Praxus

That doesn't mean he was wrong to kill the four men. I never claimed he was perfect, but he was a better man then Caeser because he unlike Caeser was for a true Republic and not the corrupt "Aristocratic Oligarchy" or Empire.

This doesn't mean his actions were morally permisable. Like I said before, the end does not justify the means.

That maybe true but Cicero supported a true Republic, not the corrupt system prior to Caesers take over.

Ironduke

Cicero saw no problem with suspending the constitution, adopting martial law, and ruling as a dictator himself (which he very much did). This became the cause of his downfall in Roman politics in 60 B.C.

Well, then you'd agree executing four men without trial, imposing martial law, suspending the constitution, and acting as a dictator is itself another case of the ends not justifying the means.

Cicero did not oppose the aristocratic, oligarchical senatorial order.

Praxus

If Cicero proclaimed himself as a de facto dictator or not is irrelivent. A dictator (and "Aristocratic Oligarchy") as long as he protects the rights of his citizines is perfectly moraly acceptable. It just happens to be that the "mechanics" of representivie republic are more conducive to the protection of our liberties. When I speak of dictator in the sense of Stalin, Hitler, and Caeser I am refering to the totalitarian species.

Along the same lines. It does not matter if he did not give them a trial or not. What matters is, if they are guilty of the crimes (which there is significant evidence for). A trial is just a means to check Governmental power(a very wise one I might ad).

There is no doubt that Cicero was one of the greatest proponents of liberty in the ancient world. I would take an aristocratic republic over a totalitarian dictatorship anyday of the week exspecially considering how the first respects my rights to a far greater degree.

Ironduke

If you are talking about the "totalitarian species", then you may as well forget about comparing Caesar to Stalin or Hitler. After the defeat of Pompey, he returned to Rome and issued a pardon to all of his enemies, even those who had sided with Pompey, which led to his eventual assassination by his enemies in the senate. Stalin and Hitler did away with anybody who they even perceived to be their enemies, yet Caesar did not.

Caesar was not an oppressor of the Roman people, and was in fact the opposite of a Stalin or Hitler. Caesar was a populare, and won the support of the common people. His opponents were the optimates, the land-owning, slave-owning aristocracy. During his dictatorship, Caesar secured more freedoms and rights for the common people. Caesar was a proponent, not an opponent, of liberty.

As you said yourself, the ends never justify the means. Or do they sometimes justify the means?

You err in assuming Caesar was totalitarian in the first place, as I have already amply explained.

If you want to compare Caesar with somebody, Pompey would be a far better candidate.

Praxus

[quote]If you are talking about the "totalitarian species", then you may as well forget about comparing Caesar to Stalin or Hitler. After the defeat of Pompey, he returned to Rome and issued a pardon to all of his enemies, even those who had sided with Pompey, which led to his eventual assassination by his enemies in the senate. Stalin and Hitler did away with anybody who they even perceived to be their enemies, yet Caesar did not.

Every totalitarian dictator wins the support of the "common man". Stalin was loved by his people so was Hitler.

What is a "common person". Sounds completly arbitrary and nothing but class warfare rederic.

Perhaps some quotes or works of his to qualify this statement? Here are some showing Cicero's dedication to liberty...

The name of peace is sweet, the thing itself is most salutary. But between peace and slavery there is a wide difference. Peace is liberty in tranquillity; slavery is the worst of all evils,--to be repelled, if need be, not only by war, but even by death. But if those deliverers of ours have taken themselves away out of our sight, still they have left behind the example of their conduct. They have done what no one else had done. Brutus pursued Tarquinius with war; who was a king when it was lawful for a king to exist in Rome. Spurius Cassius, Spurius. Maelius, and Marcus. Manlius were all slain because they were suspected of aiming at regal power. These are the first men who have ever ventured to attack, sword in hand, a man who was not aiming at regal power, but actually reigning. And their action is not only of itself a glorious and godlike exploit, but it is also one put forth for our imitation; especially since by it they have acquired such glory as appears hardly to be bounded by heaven itself

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

Do you never think on these things? And do you not understand that it is enough for brave men to have learned how noble a thing it is as to the act, how grateful it is as to the benefit done, how glorious as to the fame acquired, to slay a tyrant? When men could not bear him, do you think they will bear you? Believe me, the time will come when men will race with one another to do this deed, and when no one will wait for the tardy arrival of an opportunity.

Decide on your conduct. As to mine, I myself will declare what that shall be. I defended the republic as a young man, I will not abandon it now that I am old. I scorned the sword of Catiline, I will not quail before yours. No, I will rather cheerfully expose my own person, if the liberty of the city can her restored by my death.
May the indignation of the Roman people at last bring forth what it has been so long laboring with. In truth, if twenty years ago in this very temple I asserted that death could not come prematurely upon a man of consular rank, with how much more truth must I now say the same of an old man? To me, indeed, O conscript fathers, death is now even desirable, after all the honors which I have gained, and the deeds which I have done. I only pray for these two things: one, that dying I may leave the Roman people free. No greater boon than this can be granted me by the immortal gods. The other, that every one may meet with a fate suitable to his deserts and conduct toward the republic.


What the hell are you talking about? Are you so stuck up in trying to catch me in a contradiction that you ignore everything I write?

I have never contradicted myself on this issue. What I am saying is that declaring oneself a dictator is not wrong (the means). It is no more wrong then establishing a constitutional republic. What matters is that they respect and protect the rights of their citizens.

All you have been reciting is post-modernist/marxist dogma. You havn't amply explained anything. You keep making baseless rants about how Caeser helepd the "common man" without backing it up with facts. You don't even go as far as to explain what the "common man" was.

Ironduke

Cicero's dedication to liberty, eh?

But between peace and slavery there is a wide difference. Peace is liberty in tranquillity; slavery is the worst of all evils,--to be repelled, if need be, not only by war, but even by death.
That's rich, considering the fact he was a slaveowner himself. The rest is a rehash of 6th century B.C. Roman history.

You have contradicted yourself. You said, "the ends do not justify the means." Either you believe it, or you don't. You are clearly making an exception when it comes to Cicero, you said that his suspending of the Roman constitution, executing four men without trial, imposing martial law, etc., were all OK.

You know, I really resent that. I'm not a marxist and I don't being appreciate being labeled as such. You ought to know better than that. Furthermore, I do not rant, and I don't recite any dogma whatsoever. I'm one of those people who happen to think for myself.

Caesar helped to improve the Roman economy, by forcing landowners to hire freemen as a third of their workers. If you have studied Roman history to any extent, you'll discover that there were masses of urban poor who were miserable and desperate. Slavery was not beneficial to the Roman economy, in addition, slavery is one of the most extreme violations of individual liberty. By forcing landowners to hire freemen, he helped to reduce the demand for slaves. He cut the number of people dependent on state welfare from 300,000 to 150,000 (welfare reform, always a good thing, right?).

Caesar also massively expanded citizenship, thus enfrachising people. He expanded the right to vote to the people of several provinces, including much of Gaul. He did away with the corrupt tax system (the tax collectors of the day were extortionists and kept most of the money) and instituted an effective way of collecting taxes. He also instituted debt reform, ending usury. And no, I don't mean he punished the venture capitalists of the day, lenders back then were worse than back-alley loan sharks are today, and what was common practice back then would be considered highly illegal, not to mention, extremely unethical today. He lowered interest rates, thus spurring investment.

Caesar restored rights to all those who had had them proscribed by Sulla when he had been dictator some 40 years before. He even protected the Jews, a people very much persecuted throughout history.

The men who assassinated Caesar were nothing more than aristocratic oligarchs. They weren't interested in peace, freedom, or liberty, as they proclaimed as they ran through the streets covered with his blood, they were interested in nothing more than preserving their own power, positions, and privileges.

Praxus

Yes your right, I'm sorry for jumping down your throught like that. I don't have time right now to respond, just wanted to appoligize for my brief moment of anger. I will respond with a lengthy post tommorow.

Ironduke

Alright

Praxus

Cicero had a slave named Tiro, he released Tiro at around age fifty And Quintus(his brother I beleive?) wrote a letter to him ,"I am truly grateful for what you have done about Tiro, in judging his former condition to be below his deserts and preferring us to have him as a friend rather than a slave. Believe me, I jumped for joy when I read your letter and his. Thank you, and congratulations."

This being said I do not believe either Cicero or Caeser beleived the institution of slavery was wrong as it was normative. The issue of slavery does not seperate either Cicero or Caeser.

I said "The end's don't justify means". I believe his means to his disired end were moral. So I don't see how that belief contradicts my statement.

He didn't do it to reduce the demand for slaves he did it to gain favor among of the freemen. This being said, every nation of the time allowed slavery. My point is that like our founding fathers (many of which owned slaves) Cicero Philosophicly took a large step foward.

The right to vote for what?

All taxes are extortion, there is no moral difference between an individual doing it and a Government.

What rights?

Now sure Caeser and Augustus took some postitive steps fowards but there is no question that Cicero was a greater supporter of Individual Rights and the Republican form of Government. Only Cato (the younger) could be compared to Cicero in his dedication to liberty (philosophicly) during that time period. In fact our founding fathers based their ideas of Government off of Cato and Cicero.

Ironduke

No, Cicero had many slaves. Tiro just happened to be one who was emancipated.

Slavery is quite possibly the greatest violation of individual liberty that is, it reduces men to the status of animals to be bought and sold. It doesn't matter if slavery was normative back then, there were those who advocated the emancipation of slaves back then and Cicero was not among them. Caesar, at least, acted to alleviate the problem of slavery. Cicero didn't even talk about it.

Executing men without trial without producing evidence of their guilt in a court of law is the very definition of immorality. Not only that, it violated the Roman constitution.

Slavery, while profitable for wealthy individuals, was nonetheless a major drain on the Roman economy. It created a mass of unemployed, urban poor who were a major drain on state finances, as they were dependent on the dole (welfare). Not only did Caesar do it to curry favor with freemen, he also did it for sound economic reasons. His intention may have not been such, but ultimately it proved to be a humanitarian act.

Cicero, by his own admission, and agreed upon by scholars, was not really a philosopher. His legacy is oratory and rhetoric, the art of politick. He passed on the philosophy of the Greeks, just like Caesar passed on the legacy of Rome and its institutions.

Quaestor, Aedile, Praetor, Consul, Pontifex, but not senators, of course, who were never elected.

Sorry, but that is really ridiculous. Some taxes are extortion, but without any taxes, government would cease to function altogether. I enjoy the privilege of driving on paved roads, and having some degree of police and fire protection, and stability and order. It's far better than anarchy. I suggest not discussing the topic any further, I'm about as willing to put up with it as I am extreme left-wing topics.

The rights of the Roman citizenry. In addition, as I have already discussed, Caesar instituted reforms that protected people for corrupt tax collectors and lenders that extorted their property and money from them, driving them into poverty.

You should keep in mind that Caesar was not totalitarian, do not use the term so loosely. Caesar was not an oppressor of the Roman people. I view Caesar's actions as an attempt to restore the republic to what it once was, by the 1st century B.C., it had become a mere shell, an oligarchy, it was no longer a true republic, just in name only.

Praxus

So George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were not dedicated to the idea of Liberty? Afterall they both held slaves and never "did anything about it" at least until they died.

Say someone shoots one of my family members do I not have the right to kill him without sending him to trial?

If it is wrong, then why?

Just because he wasn't a philosopher doesn't mean you can ignore his philosophical beliefs. Which as you said stem from Greece. Caeser destroyed the last peices of the Republic, he and the future emporers destroyed everything Rome stood for.

But the Emporer held the actual power. Also keep in mind that voting is not a right, it is a practicle measure to check the Governments power.

So pointing a gun at someones head and demanding money is only extortion "some of the time"?

What is the moral difference between the Government extorting money and an individual?

Oh what a rediculus statement, Caeser never had a plan to seriously restore the Republic. Any progress Caeser made was built on a pyramid of quicksand, namely imperial tyranny.

ZFBoxcar

If thats the case (voting is not a right) then in what way did Caesar oppress the Roman people? If he expanded citizenry and reduced slavery, that means he was good for invividual rights (seeing as you do not consider electing leaders to be a right).

Praxus

This doesn't even make sense. Voting has nothing to do with if the people are being opressed or not.

I never said that Caeser was not positive for Rome in some aspects. What I am arguing is that the ideas that Cicero held (and Cato the Younger) were more congruent with the ideas of Individual Liberty then the ideas Caeser held.

ZFBoxcar

Thats exactly what I'm saying (even though I don't really agree with it). I'm saying: If not being able to vote is not a form of oppression, in what way WAS Caesar an oppressor? You have not said what rights he took away, all you said was he ended the republic. But you yourself said the government system is not what matters, but the individual rights granted. So what individual rights did Caesar take away?

Praxus

I never said that Caeser took anymore rights away nor did I claim he instituted anymore oppression. My point is that his ideas of what Government should be and his ideas of what is right and wrong were not in anyway consistant with individual liberty. Ciceros weren't either but they were far more consistant then Caeser.

This being said it does not matter what system it is just as long is it protects our rights in no way implies that the Republican system is not more contiguos with the ideal of individual liberty/rights. Supporter Cicero because he reported Republicanism over Dictatorship is a valid position in my opinion.