Hacker News Reader

Comment by ulizzle | Hacker News Reader

I think I’m almost out of this illness. Still sweating the fever but no migraines

Ive been reading a lot because that’s about the only thing I can do so I read the original Gallic wars from Julius Cesar and its funny because he’s painted like a bad guy today for becoming a dictator but the Senate was at that point so corrupt and inefficient and everyone hated it so he wasn’t the only one trying to get rid of democracy. Julius Caesar had actually been involved in four attempted coups before he got it done. And he was popular with the public even after his death so that makes sense

I’m sure a lot of here think of the Roman Empire almost obsessively. How bad is this turn toward extrémeme censorship and surveillance? At what point do people say to hell with it and bring back kingship?

View on HN

I recently read Rubicon by Tom Holland, and honestly I came away from that book feeling like it's Sulla, not Caesar, who truly deserves the blame for the downfall of the Republic. Like yeah, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but that seal was broken decades earlier by Sulla. If Caesar hadn't done it, someone else would have because it was clear that there would be no real consequences as long as you could win the war. And then Sulla painted the town red with blood to get rid of his enemies. All the reforms in the world can't undo that kind of damage to the social fabric, or so I would think. I am admittedly not the most knowledgeable about this topic, but it really does seem like Sulla should get the blame that Caesar does.

Also, one thing that struck me about the Republic is that it worked right up until people stopped upholding the social norms that made it work. And while one might say the lesson is "make your system of government work without social norms", I wonder if such a thing is possible. Looking at the US government it seems damaged (not broken yet, at least) precisely because we have stopped upholding the social norms that made it work. This being despite the fact that the US constitution seems to be more robust than what the Romans had! It really makes me wonder if any form of government, no matter what, absolutely relies on social norms to work well (and breaks down when those norms do).

Sulla often gets the opposite treatment because he retired from dictatorship, but it's important to keep in mind exactly the problems you raise. Mass murder causes stress to a society, regardless of intent.

"Time was when men could (so to speak) of a given man, by nourishing and decorating him with fit appliances, to the due pitch, make themselves a King, almost as the Bees do ... How such Ideals do realise themselves; and grow, wondrously, from amid the incongruous ever-fluctuating chaos of the Actual ... How they grow; and, after long stormy growth, bloom out mature, supreme; then quickly (for the blossom is brief) fall into decay; sorrowfully dwindle; and crumble down, or rush down, noisily or noiselessly disappearing."

(Carlyle's history of the French Revolution)

The entire civil war and times surrounding Marius and Sulla would make an amazing movie. Its a real shocker that Hollywood hasn't picked it up yet. Not that I trust Hollywood to make anything good anymore. I think Caesar gets alot of attention due to the way he was murdered. And it was the "end" of the Republic. You also have Marc Antony and Cleopatra in there, which is a good story.

This is very poignant. I have come to similar conclusions w.r.t societal systems only last as long as the social norms continue - the actual legal framework and structure is secondary to the larger cultural imperatives that brought it about in the first place.

And as you say, history directly plays into the shift of possible actions by social elites/leaders. Once change starts, change itself can become as social norm and seen as acceptable by society at large (at least to a point in a given time period).

People, historically, have often had successful lives with social norms but no government (as we think of it), but never with a government and no social norms.

This is the conclusion I've come to. Societal decay causes nations with even the most solid foundations to topple. There's really no way around it.

A phrase to summarize the phenomenon is: "Politics is downstream from culture."

We focus too much on slapping bandaids on society through increasing bloat of government and adding more laws to the pile, when the real root of the problem is our culture is falling apart. No amount of laws is going to fix that.

I parallel it to medications. You get one illness, so you get prescribed a medication. But then that medication causes an unusual reaction with your body, so you're given another medication to fix that one. But that medication has adverse effects when taken in conjunction with the first one, so now you need to take another medication to fix that... and it continues until you have a daily ritual of popping 20 pills to solve a trivial health condition.

The US is taking way too many medications, and not going on the proper diet to solve its health issues. That can be said both literally, and in the metaphorical sense.

You use the phrase Societal Decay. I think you can say it has many similarities to a corpse. Not to be gross, just you get a lot of the same terms.

The country freezes in rigor mortis, and can no longer take actions.

Politics or governance often feels like its experience brain death.

You get bloat and deflating effects, bubbles that inflate and pop.

You get a lot of social events that humans would describe as "putrid".

You get flight or escape of those that can leave for a new host, others flee to the remaining healthy areas.

You have external "parasites" / enemies removing portions of the empire/nation.

The process usually results with breakup and collapse in prior body segments.

Heart disease fits the best. Your heart is dying, it can't pump blood properly. To compensate it tries to grow larger, it swells and you get a giant heart. At some point it collapses since the problem was that the heart was leaky or the arteries got clogged or the muscles has some issue etc, growing larger can compensate in the short term but eventually you die anyway.

So it is similar to how a government that tries to grab more power and become larger is a red flag for corruption or inefficiency. The problem isn't that it tries to grow, the problem is that it is corrupt and inefficient in the first place, the country is then dying no matter what.

Countries can be replaced however, and small governments are easier to replace than large ones, so ideally should fix the government before it grows too large and powerful to easily be replaced.

> Rubicon by Tom Holland

I'm currently listening my way through The Rest Is History, the podcast he does with Dominic Sandbrook. Very entertaning, highly recommended!

Worth starting from ep.1 or just diving in where it's at now?

Every episode is pretty stand-alone and specific, so pick episodes with topics that interest you.

Me too! It’s definitely my favorite podcast at the moment. The series on Churchill in particular was very entertaining and educational for me.

My understanding was that Caesar represented the populares who championed the poor like the Gracchi brothers. By Caesar's time, the poor believed not only the Senate was beyond repair but were the primary reason for their poverty. Several attempted land reforms were blocked by the Senate who lived off their latifundium. https://www.britannica.com/topic/latifundium

The populares welcomed Caesar and Augustus because they saw no other alternative. Sulla had effectively ended the office of the tribunes who represented the poor. From the essay below, A tribune couldn’t even guarantee his personal safety: the murder of the Gracchi brothers is the best example. This office itself was an outcome of the political compromise in the early Republic. Its seemingly supreme and sacrosanct power was based on the compromise, or to say, tolerance of the Senate. When the symbiotic relationship between the nobles and the commoners on the political stage of the early Republic collapsed after drastic economic changes, the compromise of the Senate automatically vanished, so it was only a matter of time to weaken the power of the tribunate. Thus, the Roman commoners must find new strength for their political struggles. https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125967046.pdf

In other words, the people will rise up if they believe the political class no longer represents them and are actually opposed to them. I see a parallel between the enslaved Carthaginians working the latifundium and all the immigrants our politicians want to bring in to "fix our economy." I believe this is playing with fire.

The question is not whether or not to bring in more immigrants. The agricultural industry already does so in large numbers, legality be damned, and the parallels to the latifundium are way stronger than, say, Facebook/Meta wanting to hire more people from India.

Ironically if we radically legalized immigration it'd make it harder for Big Ag to exploit migrant workers, since they'd have access to legal immigration and the protections therein. But that's assuming Big Ag doesn't do to that program what they did to the Bracero program back in the 70s.

> At what point do people say to hell with it and bring back kingship?

That seems to be well in progress, though I don't think anyone is actually using the term 'king' yet.

Judges are: “the president is not a king, and you are not the president “

Yes, they're using it in the negative.

But Yarvin and the "Dark Enlightenment" people seem to be using it seriously (so far as I understand them).

But that they thought it worth pointing out is telling

I had a ton of time to kill in an airport recently, so for a little while I hung out at the end of the TSA line to let the confused passerby know that yes... this is the end of the line for peasants. Nobility goes over there. I think I did a much better job than the existing signage--branding sort of confuses the matter.

Had a lot of fun conversations with other peasants about whether this is the kind of privilege that the french revolution was fought over. The nobility didn't have as much time to stand around and water the seeds of revolution. Seemed fitting.

> At what point do people say to hell with it and bring back kingship?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

I propose to instead use the system proposed by G.K. Chesterton in "The Napoleon of Notting Hill".

We’re super close to it given how many states have abandoned and spat on the contributing class in favour of egalitarianism.

In a Monarchy, or Oligarchy, not everyone who thinks they can make into the ruling class will manage to do so.

thats exactly how it should be. only a small percent of people have any business in being rulers of people.

Whixh is exactly how it should not be... But let me guess, you think you might be one of those "special" few?

While being a King would be a lucrative profession, I have very few qualities that would be mandatory for success in that position.

I would still 100% support a more lean, highly qualified leadership versus a large pool of untalented career-driven nitwits which is what most western governments have to offer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com