecraft and
the struggle for power between patrician and plebeian, the Senate and the
popular leaders."

These are actually the "foundations" of the civilization as we know it
today in the historical context. The idea that the family was the core
institution for Rome's greatness was a political tool used by Octavian,
Ceaser Augustus, to help justify reinstituting hereditary rule. And, although
we can use the historical information from the Empire period, it was my
understanding that we are trying to recreate the Republic.

Sulla: If you look at Octavian's family value reforms they were motiviated by a different set of circumstances. Such as promiting the people to get married and make babies. Trying to stop the corruption that seeped into the Late Republic due to the massive influx of wealth and the decay of morals. This is simple not the motivation in our case. So, the comparision is not correct. But thank you for trying. <g>
Augustus, as the protector and guardian of Roman tradition, also sought to inculcate a return to that tradition by means of legislation: "by new laws passed at my instigation, I brought back those practices of our ancestors that were passing away in our age" (RG 8.5). Thus, for instance, he passed laws limiting public displays of extravagance (so-called sumptuary legislation) in the manner of the old Republican senate, and he attempted through marriage regulations to put a cap on divorces and punish childlessness and adultery among the elite. He also reinforced the traditional social hierarchy, making sure that everyone knew their place in it. Minimum property qualifications for membership of the upper orders were reinforced, and status symbols for all the classes, especially the amorphous equestrians, clearly established. The convergence of this sort of legislation is illustrated by the series of laws pertaining to freed slaves, passed between 17 BC and AD 4. In the first place, the numbers of slaves that could be informally manumitted or freed in wills was restricted in proportion to the total number of slaves owned. This is a piece of sumptuary regulation, limiting overly extravagant displays of wealth and generosity in public. Second, informally freed slaves were placed into a special class of quasi-citizenship termed Junian Latinity that was capable of being upgraded to full citizenship only after the Junians had proved themselves worthy; one way of achieving worthiness was to have children. Such regulations, then, encapsulated the Augustan attitudes toward public extravagance, maintenance of the social hierarchy, and marriage and reproduction. In his private life, Augustus fell short of his own ideals (witness the turmoil engendered in his family by adultery and infidelities of all sorts), but the thrust of his social legislation was less to regulate individuals' private behavior than to maintain the proper outward appearance of dignitas and decency that Augustus felt had been lost during the Late Republi
e state and hardly at all affected the commoner on the street. [[50]]

This is taken from: http://www.roman-emperors.org/auggie.htm

Of course the family was an important component. But, that is true of any
agriculturally based society. You need more help with manual labor. More
children, more help. Large families have always been the norm in agrarian
settings. The same is still true today. Per capita, agricultrual locations
have larger families than urban locations, even though the planet is
overpopulated. Braudel's work on medieval economics is a good reference for
the relationship between population and economics and does provide reference
material for the Roman period. I recommend it for anyone studying the
structure and organization of agricultural systems.

It has been my observation in the course of this discussion that there is
still the basic rift in the group regarding control (i.e. power). It might
make for an interesting discussion to just bring that out into the light and
take a look at it for what it is. Because it will crop up when ever there is
a proposal that suggests members can only control themselves and cannot
control others.


Sulla: The problem with that is there is no real "control" in Nova Roma. Because we are a voluntary organization. I have said that before, yet it has continued to go un-noticed.

On the flip side, it sure still looks to me like there is a strong faction
in this group that thinks controlling other people's choices is an okay thing
to do. I find this mildly disturbing. And, when I read the word "liberal"
equated with the concept that it is not okay to try and control others it
sends up red flags for me. I also happen to know this isn't the first time
the issue of controlling people has come up for this group. In fact, I think
- if I recall my discussions from long ago with friends involved - it is the
same issue clothed in a different context.

Sulla: Once again, there is no real "control" in Nova Roma. Because Nova Roma is a voluntary organization. If you dont like what ANYONE in Nova Roma might be doing, you have the ability to quit. There is no coercive power to prevent you from doing so. As for the buzzwords that are exactly that, those of us who favor tradition over modern legal theory have been known as traditionalists, those who favor modern concessions are liberals. And unfortunately, your right this is not the first time that this issue has arisen. And, it is going to be one of those problems that will continue to plague Nova Roma.

Sulla: Your posting seems to sound very familiar, IMHO. Were you in Nova Roma before? If so what was your Roman name?
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul


Valete,
M. Varius








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

Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Latin Course (revisited index of the first lessons)
From:	"Claudius Salix Davianus" <salixdavianus@terra.es>
Date:	Sat, 3 Aug 2002 01:00:07 -0500

The proposed contents for the first part of the Latin Course of the Academia Thules:

LESSON ONE: HISTORY AND PERVIVENCE OF LATIN, RELATIONS OF LATIN WITH MODERN AND ANCIENT LANGUAGES.

1.1. Stating the importance of Latin
1.2. Latin Chronology
1.3. Relations to ancient Languages
1.3. Relations to modern Languages


LESSON TWO: PHONOLOGY AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS OF LATIN

2.1. Introduction
2.2. The Alphabet
2.3. Consonants
2.4. Vowels and Diphthongs
2.5. Stress and Rhythm
2.6. Historical phonetic changes in Latin


LESSON THREE: INTRODUCTION TO LATIN AND HOW TO EXPRESS IDEAS IN FLEXION LANGUAGES

3.1. What is a flexion language?
3.2. Introduction nominal morphology and to the cases of nominal declension
3.3. The first and second declensions: a-stems and o-stems.
3.4. Introduction to the verb and verbal conjugation
3.5. Preliminary exercises
3.6. A little more complex exercises


LESSON FOUR: ADVANCED NOMINAL DECLENSION

4.1. The third declension: i-stems and consonant-stems.
4.2. Explaining the cases in detail
4.3. The fourth and fifth declensions: u-stems and e-stems.
4.4. How to guess with the correct case form?
4.4. How to recognize cases in a Latin text?


Cl. Salix Davianus
=================================
Praeceptor Linguae Latinae Academia Thules


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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:49:59 -0400

Salve,


>>>MOS: Whoa. So you think someone should be able to be kept in his or her
>>>familia/gens against their will?
>>>
>>
>>In the familia, yes.
>>
>
> For what purpose? What is the goal where people cannot decide for themselves
> to be affiliated with a gens?


The same purpose I have been putting forth this entire time: to enforce
a traditional power relationship within the familia.


> Hmmm... not being allowed to question foundational principles. Interesting.
> So... we set up a system where dialogue, questions and discussions are not
> allowed. That doesn't sound like the Republic to me. And, certainly not
> something I would want to participate in.


In the process of "reconstruction," there are many things that are a
given; our goal is given: the ancient system. Once we have the system up
and running, we can decide if we wish to "progress." The dialogue should
focus on what is the best way to reproduce or approximate the historical
system, and not how to deviate from it for the sake of "progress"... for
*now*. Like I said, once we're finished, we can decide if this grand
social experiment was worth it, and how it should (if at all) be adjusted.


>>Let's establish the base, and once that is in place and
>>functioning, we can then decide if we need to change it.
>>
>
> To make decisions one would have to ask questions and have discussions. In
> the statement above, it is clearly laid out that questions should not be part
> of the process. These two approaches contradict one another.


Hardly. Finish reconstructing and *then* question the foundational
principles if we find that what we have isn't good enough. Nothing
contradictory or inconsistent with that.


> Also, as mentioned in another post the website and the constitution both
> state that the NR group is striving to reconstruct what was *best* about the
> Roman Repulic. It does not say the group is trying to duplicate ancient Rome.


I consider the moral and ethical foundation of ancient Rome part of that
*best*, which does not include a blanket recognition of all of the
modern "human rights." Based on other statements I have already quoted
from the main page and Declaration, it seems clear that what is *best*
is most of ancient Rome. Why else would we even lay claim to 4th century
borders? The *best* statement seems to me merely a justification to
exclude things like slavery and military expansion (which we couldn't
get away with), and not the moral foundations. I wonder why anyone would
wish to participate in NR if they didn't believe that ancient Rome had
it mostly right.


> I, for one, do not find all the laws, processes, cultural viewpoints,
> interpersonal relationships, bigotries and limitations of ancient Rome
> appealing. There are qualities about the society that I admire and respect.
> Not all of it, though. In my humble opinion, to want to reconstruct a system
> without carefully examining the flaws and trying to work new solutions for
> them is a waste of time.


Well, on the one hand, without first implementing it and seeing how it
works today we can't know what needs adjustment, while on the other hand
I'm not sure that merely a mild appreciation for ancient Rome's
accomplishments that discards large facets of its culture is the right
attitude to facilitate this reconstruction. If we're not all agreed that
Rome *mostly* got it right, why are we bothering to repeat it? Perhaps
there should be a ROMA INIQVA for those that just want a
partial/skewed/uneven reconstruction, picking out a handful of the
"good" and throwing away the rest? This was not the impression I
gathered from the website/Declaration/Constitution. Or, perhaps, I'm in
the wrong place and there needs to be a ROMA NOVA that is more
full-bodied... leaving the "modernized" effort with NR.

The system will not survive, because it didn't the
> first time around. If you duplicate something that failed, you'll simply fail
> again.


The world is a different place now; plus, we don't have a military, nor
do we aspire to be a military power, so we can't "fall" by abuse of the
sword. With that wild-card out of the deck, an honest analogy can not be
made between the ancient "fall" and our prospects today. Allow me to
repeat it once again: let us see how a reconstruction - as complete as
possible give modern constraints - works, and then we can decide if it
is bound to be a social failure.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Predestined Changes/could NR fall?
From:	Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT)

MVariusPM@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 8/2/02 7:05:55 AM Central
I agree with you and this is why we must be very careful and take thing slow.To many times we can get in to fast and the world falls apart.I've been in to many fallen world to be blind when signs start poping up.This will not how ever happen here.When the people start losing faith then we'll see the cookie crumbly."Sorry I'm pretty hunger"We must push no but slowly,always looking out for those who has just joined teaching them our ides and helping them to be better Romans.If we do this then NR will not fell.How "mark my words" until ever person whom reads this letter, writes to one new Roman or thinking of joining.Writes to them and trys to help push them along"with love"to better them selfs.If they don't then yes NOVA ROMA WILL FALL!!!!!!and no one will be left standing to build it back up.LOOK to history!
WE MUST HELP OUR NEW PERSONS they are our lifes blood and so are our older Romans who we haven't heard from.Just please take my words to task don't let another person blow by....
G.Porticus Brutis
Daylight Time,
lsicinius@yahoo.com writes:


> Growth is good?
> Tell that to a cancer patent who has been told his
> tumor is growing.
>
> The exchange of ideas between two cultures is not
> always good.

Salveto,

To view the purposeful introduction of alcohol into the Native American
population by disreputable fur traders does not encompass "the exchange of
ideas" to me. And, Native Americans did not "lack the cultural constraints"
to deal with alcohol. They lacked a specific enzyme to break it down and
digest it (same problem shared by Asiatic populations), so it had a higher
effectivity and addiction rate.

The other point "tell that to a cancer patient," has some very interesting
potential. Since my wife is a hospice nurse (and I volunteer with the
organization), I have had a great deal of opportunity to view the dying
process first hand. It is a process that contains "growth." (absolutely no
pun intended). However, I was not talking about medical situations where
someone is facing difficult life choices. I was talking in reference to
political bodies. If a political group does not allow for change it will not
survive. There is no example of this occurring in history.

As for Nova Roma being "contaminated" by the introduction of "modern
ideas." I do not believe this to be a viable argument for discussion, since
it is completely theoretical. The group exists now. It is not possible to
turn back the hands of time (at least not with our current technology) and
place the group in a pristine historic time frame. Nor is it possible to set
up a group with a pristine historic foundation. If that were the goal we
would have to eliminate all forms of anti-discrimination and go back to a
strictly male ruled organization that stratified each member by their actual
economic and geneological circumstance. Who ever had the most money would be
on top of the pile and it would pyramid beneath them. I doubt seriously this
would be acceptable.

Personally, I wouldn't want to recreate Rome as it was at any single time
period. I don't disagree that studying it and using the best portions is a
noble goal. That was what I believed the goal of the group to be. However,
exactly duplicating Rome means the first thing we'd have to do is throw out
the computers. I don't believe the group would get very far at that rate.

It has been my experience that change often frightens people. I'm not
really sure why that is. I've always enjoyed the adventure - what ever it may
be - and view change as a time to learn. But, I do know this is not usually
the case with most other people. I've often also observed that change is
frequently viewed as a loss of control. This also illicits reactions of fear.
I, personally, have never been interested in controlling other people. I like
to be in control of myself and make the choices I believe are right for me.
I've never objected to the choices others make for themselves, even if I
didn't agree with them. I have also found this to be an uncommon position to
take. It is interesting to watch the group struggle with some of these issues
and to see what arguments arise as a result. I am sure it will determine the
shape of the organization as time moves forward.

Valete,
M. Varius



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:38:57 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Corneli,

> Perhaps there should be a ROMA INIQVA for those that just want a
> partial/skewed/uneven reconstruction, picking out a handful of the
> "good" and throwing away the rest? This was not the impression I
> gathered from the website/Declaration/Constitution. Or, perhaps, I'm in
> the wrong place and there needs to be a ROMA NOVA that is more
> full-bodied... leaving the "modernized" effort with NR.

Our one remaining Pater Patriae is in support of this reform, in support
of a citizen's right to make his own choices.

It would seem, then, that those who have disdain for modern concepts
of rights and equality are in the wrong place. The idea that a
"paterfamilias" can hold another in his gens (or familia) was never
intended to be a part of Nova Roma.

The "mos maiorum" that some here pretend to champion is a fiction.

> The world is a different place now;

Indeed, it is. In some cases, the change is for the better - and I
firmly believe the growing recognition of individual rights to be
the most significant and beneficial development of the last two
thousand years. I would not support or be a part of any society
that would willingly cast that aside.

> Allow me to repeat it once again: let us see how a reconstruction -
> as complete as possible give modern constraints - works, and then
> we can decide if it is bound to be a social failure.

Nova Roma was never intended to be the sort of reconstruction
you are advocating. Just ask it's founder.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Replies on the Slope
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 16:40:07 -0700 (PDT)

--- MVariusPM@aol.com wrote:
> Salveto,
SNIP

> Also, as mentioned in another post the website and
> the constitution both
> state that the NR group is striving to reconstruct
> what was *best* about the
> Roman Repulic. It does not say the group is trying
> to duplicate ancient Rome.
> I, for one, do not find all the laws, processes,
> cultural viewpoints,
> interpersonal relationships, bigotries and
> limitations of ancient Rome
> appealing. There are qualities about the society
> that I admire and respect.
> Not all of it, though. In my humble opinion, to want
> to reconstruct a system
> without carefully examining the flaws and trying to
> work new solutions for
> them is a waste of time. The system will not
> survive, because it didn't the
> first time around. If you duplicate something that
> failed, you'll simply fail
> again.
>
> Valate,
> M. Varius
>
Judging men of the past by the standards of the
present is one of the unfairest things a historian can
do. I Have no idea how the historians of 4757 AUC will
look at us, but I do have an idea of how a Roman might
look at our civilization.

They are the most impius Barbarians I have ever seen.
Few of them even know the names of any ancestor more
remote than their Grandfather, let alone honor them.
They hire strangers to tend the Graves of their
families if they bother tending them at all. They not
only fail to honor their Paterfamilis, but many think
nothing of allowing him and their Mater to live in
poverity, or even to cast them out of their domus into
insulas where neglect and abuse aren't unusual. They
think so little of their children that they don't
bother to arrange a proper marriage, leaving it to
chance that they won't marry a poverity striken fool.
They think nothing of casting those who work for them
out into the streets to starve instead of enrolling
them as clients. Most of the men are cowards who have
never servered in the Legions, and most amazing of all
the cowardly men let women enter the legions and fight
their battles for them! I Fail to see how this sick
culture can endure for any length of time.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



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