Simplicity Party Meeting in Trotsky's, December 27th @ Noon

Announcements of activities and events in CDS.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

Perhaps, given the spirit of the season, we should seek common ground in Einstein:

[quote:2c8vnahs]Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.[/quote:2c8vnahs]

Edit: Editing up-thread has rather changed the tone of preceding posts - and possibly made my reply non sequitur. I'll leave it in place rather than risk any further confusion.

For what it's worth, I hope we can all agree with the quote and return - post festive holidays - to have another shot at the whole peace and goodwill thing.

Merry Christmas.

Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Beathan":3375p8am]Moderators -- is this malicious attack by the Judiciary Faction on a legitimate communicate by the Simplicity party to the community an appropriate use of these forums[/quote:3375p8am]
It has the advantage of keeping the Simplicity Party meeting at the top of the Events listings. Perhaps it is an unintentional holiday gift, but I'll take it! :D

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Publius wrote [quote:3jjz9r9k]It has the advantage of keeping the Simplicity Party meeting at the top of the Events listings. Perhaps it is an unintentional holiday gift, but I'll take it! [/quote:3jjz9r9k]

Good point. I was analogizing this to drowning out a phone tree with automatic calls -- obscuring the message and preventing the communication. However, because the original message is permanent, this might not be the effect (although I do think it is the intent). So -- is attempted election tampering still an impeachable offense?

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

[quote="Beathan":2kbvnes6]Publius wrote [quote:2kbvnes6]It has the advantage of keeping the Simplicity Party meeting at the top of the Events listings. Perhaps it is an unintentional holiday gift, but I'll take it! [/quote:2kbvnes6]

Good point. I was analogizing this to drowning out a phone tree with automatic calls -- obscuring the message and preventing the communication. However, because the original message is permanent, this might not be the effect (although I do think it is the intent). So -- is attempted election tampering still an impeachable offense?

Beathan[/quote:2kbvnes6]
Though it refrerred to efforts to impeach my favorite Supreme Court Justice (William O. Douglas), Gerald Ford memorably put it best:

[quote:2kbvnes6]An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House
of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in
history.[/quote:2kbvnes6]
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/700415a.htm

This will no doubt enrage those who believe impeachment is or should be apolitical. Perhaps a [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 5:2kbvnes6]new discussion thread[/url:2kbvnes6]outside of the events announcement would be a more appropriate venue for the conversation.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Oh lighten up Beathan! Don't be so incredibly obtuse!

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Michel --

I am not being obtuse. I fully recognize that you, Ash, and the Judiciary Faction is trying to spam this thread into oblivion. This thread was the attempt of the Simplicity Party to organize for the coming election. The Judiciary Faction's response is a crass and opportunistic abuse of these forums. It speaks volumes of the inability of the current judiciary to fit itself to democratic processes and to a community dedicated to them.

You might see this attempt to interfere with the Simplicity Party as comic relief. I see it in much the same light in which Cicero saw Caesar. You are playing Anthony to Ash's Caesar -- and Oni, the wise politician, is standing back, as a shrewd youngster, much like Octavian. You are even quoting Caesar's party's favorite saying. On this view, I can only say:

Utinam coniurati te in foro interficiant. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Roughly -- "May conspirators assassinate you in the forum. I will not join your silly (judicial) religous cult."

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Post by michelmanen »

Be careful of pushing historical analogies too far lest you be taken seriously as making threats to others... (which thankfully I'm not - take you seriously that is...) Besides, from what I remember, Cicero kinda lost his head and "Caesar's Party" ended up reinvigorating Rome for another 500 years - therby changing the course of all human history... I, for one, will gladly settle for that.... :)

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":makbg3i8]This, especially when coupled with our chief judge's self-declared intention to thwart the application of the Code of Justice passed by the RA[/quote:makbg3i8]

Where? Or is this another one of your deliberate lies?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Michel wrote [quote:1rd3zlxa]Be careful of pushing historical analogies too far lest you be taken seriously as making threats to others... (which thankfully I'm not - take you seriously that is...) Besides, from what I remember, Cicero kinda lost his head and "Caesar's Party" ended up reinvigorating Rome for another 500 years - therby changing the course of all human history... I, for one, will gladly settle for that....
[/quote:1rd3zlxa]

I don't usually talk about people and their "true colors" -- but turn-about's fair play.

Rome reached its height in the last days of the Republic. After that, it was hundreds of years of decadence, civil war, and slow decay. The fact that Rome took five hundred years to decay is a sign of its greatness as a Republic, not a sign of any virtue of the imperium. Like most serious students of Rome, I was enamored with Caesar in my youth, but then I turned twenty and grew out of it. Caesar destroyed, rather than preserved, the greatest social accomplishment of Europeans before the Age of Reason. He preserved, inadequately, his personal power (for a couple years) and his family power (if you define "family" as including anyone willing to work for your family, kill off your relatives, and then live in your house). This does not strike me as either a great or noble accomplishment. Caesar accomplished great things as a magistrate and military leader of the Republic. By destroying the Republic, both he and Rome became nothing more than exquisite corpses. This embalming is surely not a type of "revitalization", or even preservation, I think we should emulate.

With regard to Cicero "losing his head", I trust that I too will receive the unique honor of havng my head displayed in the forum should the judiciary triumvirate triumph over our more noble egalitarian and democratic impulses. In any case -- like Cicero, I will go down fighting and speaking out.

However, I don't think that it will come to that. The CDS is full of very bright, very insightful people who are too smart not to learn from history. With the Roman example to look to, I trust that we will not go down Ashcroft's road much further. Apparently even Ashcroft recognizes it, as he has, as noted by Prok, taken his imperial ambition to the Mainland.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Rome's Golden Era

Post by michelmanen »

As you can read below, your understanding of Roman history is wide off the mark. The later Republican era, from the time of the Gracchi at the end of the 2nd century BC to the Battle of Actiumin 31 BC, was characterised by constant civil struggle and civil wars due to the inability of Republican institutions to properly govern a quickly growing territory and integrate an ever-greater diversity of citizens. Octavian, the later Augustus, brought peace and prosperity to the Roman world, restructured its institutions in accordance with the new needs of the times, and spread local participation rights in the political system outside Rome, throughtout Italian and non-Italian cities - altough he consolidated his personal power at the center at the expense of the Republic's traditional institutions.

Rome's Golden Era was therefore not, as you claim, during the Republic -and certainly not during Cicero's life- but between 30 BC and 180 AD. Peace, order, stablity, good government and expanding local participation rights were during this time the rule, not the exception. When the Empire's decline truly began, by the third century AD, the Senate wished each new emperor on accession: "May you be luckier than Augustus (31 BC-14 AD) and better than Trajan (98-117 AD)".

So, as you can see, you were only off in your analysis by about 200 years. But don't worry, I won't hold it against you - we all live and learn... :)

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, says:

[quote:pvk5zbl5]Augustus and the Pax Romana

Caesar's assassination brought anarchy, out of which the Second Triumvirate emerged with the rule of Octavian (later Augustus), Antony, and Lepidus. Octavian was Caesar's nephew, ward, and heir, and his true successor. At Actium (31 B.C.) he defeated Antony and Cleopatra and made the empire one. No change was made in the government, but Octavian received from the senate the title Augustus and from the people life tribuneship; this, with the governorship of all the provinces conferred by the senate, made him the real ruler. He was called imperator [commander] and princeps [leader] and is usually considered the first Roman emperor.

Augustus organized provincial government and the army, rebuilt Rome, and patronized the arts and letters. His rule began a long period (200 years) of peace, called the Pax Romana. During this time the Roman Empire was the largest it would ever be; its boundaries included Armenia, middle Mesopotamia, the Arabian desert, the Red Sea, Nubia, the Sahara, the Moroccan mountain mass, the Atlantic Ocean, the Irish Sea, Scotland, the North Sea, the Rhine, the Danube, the Black Sea, and the Caucasus. Augustus' chief additions to the empire were a strip along the North Sea W of the Elbe and part of the Danubian area.

The blessings of peace were great for the empire. The extensive system of Roman roads made transportation easier than it was again to be until the development of railroads. A postal service was developed closely tied in with the organization of the army. Commerce and industry were greatly developed, particularly by sea, over which grain ships carried food for Rome and the West from the ports of northern Africa. The Roman Empire became under Augustus one great nation. The enlarged view of the world made a great impression on Rome, where literary and artistic interests were of importance, although nearly always tending to imitation of Greece and of the East.

Augustus died A.D. 14 and was succeeded by his stepson Tiberius; his general Germanicus Caesar fought fruitlessly in Germany. Caligula, who followed, was a cruel tyrant (A.D. 37–A.D. 41); he was succeeded by Claudius I (A.D. 41–A.D. 54), who was dominated by his wives, but during his rule half of Britain was conquered (A.D. 43). In his time Thrace, Lydia, and Judaea were made Roman provinces. His stepson Nero (A.D. 54–A.D. 68 ) was an unparalleled tyrant. In his reign occurred the great fire of Rome (A.D. 64), attributed (probably falsely) to Nero; it burnt everything between the Caelian, the Palatine, and the Esquiline, but it was a boon to the city, for Nero moved the population to the right bank of the Tiber, then very thinly populated, and rebuilt the region with broader streets and great buildings.

With Nero the Julio-Claudian line ended. There was a brief struggle (see Galba; Otho; Vitellius) before Vespasian (A.D. 69–A.D. 79) became emperor. Under him his son Titus destroyed Jerusalem (A.D. 70); Titus then briefly succeeded his father. After his mild, rather benign rule, his brother Domitian (A.D. 81–A.D. 96), a despot and persecutor of Christians, gained the empire. In Domitian's reign Agricola conquered Britain almost entirely. Domitian was unsuccessful in his dealings with the Daci and finally bought them off. After Nerva came Trajan (A.D. 98–A.D. 117), one of the greatest of emperors. Trajan undertook great public works, defeated the Daci and established Roman colonies there (in what is now modern Romania), and pushed the eastern borders past Armenia and Mesopotamia.

Trajan's successor, Hadrian, withdrew Roman rule to the Euphrates and in Britain built his wall (Hadrian's Wall) to hold back the barbarians who constantly threatened that fast-developing province. He also reorganized the senate and the army. Roman armies were then seldom seen far from the boundaries of the empire, and life continued throughout the Roman world in peace and quiet. Italy was sinking into a purely provincial state, although many emperors made attempts to make it a special country. The successors of Hadrian were Antoninus Pius (138–161) and Marcus Aurelius (161–180), who ruled in what is commonly called the Golden Age of the empire.

The Empire Declines

With Commodus (180–192) the decline of the empire is usually said to have begun. The age of the Praetorians was then at hand, when the rise and fall of emperors was determined by this elite corps of soldiers. Septimius Severus (193–211) was unusually able for his period; he campaigned with success against the Parthians and against the Picts of N Britain. His son Caracalla is noteworthy for extending Roman citizenship to all free men of the empire and for the famous baths named after him.[/quote:pvk5zbl5]

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Michel --

So Claudius, Caligula and Nero are now your models for greatness? Things get scarier and scarier.

The Gracchi were undeniably great men who had genuine ideological commitments to improving the lot of the common Roman -- as its own good, rather than as a vehicle for personal greatness. Besides, their mother, Cornelia, is widely known as the paragon of Roman women -- even moreso than Caesar's. Surely this means something?

Rome expanded to its final extent -- except for tentative and non-lasting inroads -- during the Republican era. The greatest Roman emperors merely staunched the bleeding from wounds inflicted by their imperial predecessors. (Trajan and Marcus Aurelius certainly fit this description.) It is true that the pre-Imperial era had Sulla and Pompey -- but frankly I prefer both of them to Nero and Caligula (as do most observers).

Republican civil war was not fatal to Rome. Imperial "stability" was. Stability is not everything Ashcroft has it cracked up to be -- especially when it involves the draining of blood from a culture. Embalming preserves a corpse perfectly well -- while life destroys it. Nonetheless, I'll take life.

Insofar as calling the early Imperial era "Rome's Golden Era" -- this does not mean that it was the best era. I am reminded from a question from [i:nod4bp7h]Revenge of the Nerds[/i:nod4bp7h] -- "would you rather live during the ascent of a civilization or during its decline?" Golden ages are always ages of decline. I prefer the ascent. That's what draws me, an American, living in the American Golden Age, to the CDS.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Tue Dec 26, 2006 12:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Here you go again...

Post by michelmanen »

As usual, you choose to distort my careful and well-supported analysis (I mentioned Augustus and Trajan as great emperors, which you utterly fail to acknowledge), put words in my mouth which I never uttered with the sole intention to personally discredit me instead of carrying out a civilised debate (I never claimed I admired Claudius, Caligula and Nero and specifically stated that “Peace, order, stability, good government and expanding local participation rights [b:eilppup5]were during this time the rule, not the exception[/b:eilppup5]” exactly in order to make allowance for such tyrants without engaging in a detailed and lengthy discussion of each Roman emperor’s reign), and state facts that are, frankly, utterly wrong (such as “Rome expanded to its final extent -- except for tentative and non-lasting inroads -- during the Republican era”: Britons, Germans, Hungarians, inhabitants of most of the Balkans including Romania, peoples around the Black Sea, Northern Africans, Egyptians, Jews, Arabs, Persians all were indelibly shaped by Roman institutions and culture, which were implanted in their territories in the wake of the march of Roman legions well after the fall of the Republic, which had pretty much happened by 31 BC, when Octavian defeated Anthony and Cleopatra and took over Egypt, which remained Roman for almost 700 years, until Mohammed annexed this province from the Eastern Roman Empire). Finally, the following sentence: “Civil war was not fatal to Rome. Imperial stability was” is an utter non-sequitur, since civil war brought down the late Republic and Imperial stability generated a Roman rebirth which lasted for 500 years in its Western part and 1500 years in its Eastern part (until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, in 1453) and greatly contributed in shaping the world as we know it today. For sheer enjoyment and verve, I warmly recommend Gibbons’ magisterial “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (unabridged!), published by the Folio Society in an outstanding [i:eilppup5]de luxe[/i:eilppup5] edition.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Let's see -- after the Republic the Romans added the Britain (south of Hadrian's wall), which they were never really able to hold or administer except as an afterthought; Judaia, which caused all sorts of problems; Egypt, which brought Cleopatra and killed Anthony and probably Julius Caesar; and the Balkan states, which brought them into direct contact with the Goths -- as well as being, well, the Balkan states. In the words of Dr. Phil, I would like to ask the Romans of these Imperial conquests, "so, how is that working for you?"

During the Republic, the Romans gained Spain, Gaul, Greece, Africa -- and had real diplomatic and social influence and power in every place they later conquered. Frankly, they would have been better off to have left their borders where they were. However, the difference may have had more to do with the difference between how provinces were administered under the Republic (rotating magistrates, who tended to pillage the provences, but who also instilled Roman culture deep into them) verses the Empire (administration by Generals, all of whom seemed to want to go home, kill off the current emporer, and take his place). With the exception of Romania, if we look at linguistic and cultural clues, Roman culture did not really take in the imperial provinces.

However, this is getting us far afield from the point of this discussion -- which is how the Simplicity Party, which, as Prok correctly points out, is dedicated to civil liberty through institutional simplicity, can redirect our state away from the catastrophic path the Judiciary Act (and other overly complicated institutional conceptions) has placed us. I made by debut on these forums by responding to a pro-Ashcroftian post by Claude called "In Defense of Complexity." Can we get back to that?

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Rome's Golden Era

Post by michelmanen »

Hey, it was your historical parallel, not mine. I (rightly) pointed out the inaccuracies and fallacies in your example in order to make sure that others who might read this might not think that it actually could have some persuasive value. As to the dabate you metion, we shall surely have the opportunity to continue it during the upcoming electoral campaign. May the best (as opposed to the most strident and repetitive) argument win!

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

Those who don't study History are doomed to repeat others' mistakes.
Those who study History will find their own way for their mistakes.

Locked

Return to “Events in CDS”