| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:59:46 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
I wasn't suggesting we forgo taxation. I was suggesting we should follow the
forms of Antiqua. Did the Romans adjust taxes due to the prosperity of an
area? If so then we should also. Who collected the taxes? The Publicani did,
and could do so again, bonded, probably without the ability to overtax to
make a profit as was done in Roma. The overtaxing would be done on behalf of
the Province, whether publicani are appointed by the Senate or Propraetor.
Who appointed them in Roma. WWRD. What would Roma Do?. In my opinion that
phrase can answer a lot of questions for us.
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark A Bird" <mark_a_bird@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
> Salvete
>
> Unfortunately we all have to exist in the real world. Albeit that we wish
> to create a world based on the old Republic, the SPQR in the current world
> has to pay for things such as web site hosting, stationary and god knows
> what else. Anyone that has been involved from the local scout group to
the
> local football club knows that there is such a thing as "subscriptions".
> How can we grow without some source of revenue - I mean we have the flags
> and stickers, but how much does that make for NOVA - bugger all - the
simple
> fact is that if a Citizen does not pay their taxes, then they are no
longer
> Citizens. All citizens enjoy the benefit of what the taxes pay for - it
is
> as simple as that - what we should also consider is that NOVA can consider
> levying taxes on Citizens according to their real world income - so as
that
> those who can afford to pay more will pay more and those that cannot will
> only make a minor tribute - TAX and REVENUE is not a dirty word - PROFIT
is
> not a dirty word - it pays for things that benefits all of us ...
>
> The quotation "but who is to guard the guards themselves?" is offensive
and
> shows an attitude of distrust on the whole concept - we must trust those
who
> have been elected - how else can NOVA operate but through Trust and
loyalty
> ...
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Mauricius Procopious [mailto:procopious@--------]
> Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 9:26 Am
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
>
>
> Salvete Omnes,
> It sounds like we are trying to reinvent the wheel. There's no need to
> devise a tax plan. Let's look at how it was done in antiqua. We are
> reconstructors are we not?
> (Procopious winces and dons his breastplate and helm)
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
> (This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> procopious@--------
> ICQ# 83516618
> *America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
> http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
> * The Gens Mauricia
> http://www.geocities.com/procopious
>
> "Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
> affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the
reason
> for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
> to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
> decide for himself according to his taste."
> -Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 1:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited
>
>
> > Salvete Quirites et Gnae Salix,
> >
> > ((snipped))
> >
> > > 2.- My second point is about the "punishment" due for
> > > not paying your taxes. I've read about placing
> > > non-payers in the four urban tribes of the Comitia
> > > Tribuna. I think any voting "punishment" should be
> > > restricted to downclassing the "offender" in the
> > > Comitia Centuriata. As this latter Comitia holds a
> > > great amount of power, it'd be a strong "deterrent".
> > > But to "downclass" them in the Comitia Tributa would
> > > be not only too strong for my liking, but also
> > > historically unappropriate, as Comitia Tributa were
> > > supposed to be undifferent to personal wealth and to
> > > the payment of taxes in Roma Antiqua. I'd suggest
> > > instead that every citizen should be even with taxes
> > > before applying to any public position (elected or
> > > not).
> >
> > I quite agree here. People who don't pay should not be punished. It's
very
> > dangerous: what if citizen Lentus forgets to pay, or his payment comes
in
> > late? Or what if a certain propraetor steals the money and leaves NR,
and
> a
> > few people say "I paid", not being able to prove it? The day that
happens,
> > I'm leaving. People who want to pay, pay, people who don't want to, or
> > cannot, don't. I would suggest though that Senatores and higher
> magistrates
> > (Praetores, Consules, Censores) pay.
> >
> > One might argue: in a macronation, everyone pays tax. But in exchange,
in
> a
> > macronation, you can get protection from your local police officers and
> the
> > fire department. If I get attacked in the city, I might be waiting
> centuries
> > for the first Aedilis to come to the rescue. Paying taxes = more power
is
> a
> > 19th century system which led to bloody revolutions, and will lead to
> > secessions here. My opinion.
> >
> > > 3.- My third point is about tax control. I know that,
> > > in theory, taxes and such items fall under senatorial
> > > control. I've also seen many propositions which state
> > > that taxes should be determined by provincial
> > > governors. I'd approve both things. But I'd like to
> > > see just another, more "democratic" way of tax
> > > control.
> > > I know that's what Tribuni Plebis are for, but I'd
> > > like to see an additional tax control system. Maybe
> > > the Senate and Provincial Praetores should present
> > > (and vote) the Expenditurae Rerum Publicarum to the
> > > Comitia Tribuna, which could approve them (or not).
> >
> > I find this a very good idea. On a related note, I'm suddenly reminded
of
> > Iuvenalis: "but who is to guard the guards themselves?"
> >
> > Valete bene,
> > Draco
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
>
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
> for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:07:35 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
M. Apollonius wrote:
This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organization would.
And:
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organization, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
Respondeo: I'm not interested in being sane and humane or following a
commonsensical state of affairs unless that is the model of Roma Antiqua.
WWRD?
As a reconstructor in a reconstructionist group I am most fortunate to have
these decisions made for me by the culture and people I wish to emulate.
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infamous as the
Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally ill-considered, unfair, and
punitive nature.
The principal problems with it are two:
1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles and de facto
punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma, based simply on
their having been members in good standing before, and having chosen
to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be a natural desire
(if improper and impossible), but causing problems for those wishing
to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps changes in their
life conditions is targetting a group that deserves rather to be
welcomed home.
2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons who have
committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental principle of
justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to return are crimes,
but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions dripping with icy
unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as though they were
criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons sufficiently in
love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return after for one
reason or another leaving for a time.
We are here not here talking about people who have been exiled - our
nearest approach to capital punishment - but about persons who simply
becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political) reasons decided
to leave. This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organisation would.
In the previous debate there was too much emphasis on the
micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic extent, and in
comparing ourselves with macronations we got involved with a model
not truly relevant to us, and one apparently touching off excessive
emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a macronation. No one
depends on us for his passport and his right to live in a place,
travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our citizenship is
always a second citizenship, and carries fewer natural benefits: it
must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is to be taken
seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the phrasing of our laws can
change that basic fact.
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organisation, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding this, however,
could be effected with one simple rule:
"Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period."
With this simple rule, the censors would not be bothered
unreasonably, and returning persons would not be treated with
suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It would do its job
and not infringe on the natural rights of the person to freedom of
association.
The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.
Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and remember that we
exist because we can attract people to come here - and back to here -
and to stay and participate. We need more of a will to please and to
serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule them or hold them
in awe to a state that they can leave at any time - as many notable
and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is* its cives, and it
behooves us to treat each other decently and well, and as fellow
human beings - not as potential objections of regulation, humiliation
and punishment.
Valete!
________________
Draco scripsit:
Subject: Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
Salve iterum Consul Vedi,
Well, I've come to bother the people once again :).
> EDICTUM CENSORIAL DE CIVITATE EIURANDA
>
>
> RESIGNATION OF CITIZENSHIP IN NOVAROMA
>
> AUGUST 27, 2000
(snipped)
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, and the
>resignation becomes official after nine days, the ex-citizen is
>barred from reapplication and reinstatement for a period of six
>months, effective from the date his or her
> resignation became official.
Opponents of this edict said that people who °really° want out simply
won't care for this edictum, while people who truly love Roma are
being punished by this. This was and is a non-solution for a
non-problem.
> (For example, if a citizen resigned on May 1 2000, and his
>resignation became official on May 9, 2000, he could not be
reinstated until November 9, 2000)
>
(snipped)
> Senatorial status may be resumed
> at the discretion of both the Senate and of the censores
>collegially. Gens affiliation in all instances remains at the
>discretion of the pater or materfamilias.
Why would the Censores have power over the Senate in this matter? In
fact, they are both Senatores, so even if 18 out of 20 Senatores vote
in favour of said citizen, the two Censores could still prevent that
citizen from returning into the Senate. So I'd scrap the Censores
from this paragraph.
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
>second time, that ex-citizen is barred for two years from
>reinstatement. Such a citizen is furthermore barred from running for
>any elected public office for two
> years following re-admission, with no recourse.
>
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
>second time, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a third time,
>that ex-citizen is barred forever from reinstatement. The
>ex-citizen has despised his citizenship and shown contempt for the
>state: he may never be reinstated thereafter.
"Contempt for the state" sounds, and I am sorry to say it, °very°
authoritarian. However, I do think two paragraphs above are better,
and truly offer a solution (for what is still a non-problem anyway)
in case some cives keep leaving and coming back. I'd change the "two
years" to six months though.
(snipped)
Valete bene,
Draco
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
____________________________________________________
Memento Idus Martias - non omnino bene Respublica se habet.
(Remember the Ides of March - it is not all well with the Republic.)
____________________________________________________
All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@--------> |
| Date: |
Date header was inserted by mta3.rcsntx.swbell.net |
|
Ex papilio Luci Mari Peregrini omnes Quirites s.p.d.
Salvete omnes...
Well, there you have it: the text of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis,
the 'Name-change Edict', as posted by our senior Consul last week. It
is difficult to appreciate, to look at the present edict, that it was
the interim solution for *the* biggest controversy in Nova Roma last
year. And to think that it all started out with a simple Censor's
ruling that the grammatical gender of all Citizens' Roman names should
correspond to their biological sex...
(If that sounds as invasive to any of you as it does to me, you may
begin to grasp just how strong the feelings were that were raised by
the original 'Gender Edict'.)
The present edict was a great improvement on its predecessor. I myself
was very much in favor of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis when it
first appeared. I called it a fine Edict that deserved to be made into
a fine Lex. The Roman-name sections with which it begins are still the
best guidance we've got going for how to properly construct an
authentic Roman name; and, with one great exception to be noted and
discussed, the means specified for changing or correcting one's Roman
name are not a particular burden to anyone involved.
But should a Citizen, for whatever reason, wish to change the
grammatical gender of his or her listed Roman name, that seems to be
the one direction the present edict won't flex. It does contain
'transgender provisions', yes; but these are unduly complicated and
have thus far been applied in all the most cumbersome ways possible.
First of all, why would a Citizen want to change the gender of his
Roman name? I can think of three reasons:
-- the gender of the Citizen's name was originally entered in error
(as Nomenclator I saw a lot of this, male applicants choosing names
with feminine components and vice versa);
-- the Citizen is no longer living as the gender specified by his or
her Roman name (as, for example, transgendered individuals);
-- the Citizen has had his or her sex physically changed (as for
transsexuals) or never had a clearly-defined physical sex to begin
with (as in the case of hermaphrodites).
None of these reasons justify the kind of jumping-through-hoops and
sharing of sensitive info demanded by those sections of the Edict. In
the first case we are talking about a simple administrative error, a
correction of records. In the last two cases, we are speaking of
matters of personal identity or sensitive medical nature that need as
little outside interference as possible, such decisions being difficult
enough for the people who have made them.
What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censores' Office.
So, just for grins, a few months ago I came up with an alternate
drafting for the transgender provisions that would not be so heavy on
the paperwork, and would put the thing even more squarely in the hands
of the Paterfamilias. All article, section and clause numberings are
as in the original; anything not specifically changed remains the
same...and of course any feedback is welcome!
<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
From: Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@-------->
Subject: Re: Alternative to Edictum d.M.N.
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:18:41 -0600 (CST)
Our revisions below; my suggestions in [brackets].
XIX.
iv) The [grammatical] gender of the name is to be consistent. Each
part is to agree with all others in [grammatical] gender.
I know it is stated at the beginning of the Edictum that the term
"gender" shall refer to linguistic gender only; but that was, what,
sixteen articles ago?, and I think the authors got a little confused on
that point themselves by the time they wrote the 'offending articles'
in question.
The basic problem is that, while the Edictum sets forth specific terms
for (a) physical sex and (b) grammatical gender, there is no
corresponding term for *social* gender (id est, the gender role a
Citizen fulfills in daily life) even though there is a fairly lengthy
article treating of same. I would suggest modifying Article IV to
read:
[IV. Also note that this document uses the term 'sex' to describe the
physical sex of a person, the term 'social gender' to refer to the
gender role a person fulfills in daily life, and the term 'grammatical
gender' to refer to linguistic gender only.]
Okay, now the big one...
[XX.
A Citizen who wishes to change the sex he or she previously
registered or the gender of the name initially registered shall
inform his or her Mater-/Paterfamilias. The citizen and the
Paterfamilias shall be required to appear jointly before the
Censores, and to swear or affirm before the Censores that the change
is being made to
(a) correct an original inaccuracy,
(b) accommodate a change of the Citizen's physical sex (as for
example by surgical means), or
(c) conform to a change in the social gender lived out by the
Citizen in everyday life in his or her place of physical residence.]
["Everyday life" shall here be construed as real personal contacts
with employers, intimates and the public, and not local legal
preassumptions, of whose equitableness in any given jurisdiction Nova
Roman authorities cannot be certain. Having changed social gender,
the Citizen may and must adopt an otherwise properly-formed Roman
name in the corresponding grammatical gender.]
<----- End Forwarded Message ----->
In amicitia et fides,
***********************************************************
Lucius Marius Peregrinus <peregrinus@-------->
Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, |>[SPQR]<|
Historical Re-Creationist |\=/|
and Citizen of Rome ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
"Is Rome worth one good man's life? ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
We believed it once. | | / )\ \| /
Make us believe it again." _|_| / _/_| /`(
-- Lucilla, _Gladiator_ /./..=' /./..'
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:08:08 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites, et salve, Apollonie Draco.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for your comments
on my proposal. I'm not even a full citizen yet (I
haven't received my citizenship acceptance from the
censores), but I feel pretty enthusiastic about Nova
Roma, and it is mainly because of people like you.
I have read many of your own contributions to the mail
list, and find them very interesting. It is just
wonderful to discuss these kind of things with people
like you.
After all this senseless flattery (sorry, I was just
expressing my feelings :-) ), I'd like to make a few
comments on your own comments.
--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Quirites et Gnae Salix,
>
> ((snipped))
>
> > 2.- My second point is about the "punishment" due
> for
> > not paying your taxes. I've read about placing
> > non-payers in the four urban tribes of the Comitia
> > Tribuna. I think any voting "punishment" should be
> > restricted to downclassing the "offender" in the
> > Comitia Centuriata. As this latter Comitia holds a
> > great amount of power, it'd be a strong
> "deterrent".
> > But to "downclass" them in the Comitia Tributa
> would
> > be not only too strong for my liking, but also
> > historically unappropriate, as Comitia Tributa
> were
> > supposed to be undifferent to personal wealth and
> to
> > the payment of taxes in Roma Antiqua. I'd suggest
> > instead that every citizen should be even with
> taxes
> > before applying to any public position (elected or
> > not).
>
> I quite agree here. People who don't pay should not
> be punished. It's very
> dangerous: what if citizen Lentus forgets to pay, or
> his payment comes in
> late? Or what if a certain propraetor steals the
> money and leaves NR, and a
> few people say "I paid", not being able to prove it?
> The day that happens,
> I'm leaving. People who want to pay, pay, people who
> don't want to, or
> cannot, don't. I would suggest though that Senatores
> and higher magistrates
> (Praetores, Consules, Censores) pay.
>
> One might argue: in a macronation, everyone pays
> tax. But in exchange, in a
> macronation, you can get protection from your local
> police officers and the
> fire department. If I get attacked in the city, I
> might be waiting centuries
> for the first Aedilis to come to the rescue. Paying
> taxes = more power is a
> 19th century system which led to bloody revolutions,
> and will lead to
> secessions here. My opinion.
>
Your point of view is very interesting, and I agree
with it completely. I actually hadn't thought about
these aspects, but I certainly share your points.
Thank you for making my mind broader.
> > 3.- My third point is about tax control. I know
> that,
> > in theory, taxes and such items fall under
> senatorial
> > control. I've also seen many propositions which
> state
> > that taxes should be determined by provincial
> > governors. I'd approve both things. But I'd like
> to
> > see just another, more "democratic" way of tax
> > control.
> > I know that's what Tribuni Plebis are for, but I'd
> > like to see an additional tax control system.
> Maybe
> > the Senate and Provincial Praetores should present
> > (and vote) the Expenditurae Rerum Publicarum to
> the
> > Comitia Tribuna, which could approve them (or
> not).
>
> I find this a very good idea. On a related note, I'm
> suddenly reminded of
> Iuvenalis: "but who is to guard the guards
> themselves?"
>
> Valete bene,
> Draco
>
This is my opinion, too. I suppose all this brings us
back to the old Roman Recreation/Modern Liberties
dicotomy. I guess that, when money is on, modern
points of view should prevail.
I'd like to know, though, what do you think about the
first point of my previous message. I think it touched
a quite important aspect of this issue, myself being
pretty sensitive to it, being a novissimus civis.
Thank you again for your comments; I invite all
Novoromans to express their opinions.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:32:18 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani.
I fully agree with every statement of Apollonius
Formosanus on his latest message.
I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain
ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
month. But I also think that true power is not the
power to condemn, or the power to punish. True power
lies in the ability to pardon earlier offenses, to
forgive past conducts, and to welcome back the
prodigal son. I believe that kind of conduct should be
deducted from the Roman virtues we so dearly want to
relive. I think that Formosanus' proposal, "Any civis
may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period.", is both simple and
appropriate.
I don't think an act of resignation should be
considered a crime. And I remember having read in the
Annals of Nova Roma about a certain resignation of
particularly catastrophic implications which was later
revoked to the relief of every Novoroman. That
decision should be a reference and taken as a
precedent in any case of the same nature that should
happen; for in that occasion common sense triumphed
over rancor or regret.
Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
words. Thanks to the Gods and my own homeland Hispania
to have given birth to an individual as Seneca. And to
you all Novoromans, please remember my words were not
written to insult or to offend. I've just written my
own feelings and believes about this issue.
---- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
escribió: > M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus
Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue
> of the
> Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as
> infamous as the
> Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally
> ill-considered, unfair, and
> punitive nature.
>
> The principal problems with it are two:
>
> 1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles
> and de facto
> punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma,
> based simply on
> their having been members in good standing before,
> and having chosen
> to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be
> a natural desire
> (if improper and impossible), but causing problems
> for those wishing
> to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps
> changes in their
> life conditions is targetting a group that deserves
> rather to be
> welcomed home.
>
> 2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons
> who have
> committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental
> principle of
> justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to
> return are crimes,
> but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions
> dripping with icy
> unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as
> though they were
> criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons
> sufficiently in
> love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return
> after for one
> reason or another leaving for a time.
>
> We are here not here talking about people who have
> been exiled - our
> nearest approach to capital punishment - but about
> persons who simply
> becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political)
> reasons decided
> to leave. This is a right in the world civil society
> that we live in.
> And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> that person to
> Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> sane and humane,
> we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> any other normal
> organisation would.
>
> In the previous debate there was too much emphasis
> on the
> micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic
> extent, and in
> comparing ourselves with macronations we got
> involved with a model
> not truly relevant to us, and one apparently
> touching off excessive
> emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a
> macronation. No one
> depends on us for his passport and his right to live
> in a place,
> travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our
> citizenship is
> always a second citizenship, and carries fewer
> natural benefits: it
> must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is
> to be taken
> seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the
> phrasing of our laws can
> change that basic fact.
>
> If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> normal membership
> organisation, one can join and leave according to
> one's own needs and
> desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> must wait for
> the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> time and perhaps
> one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> unlucky. That
> commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
>
> Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that
> might actually
> deserve to be addressed: "revolving door"
> membership, in which a
> member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing
> an unreasonable
> amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding
> this, however,
> could be effected with one simple rule:
>
> "Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation
> not more than
> once in any twelve-month period."
>
> With this simple rule, the censors would not be
> bothered
> unreasonably, and returning persons would not be
> treated with
> suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It
> would do its job
> and not infringe on the natural rights of the person
> to freedom of
> association.
>
> The provisions for senators and gens membership are
> no problem. But
> let us remember that many people can leave for many
> reasons: loss of
> easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or
> family pressures,
> legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme
> sickness, normal
> fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of
> these involves
> hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our
> real human lives
> - let us, then, treat them so.
>
> Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and
> remember that we
> exist because we can attract people to come here -
> and back to here -
> and to stay and participate. We need more of a will
> to please and to
> serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule
> them or hold them
> in awe to a state that they can leave at any time -
> as many notable
> and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is*
> its cives, and it
> behooves us to treat each other decently and well,
> and as fellow
> human beings - not as potential objections of
> regulation, humiliation
> and punishment.
>
> Valete!
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:45:37 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Procopie.
--- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <procopious@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Omnes,
> It sounds like we are trying to reinvent the wheel.
> There's no need to
> devise a tax plan. Let's look at how it was done in
> antiqua. We are
> reconstructors are we not?
> (Procopious winces and dons his breastplate and
> helm)
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
> (This is an unofficial post for which I assume full
> responsibility)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd also like to know exactly how was the subject of
taxes solved in Roma Antiqua. It could be a great
source of ideas. Alas, things are quite different in
this Dark Age of ours, and maybe this time
reconstruction might not be the answer.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <procopious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 18:15:27 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Marius wrote:
What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censors Office
Respondeo: Once again, how was it done in antiqua? As reconstructionist we
should reconstruct. Unless I'm misinformed, and I'm sure you'll ALL let me
know if I'm historically inaccurate, Romans were allowed a great deal of
latitude in how they chose to express their gender. If they required an
individual to have a name corresponding to their physical gender then so
should we. I'd rather be part of a society that allows personal freedom
while calling a spade a shovel rather than live in a society where my right
to call myself what I want is protected yet my neighbors look down their
puritanical noses at my choice of lifestyle. The latter is a comparison to
my perception of my macronation not to any post on this list. As for those
posts, again, let's reconstruct!
Next year in the Forum!
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marius the Wanderer" <peregrinus@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict
> Ex papilio Luci Mari Peregrini omnes Quirites s.p.d.
>
> Salvete omnes...
>
> Well, there you have it: the text of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis,
> the 'Name-change Edict', as posted by our senior Consul last week. It
> is difficult to appreciate, to look at the present edict, that it was
> the interim solution for *the* biggest controversy in Nova Roma last
> year. And to think that it all started out with a simple Censor's
> ruling that the grammatical gender of all Citizens' Roman names should
> correspond to their biological sex...
>
> (If that sounds as invasive to any of you as it does to me, you may
> begin to grasp just how strong the feelings were that were raised by
> the original 'Gender Edict'.)
>
> The present edict was a great improvement on its predecessor. I myself
> was very much in favor of the Edictum de Nominibus Mutandis when it
> first appeared. I called it a fine Edict that deserved to be made into
> a fine Lex. The Roman-name sections with which it begins are still the
> best guidance we've got going for how to properly construct an
> authentic Roman name; and, with one great exception to be noted and
> discussed, the means specified for changing or correcting one's Roman
> name are not a particular burden to anyone involved.
>
> But should a Citizen, for whatever reason, wish to change the
> grammatical gender of his or her listed Roman name, that seems to be
> the one direction the present edict won't flex. It does contain
> 'transgender provisions', yes; but these are unduly complicated and
> have thus far been applied in all the most cumbersome ways possible.
>
> First of all, why would a Citizen want to change the gender of his
> Roman name? I can think of three reasons:
> -- the gender of the Citizen's name was originally entered in error
> (as Nomenclator I saw a lot of this, male applicants choosing names
> with feminine components and vice versa);
> -- the Citizen is no longer living as the gender specified by his or
> her Roman name (as, for example, transgendered individuals);
> -- the Citizen has had his or her sex physically changed (as for
> transsexuals) or never had a clearly-defined physical sex to begin
> with (as in the case of hermaphrodites).
>
> None of these reasons justify the kind of jumping-through-hoops and
> sharing of sensitive info demanded by those sections of the Edict. In
> the first case we are talking about a simple administrative error, a
> correction of records. In the last two cases, we are speaking of
> matters of personal identity or sensitive medical nature that need as
> little outside interference as possible, such decisions being difficult
> enough for the people who have made them.
>
> What a Citizen chooses to be called should be between himself, his
> Paterfamilias, and his gods if he has any. None of it, except for the
> record-keeping, should be the purview of the Censores' Office.
>
> So, just for grins, a few months ago I came up with an alternate
> drafting for the transgender provisions that would not be so heavy on
> the paperwork, and would put the thing even more squarely in the hands
> of the Paterfamilias. All article, section and clause numberings are
> as in the original; anything not specifically changed remains the
> same...and of course any feedback is welcome!
>
>
> <---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
> From: Marius the Wanderer <peregrinus@-------->
> Subject: Re: Alternative to Edictum d.M.N.
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:18:41 -0600 (CST)
>
> Our revisions below; my suggestions in [brackets].
>
> XIX.
> iv) The [grammatical] gender of the name is to be consistent. Each
> part is to agree with all others in [grammatical] gender.
>
> I know it is stated at the beginning of the Edictum that the term
> "gender" shall refer to linguistic gender only; but that was, what,
> sixteen articles ago?, and I think the authors got a little confused on
> that point themselves by the time they wrote the 'offending articles'
> in question.
>
> The basic problem is that, while the Edictum sets forth specific terms
> for (a) physical sex and (b) grammatical gender, there is no
> corresponding term for *social* gender (id est, the gender role a
> Citizen fulfills in daily life) even though there is a fairly lengthy
> article treating of same. I would suggest modifying Article IV to
> read:
>
> [IV. Also note that this document uses the term 'sex' to describe the
> physical sex of a person, the term 'social gender' to refer to the
> gender role a person fulfills in daily life, and the term 'grammatical
> gender' to refer to linguistic gender only.]
>
> Okay, now the big one...
>
> [XX.
> A Citizen who wishes to change the sex he or she previously
> registered or the gender of the name initially registered shall
> inform his or her Mater-/Paterfamilias. The citizen and the
> Paterfamilias shall be required to appear jointly before the
> Censores, and to swear or affirm before the Censores that the change
> is being made to
> (a) correct an original inaccuracy,
> (b) accommodate a change of the Citizen's physical sex (as for
> example by surgical means), or
> (c) conform to a change in the social gender lived out by the
> Citizen in everyday life in his or her place of physical residence.]
>
> ["Everyday life" shall here be construed as real personal contacts
> with employers, intimates and the public, and not local legal
> preassumptions, of whose equitableness in any given jurisdiction Nova
> Roman authorities cannot be certain. Having changed social gender,
> the Citizen may and must adopt an otherwise properly-formed Roman
> name in the corresponding grammatical gender.]
>
> <----- End Forwarded Message ----->
>
> In amicitia et fides,
> ***********************************************************
> Lucius Marius Peregrinus <peregrinus@-------->
> Storyteller, Roleplayer Emeritus, |>[SPQR]<|
> Historical Re-Creationist |\=/|
> and Citizen of Rome ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - `\*/, `` }`^~`,,, \ \
> "Is Rome worth one good man's life? ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
> We believed it once. | | / )\ \| /
> Make us believe it again." _|_| / _/_| /`(
> -- Lucilla, _Gladiator_ /./..=' /./..'
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Taxes Revisited |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:10:26 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites; et salve, Sentie Claudie.
--- Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
escribió: > Salvete
>
> Unfortunately we all have to exist in the real
> world. Albeit that we wish
> to create a world based on the old Republic, the
> SPQR in the current world
> has to pay for things such as web site hosting,
> stationary and god knows
> what else. Anyone that has been involved from the
> local scout group to the
> local football club knows that there is such a thing
> as "subscriptions".
I agree with this. I am not against the idea of taxes
by itself, and I think that idea was not implied in my
previous message. My suggestions were about how that
issue should be handled in my humble opinion.
> How can we grow without some source of revenue - I
> mean we have the flags
> and stickers, but how much does that make for NOVA -
> bugger all - the simple
> fact is that if a Citizen does not pay their taxes,
> then they are no longer
> Citizens.
THIS is exactly the point that seems not so clear to
me. Don't get me wrong, I intend to pay my taxes (once
I become a full citizen). But I wouldn't like other
citizens to be expelled from Nova Roma just for being
too slow -or too poor- for the tax collector. If I may
remind you once more of the Antiqua Roma's system,
people who didn't pay any tax were just placed in the
fifth class of the Comitia Centuriata. They did not
loose their citizenship, and they were equal to the
first-class citizens (who payed top sextertii) when
the Comitia Tribuna were called.
> All citizens enjoy the benefit of what
> the taxes pay for - it is
> as simple as that - what we should also consider is
> that NOVA can consider
> levying taxes on Citizens according to their real
> world income - so as that
> those who can afford to pay more will pay more and
> those that cannot will
> only make a minor tribute - TAX and REVENUE is not a
> dirty word - PROFIT is
> not a dirty word - it pays for things that benefits
> all of us ...
>
> The quotation "but who is to guard the guards
> themselves?" is offensive and
> shows an attitude of distrust on the whole concept -
> we must trust those who
> have been elected - how else can NOVA operate but
> through Trust and loyalty
> ...
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
>
Although I didn't write that quotation myself, I don't
think it was written with the intention to offend.
Besides, trust and loyalty must be gained by those who
aspire to be at the reception end. I think most of the
leaders of Nova Roma have already earned the trust and
loyalty of citizens (if not, why were they elected?).
But trust and loyalty are things that must be fought
for every day through good government (exactly the way
Old Romans build their Empire).
I think that a little control would not damage our
wise leaders' work; if anything else, it would be a
mild reminder of their condition of public servants.
Humilitas is a Roman virtue that is specially
important in public matters.
I'd like to remind you all, once more time, that is
not my intention to offend anyone. My sole motive for
writing these letters is to explain my point of view.
Should anyone feel personally attacked by my
assertions, please accept my sincere apologies.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 02:23:57 +0200 (CEST) |
|
Salvete, romani quirites.
--- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <procopious@-------->
escribió: > Salvete Omnes,
>
> M. Apollonius wrote:
> This is a right in the world civil society that we
> live in.
> And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> that person to
> Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> sane and humane,
> we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> any other normal
> organization would.
> And:
> If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> normal membership
> organization, one can join and leave according to
> one's own needs and
> desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> must wait for
> the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> time and perhaps
> one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> unlucky. That
> commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
>
> Respondeo: I'm not interested in being sane and
> humane or following a
> commonsensical state of affairs unless that is the
> model of Roma Antiqua.
> WWRD?
> As a reconstructor in a reconstructionist group I am
> most fortunate to have
> these decisions made for me by the culture and
> people I wish to emulate.
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
Well, let me say that common sense, humanity and
sanity all were pretty traditional Roman virtues :-).
Besides, are you sure THAT was the way of Roma
Antiqua?
As long as I can recall from my History lessons, many
times an exiled citizen would return to Rome and be
readmitted as a citizen without further discussion.
The first example was Camillus' return to fight the
Gauls in 363 a.u.c. (390 BCE), but many more examples
of immediate reacquirement of citizenship were
recorded all throughout Roman history.
=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Protocivis romanus.
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:24:40 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Just a correction to you Gn. Salix, you might want to go back to the
Archives on the NR main list. For this resignation edict was
promulgated last year (about 8 months ago), during the Censorship of C.
Marius Merullus and myself.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salvete, romani.
>
> I fully agree with every statement of Apollonius
> Formosanus on his latest message.
> I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain
> ill-feeling due to several resignations in the last
> month. But I also think that true power is not the
> power to condemn, or the power to punish. True power
> lies in the ability to pardon earlier offenses, to
> forgive past conducts, and to welcome back the
> prodigal son. I believe that kind of conduct should be
> deducted from the Roman virtues we so dearly want to
> relive. I think that Formosanus' proposal, "Any civis
> may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
>
> once in any twelve-month period.", is both simple and
> appropriate.
>
> I don't think an act of resignation should be
> considered a crime. And I remember having read in the
> Annals of Nova Roma about a certain resignation of
> particularly catastrophic implications which was later
> revoked to the relief of every Novoroman. That
> decision should be a reference and taken as a
> precedent in any case of the same nature that should
> happen; for in that occasion common sense triumphed
> over rancor or regret.
>
> Thank you, M. Apollonius Formosanus, for your wise
> words. Thanks to the Gods and my own homeland Hispania
> to have given birth to an individual as Seneca. And to
> you all Novoromans, please remember my words were not
> written to insult or to offend. I've just written my
> own feelings and believes about this issue.
>
> ---- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
> escribió: > M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus
> Quiritibus S.P.D.
> >
> > I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue
> > of the
> > Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as
> > infamous as the
> > Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally
> > ill-considered, unfair, and
> > punitive nature.
> >
> > The principal problems with it are two:
> >
> > 1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles
> > and de facto
> > punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma,
> > based simply on
> > their having been members in good standing before,
> > and having chosen
> > to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be
> > a natural desire
> > (if improper and impossible), but causing problems
> > for those wishing
> > to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps
> > changes in their
> > life conditions is targetting a group that deserves
> > rather to be
> > welcomed home.
> >
> > 2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons
> > who have
> > committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental
> > principle of
> > justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to
> > return are crimes,
> > but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions
> > dripping with icy
> > unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as
> > though they were
> > criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons
> > sufficiently in
> > love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return
> > after for one
> > reason or another leaving for a time.
> >
> > We are here not here talking about people who have
> > been exiled - our
> > nearest approach to capital punishment - but about
> > persons who simply
> > becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political)
> > reasons decided
> > to leave. This is a right in the world civil society
> > that we live in.
> > And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> > that person to
> > Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> > sane and humane,
> > we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> > any other normal
> > organisation would.
> >
> > In the previous debate there was too much emphasis
> > on the
> > micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic
> > extent, and in
> > comparing ourselves with macronations we got
> > involved with a model
> > not truly relevant to us, and one apparently
> > touching off excessive
> > emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a
> > macronation. No one
> > depends on us for his passport and his right to live
> > in a place,
> > travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our
> > citizenship is
> > always a second citizenship, and carries fewer
> > natural benefits: it
> > must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is
> > to be taken
> > seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the
> > phrasing of our laws can
> > change that basic fact.
> >
> > If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> > normal membership
> > organisation, one can join and leave according to
> > one's own needs and
> > desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> > must wait for
> > the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> > time and perhaps
> > one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> > unlucky. That
> > commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
> >
> > Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that
> > might actually
> > deserve to be addressed: "revolving door"
> > membership, in which a
> > member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing
> > an unreasonable
> > amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding
> > this, however,
> > could be effected with one simple rule:
> >
> > "Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation
> > not more than
> > once in any twelve-month period."
> >
> > With this simple rule, the censors would not be
> > bothered
> > unreasonably, and returning persons would not be
> > treated with
> > suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It
> > would do its job
> > and not infringe on the natural rights of the person
> > to freedom of
> > association.
> >
> > The provisions for senators and gens membership are
> > no problem. But
> > let us remember that many people can leave for many
> > reasons: loss of
> > easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or
> > family pressures,
> > legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme
> > sickness, normal
> > fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of
> > these involves
> > hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our
> > real human lives
> > - let us, then, treat them so.
> >
> > Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and
> > remember that we
> > exist because we can attract people to come here -
> > and back to here -
> > and to stay and participate. We need more of a will
> > to please and to
> > serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule
> > them or hold them
> > in awe to a state that they can leave at any time -
> > as many notable
> > and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is*
> > its cives, and it
> > behooves us to treat each other decently and well,
> > and as fellow
> > human beings - not as potential objections of
> > regulation, humiliation
> > and punishment.
> >
> > Valete!
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Protocivis romanus.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
> Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 18:31:59 -0700 |
|
Ave,
Exiled is not the same as renouncing one's citizenship. Exile would be
a punishment given from a trial. I do not believe that Camillius's
citizenship was renounced or revoked, I could be mistaken, but upon
search of my Oxford Classical Companion I found no documentation that
his citizenship was renounced. The point I am trying to make is that
they voluntarily gave up their citizenship, it was not forcibly taken.
And, as Senator Lucius Sergius noted earlier, they were under Oath at
the time as magistrates at the time.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>
> Salvete, romani quirites.
>
> --- Lucius Mauricius Procopious <procopious@-------->
> escribió: > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > M. Apollonius wrote:
> > This is a right in the world civil society that we
> > live in.
> > And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of
> > that person to
> > Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are
> > sane and humane,
> > we will welcome back all who choose to return, as
> > any other normal
> > organization would.
> > And:
> > If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other
> > normal membership
> > organization, one can join and leave according to
> > one's own needs and
> > desires, and the worst that might happen is that one
> > must wait for
> > the applications for rejoining to be processed each
> > time and perhaps
> > one might have to pay a year's dues over again if
> > unlucky. That
> > commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
> >
> > Respondeo: I'm not interested in being sane and
> > humane or following a
> > commonsensical state of affairs unless that is the
> > model of Roma Antiqua.
> > WWRD?
> > As a reconstructor in a reconstructionist group I am
> > most fortunate to have
> > these decisions made for me by the culture and
> > people I wish to emulate.
> >
> > Next year in the Forum!
> >
> > Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> > Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
>
> Well, let me say that common sense, humanity and
> sanity all were pretty traditional Roman virtues :-).
>
> Besides, are you sure THAT was the way of Roma
> Antiqua?
> As long as I can recall from my History lessons, many
> times an exiled citizen would return to Rome and be
> readmitted as a citizen without further discussion.
> The first example was Camillus' return to fight the
> Gauls in 363 a.u.c. (390 BCE), but many more examples
> of immediate reacquirement of citizenship were
> recorded all throughout Roman history.
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Protocivis romanus.
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Envía mensajes instantáneos y recibe alertas de correo con
> Yahoo! Messenger - http://messenger.yahoo.es
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:44:06 EDT |
|
Gnaeus Salix Astur says of the 'Resignation Edict':
<<I know that this Edictum was a response to a certain ill-feeling due to
several resignations in the last month.>>
Wrong. The edict in question came out last August, and therefore has
absolutely nothing to do with last month's resignations.
<<I don't think an act of resignation should be considered a crime.>>
It is not considered a crime in the edict.
<<And I remember having read in the Annals of Nova Roma about a certain
resignation of particularly catastrophic implications which was later revoked
to the relief of every Novoroman.>>
Irrelevant. That resignation occured months before the edict came out, and
in fact was not 'catastrophic' at all, though it was sad. As the Praetor
Urbanus of the time said, "We have a system in place to take care of things
like this." And if you read the end of the section of the annals, you will
see that "Nova Roma weathered it's first crisis intact. The Republiuc would
live on."
<<As long as I can recall from my History lessons, many times an exiled
citizen would return to Rome and be readmitted as a citizen without further
discussion.>>
Irrelevant. Resigned ex-citizens are NOT exiles. They are resignees, who
made a free choice.
Gaius Cassius Nerva
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support |
| From: |
V_Praetoria@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 09 Apr 2001 02:26:17 -0000 |
|
Salvette,
First off let me say that I am in favor of proposing financial
standards for the society. As the founder of the RHS (Roman
Historical Society), I have implemented a $25.00 annual membership
fee, which people gladly pay to be a member. I have worked out with
Flavius Germanicus that if a person joins the RHS and Nova Roma,
$12.00 of the $25.00 will go to NR once the taxation is approved.
How else can you grow without financial support. I know first hand
about how hard it can be.
When I first started the RHS, we required no membership fee, but
you had to supply your own kit. Now, thanks to financial sponsors,
for a small fee of $25.00, we will "loan" a full kit to the members.
This approach has worked wonders for us. I hope all of you can
appreciate what the consuls are trying to do by applying taxation to
the society. I personally will pay the $12.00 to stay a member.
Pontius Sejanus Marius
Propraetor, America Austroccidentalis
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support |
| From: |
Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:36:22 +1000 |
|
Salve Pontius Sejanus Marius
I agree totally - I really do not know how Nova has thus far survived -
mostly I would suspect of the founding citizens and current Senate paying
for things themselves .... taxation will be a new form of Growth for Nova -
it will be a new beginning - of developing into something bigger and more
financially solid...
Also Pontius, I would like to become a member of RHS - can you please send
me details of membership for overseas members - email me at
markbird@--------
Vale
Marcus Sentius Claudius
-----Original Message-----
From: V_Praetoria@-------- [mailto:V_Praetoria@--------]
Sent: Monday, 9 April 2001 12:26 Pm
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Taxes and Financial Support
Salvette,
First off let me say that I am in favor of proposing financial
standards for the society. As the founder of the RHS (Roman
Historical Society), I have implemented a $25.00 annual membership
fee, which people gladly pay to be a member. I have worked out with
Flavius Germanicus that if a person joins the RHS and Nova Roma,
$12.00 of the $25.00 will go to NR once the taxation is approved.
How else can you grow without financial support. I know first hand
about how hard it can be.
When I first started the RHS, we required no membership fee, but
you had to supply your own kit. Now, thanks to financial sponsors,
for a small fee of $25.00, we will "loan" a full kit to the members.
This approach has worked wonders for us. I hope all of you can
appreciate what the consuls are trying to do by applying taxation to
the society. I personally will pay the $12.00 to stay a member.
Pontius Sejanus Marius
Propraetor, America Austroccidentalis
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Calling OZ Romans |
| From: |
Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:13:42 +1000 |
|
Salvette
Is anyone from Nova from Melbourne or Victoria (Australia) - just wanted to
touch base as I am a new Citizen....
Marcus Sentius Claudius
Pleb
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 23:18:01 EDT |
|
In a message dated 4/8/2001 3:06:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:
<< I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infamous as the
Gender Edictum, due to its fundamentally ill-considered, unfair, and
punitive nature.
The principal problems with it are two:
1. It is intended to present limitations, obstacles and de facto
punishments to persons wishing to join Nova Roma, based simply on
their having been members in good standing before, and having chosen
to leave. Discouraging persons from leaving would be a natural desire
(if improper and impossible), but causing problems for those wishing
to *return* after sober consideration and perhaps changes in their
life conditions is targetting a group that deserves rather to be
welcomed home.
2. It provides for de facto punishments for persons who have
committed no crime, thus violating a fundamental principle of
justice. Neither leaving Nova Roma nor choosing to return are crimes,
but normal affairs of life. And yet the provisions dripping with icy
unwelcome and punitive intent treat returners as though they were
criminals and suspect characters, instead of persons sufficiently in
love with Nova Roma to take the trouble to return after for one
reason or another leaving for a time.
We are here not here talking about people who have been exiled - our
nearest approach to capital punishment - but about persons who simply
becasue of personal (or possibly moral or political) reasons decided
to leave. This is a right in the world civil society that we live in.
And if someone decides to return, that is a gift of that person to
Nova Roma for which we should be grateful. If we are sane and humane,
we will welcome back all who choose to return, as any other normal
organisation would.
In the previous debate there was too much emphasis on the
micronational aspects of Nova Roma to an unrealistic extent, and in
comparing ourselves with macronations we got involved with a model
not truly relevant to us, and one apparently touching off excessive
emotions in some. We are a micronation, but not a macronation. No one
depends on us for his passport and his right to live in a place,
travel internationally, and hold down a job. Our citizenship is
always a second citizenship, and carries fewer natural benefits: it
must therefore carry fewer responsibilities if it is to be taken
seriously, and no amount of pomposity in the phrasing of our laws can
change that basic fact.
If one joins, say, the Sierra Club, or any other normal membership
organisation, one can join and leave according to one's own needs and
desires, and the worst that might happen is that one must wait for
the applications for rejoining to be processed each time and perhaps
one might have to pay a year's dues over again if unlucky. That
commonsensical state of affairs should be our model.
Now, there is one *legitimate* concern here that might actually
deserve to be addressed: "revolving door" membership, in which a
member leaves and returns repeatedly, thus causing an unreasonable
amount of work and bother for the censors. Avoiding this, however,
could be effected with one simple rule:
"Any civis may return after a voluntary resignation not more than
once in any twelve-month period."
With this simple rule, the censors would not be bothered
unreasonably, and returning persons would not be treated with
suspicion or de facto punishments for non-crimes. It would do its job
and not infringe on the natural rights of the person to freedom of
association.
The provisions for senators and gens membership are no problem. But
let us remember that many people can leave for many reasons: loss of
easy or affordable internet access, extreme job or family pressures,
legitimate ethical/political protest, extreme sickness, normal
fluctuational in interest and priorities... None of these involves
hatred for Nova Roma, all are natural matters in our real human lives
- let us, then, treat them so.
Quirites, we need to give up on punitive laws and remember that we
exist because we can attract people to come here - and back to here -
and to stay and participate. We need more of a will to please and to
serve our cives, and less of an inclination to rule them or hold them
in awe to a state that they can leave at any time - as many notable
and active persons here rcently did. Nova Roma *is* its cives, and it
behooves us to treat each other decently and well, and as fellow
human beings - not as potential objections of regulation, humiliation
and punishment. >>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Keeping citizens interested (was Re: Conflict of Interest) |
| From: |
Fortunatus <labienus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:33:38 -0500 |
|
Salve Gai Cassi Nerva
> <<? And Nerva accuses me of being for social engineering!>>
>
> I do not recall mentioning your name.
My apologies. The comment came from a misremembered comment of yours
directed to Draco. You have, indeed, not accused me of such a thing.
Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus
--
"People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach
conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant."
-Helen Keller
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] An Alternative to the Name-change Edict |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 00:12:50 EDT |
|
In the Constitution drafted by Consul
Fl. Vedius Germancius, there is a concept included that is called a dual
citizenship doctrine. In that, it establishes the concept that we are
citizens of our macronational countries as well as Nova Roma. As a
result of that doctrine, and because of the fact that we are a
micronation with the aspirations of having land. And, given the fact
that we do not have the funds, time or resources to conduct our own
through investigations of various issues, such as in this case a name
issue, both Censors felt this would be the best way to set guidelines
for naming. Basically, what this means is that *whatever gender you are
recognized in your macronation you will be considered the same gender in
Nova Roma.* There are no differences.
If your drivers license, tax return or any other governmental document
has a gender identification then that is the gender that WILL be
recognized in Nova Roma. This is simple. No jumping through hoops required.
In my honest opinion, Nova Roma is a nation. I do not see any reason
why Nova Roma should be any different than any other nation in the
World. If a citizen is willing to go through the time and effort to
change their gender in Nova Roma, but not the United States or any other
country I would ask why? Because I see no difference between the goals
and aspirations of what Nova Roma is trying to become and what the
United States or any other country is.
The edict is fine as it is. Too liberal even.
Gaius Cassius Nerva
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict |
| From: |
"Oppius Flaccus Severus" <oppiusflaccus@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:35:07 -0700 |
|
Salvete Formosane et Quiritibus;
-----Original Message-----
From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:04 PM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Old Business II: Resignation Edict
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
I am grateful to Draco for raising again the issue of the
Resignation Edictum, which deserves to be quite as infa |
