A few notes -
Rand was not the first person to inform that 'taxation is theft' - Lysander Spooner, for instance, wrote much on the reason why this was so..... Rand's statement takes on importance because she invoked it within the confines of principles - and that is the crux, and the bain it seems of many.... but if principles are not what one properly lives by, then the alternative is pragmatism, which is being unprincipled [however it might euphanistically be called otherwise].... one simply cannot have it both ways.... and if living by principles is a 'pie-in-the-sky' idea from fairyland - then why are you calling yourselves Objectivists?
There is much confusion it seems over a couple of historic events - the Whiskey rebellion, and the Articles of Confederation.... much of this is because the perspectives involves have been generally written by those who 1]thought the rebellion was wrong and deserved to be stopped, and 2] the Articles were a failure and the Constitution was actually needed....... but neither view is correct - it all depends on whether you see conflicts as inherant to being without power to control, or whether reason to discuss differences can be done and resolutions can be achieved.... for all the dislike of some for Rothbard, his history of the beginnings of this country - Conceived in Liberty - are worthy of note, and puts a different light on many preconceived ideas of what went on then, who was involved - and who stood to benefit from the conflicts, as opposed to who benefited from the resolutions of the conflicts..... the whiskey rebellion, for one, was a very legitimate response to what many noted was one of the reason for fighting the War for Independence in the first place - and here then was another George imposing the very thing!
As for the claiming of early Roman days as providing legitimacy for power and control - the whole worldview then was radically different from those of the Enlightenment period - indeed, the notions of individualism and the Enlightenment view of man's relationship with State was completely at arrears with who Romans saw things - conformity was the codified rule of Romans ---------
[excerpt from my manuscript --- which while focusing on art, has relevance to the wider understanding of being a Roman]
The Roman himself basically was not interested in doing any of those endeavors - he considered himself to be a "man of letters", or rather he was raised to consider himself as such. His primary leisure, however, was spent in sports - gladiator spectatorings of military prowess, for instance, not the Arts.
Much of the reason for this state of affairs is the fact that, like ancient Egypt, the Romans live in an agonic social structure - the difference being, however, that, unlike the Egyptians, theirs was not an insular society, cut off by barren lands and sea, to keep them in isolation. Instead, there was a continuous need for a lengthy time of conquesting and governing the acquired territories, and keeping the outer fringed barbarians at bay.
While this allowed enough in the way of leisure time to become a person of letters, it did not make for the extended time needed for Romans to do sculpturing or painting - especially at the various outposts, even worse among the hustle and continued bustling associated among, say, the senators at Rome. Far better it was to be the essayist or historian or poet or [when in Rome] the orator, all utilizing the rhetorical skills taught while growing up.
Furthermore, there were the engineering feats to engage in, something also of major importance to the Romans. They then let the feats of architecture become as substitute for the Arts such as sculpturing. The public building became the arena for the expressions of aesthetics, their attempts in tribal glorifications.
Yet there was still a need for the personal. It is an inborn trait of being human, however much tribal influences dictate the public sphere. So, even tho the sculpturing and painting that was done was largely produced by imported artisans and artists, mostly from Greece, the fact that there was a lot of domestic dwelling aesthetics showed that there was a sense of the individual, and that to the Roman it was of importance - even as it was ignored socially. That was one of the reasons, perhaps, for the introduction of landscape renderings - and, to a lesser extent, the other background renderings, such as room extensions, whether whole rooms or alcoves wherein were painted vases of flowers or other artifacts desired to be remembered. Here, it would seem, Romans conceived themselves as being "in the world", firmly grounded in reality - for those backgrounds were of the world around them as they had seen, and as they, in the sense of landscapes, had remembered or wished them to be.
The real major problem with all of this was that the Roman, while seeing value in these endeavors of contemplation, did not see them as something which they, the Romans personally, could engage in doing - it would have been thought of as being very beneath them as a Roman. In an agonic society, the worth is resolved only within the public - the private, such as it was, was considered beneath any official consideration, for it detracted from being the public person. That, too, was why the works were done by imported artisans and artists, for these same artisans and artists were considered as slaves and thus "lesser beings". Moreover, as it was with the Greeks in their earlier history, there was also a disparing view of those who sought to do the Arts "for a living", as a commercial venture - the concept of the trading syndrome did not sit very well if at all in the consciousness of the Romans and their taking syndrome mentality.
The consequence of this was an inevitability - a loss of incentive for creativity in the Arts, one of the Trading Syndrome virtues. While it could have been said that because of the vastness of the empire, there was great potential in the endeavorings, by the same token, because of the agonicness of the social structure, there was then
perceived little desire for actualizing that potential - it simply would not have been rewarded.
Contemplativeness, however, is still a necessity of being human. If there is little if any real social approval of it in regards to the world around them, then it will of consequence be turned to contemplations of other realms, whether real or not, whether appropriate to human qua human growth or not. In other words, it opened the way for the infiltration of Christianity, the most profoundly anti-human aesthetic perversion of the agonic taking/tribalist syndrome to appear - even as it was postured as being a doctrine of love and hope in a disparing world. The consequence of that, which lasted for hundreds of years - to nearly a millenia - was that era which gave identity to the true nature of the religion, the Dark Ages.
|
