freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:21am:


No, they're not. A number of Roman historians wrote about it. It's the subject of books, paintings, plays. Shakespeare even wrote one. The rise and fall of the Roman republic is one of the most documented phenomena in history.

If you don't know the answer to this, why are you posting on it?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:33am:


No, FD, there are two distinct periods of Roman history; the Republic, from 509 BCE to 27 BCE, and the Roman Empire, which spanned from 27 BCE to the 600s.

In Rome, people were divided into two categories; citizens and non-citizens. There were three classes; patricians, plebeians, and slaves. During the period of the republic, slaves did not get to vote, and plebians did not get to run for the Senate or curiate assembly (until 336 BCE, anyway). Women didn't vote at all.

During the republic, the patricians ran things. Patricians were the descendants of the original Roman families. Plebians were subject to the powers of the patricians, a "client/patronage" relationship similar to the way serfs were later subject to aristocratic power in European monarchies.

Power became more and more centralized in the later republic, culminating in "first triumvirate" with Pompey the Great, Marcus Crassus and Julius Caesar. Caesar prevailed. The republic ended.

With the decline of the Roman Empire, Europe loosely transferred the power of the Caesars to kings. The church was pivotal in enshrining this model, even coming up with a metaphysical basis for this power, the Divine Right of Kings.

This model was unquestioned until the Enlightenment, who turned back to the Roman republic. After its revolution, France loosely based its new republic on the Roman republic. There was a lot of talk about the division of power between plebians and patricians, but in the end, everyone called themselves, "citizens". The first French republic ended with the rise of Napoleon, and later re-emerged in the aftermath of the second French revolution in 1848. The 1848 revolutions in Europe marked the transition to what we now call democracy. Even then, most countries only granted the vote to landholders, the equivalent of the Roman patricians. Women and working class men did not get the vote until the late 19th/early 20th century.

The Roman republic is not known as a democracy, but a republic. The differences between democracies and republics has also been well documented. Machiavelli's the Discourses is a good place to start. Rousseau's early essays are another.

So there you have it: the West had no democracy for nearly 2000 years. It also had little "inclusiveness", if any.

I'll ask you again, FD, how was the distribution of power in Western Europe any more inclusive than, say, the Islamic caliphate?

I'll give you a clue. "Elections" is not the right answer.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:28pm:


It's your turn to answer, FD.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:40pm:


Which elections, FD? Please show me where, from 27 BCE to the French Revolution, Western Europe had popular elections.

And by popular, I mean citizens (or subjects) voting for their governments.

A clue: in some places, they existed. Here's your chance to show where.

Real examples, please. A motherhood statement won't substantiate your argument.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:50pm:


We're not talking about living standards, we're discussing the difference between the West and other empires. Your argument is that the Roman Empire (not the Republic) is superior to other empires, such as the Islamic caliphate. The reason?

"Elections".

Unfortunately, you can't substantiate this with any evidence of elections. Nor can you show how past Western models of power are any more inclusive than any other.

No worries. But can I ask, FD - have you read the Ian Morris book? There must be examples in there, shurely.

Quote:


Both. In much of Europe, elections have been held for local councils for centuries - way before the French Revolution. This is an old Angle tradition going back to the Norse, and has little to do with Roman republican or Athenian democratic models.

As for democracy, Alexander the Great is generally held to have done that in. With the rise of empires, city states could no longer defend themselves and manage their affairs. Power had to go to those who could mobilize and pay armies. The past two millennia of European history is about just this: who had the best armies and how much of the map they shaped.

Popular elections do not need to influence the distribution of power, and in many cases, they don't. Elections were used in the Roman republic to prevent people from overthrowing their leaders. They create a sense of order based on the illusion that the people have a say in their rulers. This was Machiavelli's argument, and when you look at countries like Thailand today, it makes sense. Elections are a tool used by generals to consolidate their coups.

So yes, elections in themselves mean little. Elections are, at best, a tool used by democracies. They are not the be-all and end-all of popular representation. In modern democracies, the biggest fundraisers generally get elected. In republics like Amerika, politicians represent their lobbyists and donors in office, not the people who voted them in.

This is not some new discovery, it goes back to the early theorists on government and the social contract - people like Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. What we tentatively call democracy today is, at best, a concession to the ideal of democracy. Citizens almost never get direct representation. At the same time, the corporate interests and political backers don't always get their demands either. Citizens (plebeians and patricians) are forced to compromise.

Quote:


it's not so much that I don't like the substance. I think the article is incredibly well-written. Good use of plain English, a very easy read, point by point. Good timing, good pacing.

I'm getting to its substance, which from what you've just shown, does not exist. Asking for evidence of elections is not a details competition when it's your only argument. If you don't have any evidence of what you're saying, why say it? Someone like me is inevitably going to come along and point this out. That's why we post on a discussion board, not a blog.

Presumably, we're trying to uncover a form of truth here, not just spew out our views and expect them to be blindly swallowed. This, remember, is what the internet is supposed to deliver: interactive discussion and peer-review. It's meant to be an evolution of one-way mass media like radio - a propaganda tool.

At its core, the "substance" of the article is ludicrous: the West is better than Islam because we have elections and they have inbreeding.

But the West did not have elections for 2000 years, and the Roman empire had far more inbreeding than the caliphate. And how do we know?

According to Matty's IQ article, the Arabs interbred with African slaves - slaves who, as you've said - could gain their freedom by converting to Islam.

So there, in a nutshell, is why the caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman republic and empire: slaves could become citizens. This could never happen in Rome, a province where the vast majority of those within its borders were slaves and non-citizens.

And remember, in neither of these empires did citizens get to vote for their leaders.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 2:54pm:


FD, you're not saying anything here. You're trying to prove Rome was more inclusive than the caliphate. Can you do this?

You're only restricted to the points you've made in your argument. If they don't stand up, you can hardly blame me.

Quote:


Elections. In the republic. Even if they did not achieve whatever your version of pure democracy is.