What Does this Say About ...

[Sukerkin]

... the state of present day politics?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/42...live-under-Roman-rule-than-today-s-Government

 

[Takai]

Not all that surprising. The disillusionment with modern government practices appears to be growing. That said, this stills smacks of a cherry picked survey.

 

[Sukerkin]

In what way, Tak?

The whole point of the exercise was to elicit a reportable response after all - tho' I am gobsmacked that apparently 10% of my fellows thought it was okay to have government owned horses take part in political matters :lol:.

 

[Takai]

In what way, Tak?

The whole point of the exercise was to elicit a reportable response after all - tho' I am gobsmacked that apparently 10% of my fellows thought it was okay to have government owned horses take part in political matters :lol:.

If you do the math backwards then you are entering the "Pre-Classical Era" of Roman law. The Era of Praetors. Al lot of things were changing rapidly. Each successive Praetor was not bound by any of the edicts (which essentially had the force of law) of their predecessor. No one other than the Praetor got any real say in which ones stayed, went or changed. They were appointed by the government and did not necessarily had an education in law. In other words, you really never quite knew which way the wind was going to blow.

That is why I was thinking of the word "cherry-picked". It would be interesting to see which of the different era's of Roman law all of the "laws" that the survey used came from. Roman law changed and developed with the time (in theory, just like an other system of law "should") Much of the modern civil and tort law comes from Roman law. It was still in effect in some parts of Europe up until the early 1800's.

As far as the horse's go....We already have a bunch of jack***** in our government over on this side of the pond so YMMV.

 

[K-man]

If you are part of the wealthy elite then life is good in most societies at any time in history.

A different story if you were poor.

Poorer Romans, however, could only dream of such a life. Sweating it out in the city, they lived in shabby, squalid houses that could collapse or burn at any moment. If times were hard, they might abandon newborn babies to the streets, hoping that someone else would take them in as a servant or slave. Poor in wealth but strong in numbers, they were the Roman mob, who relaxed in front of the popular entertainment of the time – chariot races between opposing teams, or gladiators fighting for their life, fame and fortune.


Although their lives may have been different, they did have some things in common. In any Roman family life, the head of the household was a man. Although his wife looked after the household, he controlled it. He alone could own property. Only he decided the fate of his children and who they would marry.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/life.html

And, they were the ones who had it good. The rest could have been taken into slavery. Quite popular back then!

Even in the Empire's peak under the Adoptive and Antonine Emperors, half of its population were slaves, many of whom were worked to death on farms and mines, or thrown away to entertain the mob. Even most of the free commoners, especially in the provinces, would have lived in what we would term "Third World" conditions. One can only assume that during the plagues and chaotic warfare of the 3rd Century, living conditions would have become unbearable for most of the Empire's denizens.
http://historum.com/ancient-history/21261-living-conditions-roman-empire.html

Be careful what you wish for!
:asian: