Republicanism - Page 7 - Historum

Yôḥānān · February 6th, 2012, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

Every political system save anarchy protects individual rights and liberty (among other things). Political systems are not different based on if they protect them or not but on how much rights and liberty they give and how is it distributed among people.

It is implied a certain degree of those rights, liberty and equality under the law not present in every system.

Yôḥānān · February 6th, 2012, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

For record, all modern constitutions have idea that some people are under power of "master" who can arbitrary interfere in the personal (and public) life of those under them.

In USA today about 20-30% of population is "under masters" and subject of "arbitrary intervention". Those are people who society deem unable of independent responsibility -namely children up to 16-18 years of age. In societies of the past some other groups were deemed as incapable of individual responsibility. Slaves, women, physicaly or mentally retarded, serfs and so on.

There is no principal difference between Roman republic and modern USA in this regard.

Your definition is wrong.

I must disagree, children have the same rights as adults except they cannot perform certain public or private activities due to their lack of maturity and education since they might endanger the life and well being of other people. But once they arrive to a stipulated age, in which it is considered they have obtained both, they are given those rights. The comparison is out of proportion.

**arras** · February 6th, 2012, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yôḥānān

I must disagree, children have the same rights as adults except they cannot perform certain public or private activities due to their lack of maturity and education since they might endanger the life and well being of other people.

They are restricted in freedom of movement and ownership of property and judgement in the court. Among other things. Those are considered basic human rights in USA.

Principle is the same, children in USA, slaves and women in Rome are/were considered unable to execute full citizen rights. Therefore have/had to be represented by somebody who does.

Women could own property but only trough male relative. They had right to judgement in the court but only when represented by male relative. Slave could not hold property as he was himself property so no need for property right. But he had right of judgement at court however represented by his owner. Just like children do in USA, they are represented by their parents.

It is exactly the same principle.

Yôḥānān · February 6th, 2012, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

They are restricted in freedom of movement and ownership of property and judgement in the court. Among other things. Those are considered basic human rights in USA.

Principle is the same, children in USA, slaves and women in Rome are/were considered unable to execute full citizen rights. Therefore have/had to be represented by somebody who does.

Women could own property but only trough male relative. They had right to judgement in the court but only when represented by male relative. Slave could not hold property as he was himself property so no need for property right. But he had right of judgement at court however represented by his owner. Just like children do in USA, they are represented by their parents.

It is exactly the same principle.

It cannot be the same principle since slaves were considered property, merchandise, either private or public, and could be sold and bought. Neither women or children are considered today as such. The only creatures who fall into a similar category as slaves are the animals (pets, etc).

**arras** · February 6th, 2012, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yôḥānān

It cannot be the same principle since slaves were considered property, merchandise, either private or public, and could be sold and bought. Neither women or children are considered today as such. The only creatures who fall into a similar category as slaves are the animals (pets, etc).

We do not have slaves, do we? But USA had them not so far ago. How was modern political system handling them? Well modern republic was handling them exactly the same way Roman republic did.

Yes they were property and that is the reason why they could not execute citizen rights and participate in political process. That is however not feature of political system, it is caused by socio-economical system.

sylla1 · February 6th, 2012, 07:56 AM

At the risk of overstating the obvious ad nauseam, mixing purely social issues like slavery or female status with the defnition of purely political terms like republic or democracy (or autocracy or monarchy, for that matter) is totally unappropiate and just unnecessarily confusing.

On the term republic, just check out any dictionary... or even better, any list of modern nations

List_of_sovereign_states

.

It is just a clear-cut negative term; i.e. any political regime that is not a monarchy.
Easy as that.

Again, designing any new personal definition is hardly going to make the possibility of achieving any useful conclusion any easier; for that elementary goal, a common language is an absolute minimal requirement.

**arras** · February 6th, 2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

It is just a clear-cut negative term; i.e. any political regime that is not a monarchy.
Easy as that.

So tyranny is also republic? Quit not as easy, is it?

**DreamWeaver** · February 6th, 2012, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

Every political system save anarchy protects individual rights and liberty (among other things). Political systems are not different based on if they protect them or not but on how much rights and liberty they give and how is it distributed among people.

That would depend on the brand of Anarchism. Individual Anarchism says otherwise, its all about the rights and will of the individual.

sylla1 · February 6th, 2012, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

So tyranny is also republic? Quit not as easy, is it?

And swans can be black...

What does one thing have to do with the other???

Hint: absolutely nothing.

On your question:
One must require to be blind not to be aware of any number of ongoing tyrannical republics.

Quite as easy as that.

Yôḥānān · February 6th, 2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWeaver

That would depend on the brand of Anarchism. Individual Anarchism says otherwise, its all about the rights and will of the individual.

The problem in anarchy is that when all those rights and wills clash the will and rights of the stronger prevail and so we are back to tyranny.