Excerpts from “Are We Rome?”

The paramount lesson of the Roman experience is actually not peculiar to Rome. It may be, in fact, the most universal lesson of all history: No people who have lost their character have kept their liberties.

Roman society at the time of the Republic’s founding was basically agricultural, made up of small farmers and shepherds. By the second century B.C., large-scale businesses made their appearance. Italy became urbanized. Immigration accelerated as people from many lands were attracted by the vibrant growth and opportunities the bustling Roman economy offered. The growing prosperity was made possible by a general climate of free enterprise, limited government, and respect for private property. Merchants and businessmen were admired and emulated.

No one should claim that Romans fostered a libertarian society. They took liberty to new heights in many ways by limiting the power of the State, but shortcomings were plentiful. This much is clear: The liberties they achieved were made possible and sustained for centuries by traits of character on which liberty always depends: courage, hard work, personal independence,  and self-reliance.

Rome’s remarkable achievements in sanitation, education, banking, architecture, and commerce are legendary. The city even had a stock market. With low taxes and tariffs, free trade and considerable private property, Rome became the center of the A.D.; when it was gone, the world was plunged into darkness and despair, slavery and poverty.

Why did Rome decline and fall? Rome collapsed because of a fundamental change in ideas on the part of the Roman people—ideas which relate primarily to personal responsibility and the source of personal income. In the early days of greatness, Romans regarded themselves as their chief source of income. By that I mean each individual looked to himself—what he could acquire voluntarily in the marketplace—as the source of his livelihood. Rome’s decline began when the people discovered another source of income: the political process—the State. In short, it was a character issue.

When Romans abandoned self-responsibility and self-reliance, Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people’s pockets, to envy and covet the productive and their wealth, they turned down a fateful, destructive path.

In the waning years of the Roman republic, a rogue named Clodius ran for office of tribune. He bribed the electorate with promises of  free grain at taxpayer expense and won. Thereafter, Romans in growing numbers embraced the notion that voting for a living could be more lucrative than working for one.  

Candidate for Roman office spend huge sums to win public favor, then plundered the population afterwards to make good on their promises to the rent-seekers who elected them. As the republic gave way to dictatorship, a succession of emperors built their power on the huge handouts they controlled. Nearly a third of the city of Rome itself received public relief payments by the time of the birth of Christ.

The central government also assumed the responsibility of providing the people with entertainment. Elaborate circuses and gladiator duels were staged to keep the people happy. One modern historian estimates that Rome poured the equivalent of $100 million per year into the games.

There were plenty of taxes to evade. Emperor Nero is said by Roman historian Gaius Suetonius in De Vitae Caesarum to have once rubbed his hands together and declared, “Let us tax and tax again! Let us see to it that no one owns anything!” Taxation lower classes. “What the soldiers or the barbarians spared, the emperors took in taxes,” according to historian W. G. Hardy.

Source:  “Are We Rome?” (July 2013) by Lawrence W. Reed.

I wonder if Clodius and Emperor Nero would have been the first progressives? Nero could have been one easily. Yea, America is getting close to being Rome. When the powers-that-be start to lose their character they become more corrupt.