The very nature of the activity of such people and the extent of their personal initiative in finding legal solutions are still open questions. What the winning part of the group decides is deemed to be decided by the group itself; and unless they leave the group, the losing members are not even free to reject the result of a choice when they do not like it.
The actual behavior of people is continuously adapting itself to changing conditions. In addition, people who were not citizens but who lived in Athens could not vote.
I do not offer particular solutions for particular problems. However, its conclusions may be considered only as a special case of a more general realization that no legislator would be able to establish by himself, without some kind of continuous collaboration on the part of all the people concerned, the rules governing the actual behavior of everybody in the endless relationships that each has with everybody else.
My humble suggestion is that their implication that a law even a bad law is better than nothing should be much more supported by evidence than it is.
I do not deny that those who are accustomed to taking advantage of the process of representation, either as representatives or as members of represented groups, have something to lose by such a reduction.
I do not contend that it could be easily accomplished. In this way, legislation has undergone a very peculiar development. In that event the groups could no longer work as units. If we were to submit existing legislation to the kind of trial I am here proposing, I wonder how much of it would survive.
Unless I am wrong this is not only an evident misunderstanding, but also an ominous circumstance for the fate of individual freedom in our time.
The advocates of legislation—or rather, of the notion of legislation as a panacea—justify this way of fully identifying it with law in contemporary society by pointing to the changes continually being brought about by technology.
While not perfect as therepresentatives play politics and self interest, it is alsopractical for the present as countries are much larger and assemblyof citizens impracticable. In contrast, the term "republic" is Roman in origin and has traditionally been dated back to B.
The history of political ideas evinces a series of definitions such as the one given by Lord Acton. It may seem dull in comparison with the sophisticated formulae sometimes clothed in obscure mathematical symbols that people seem to like so much today in economics as well as in political science.
What I wish to point out is that group decisions actually are worth that cost much less frequently than it would appear to a superficial observer. This history is important, because part of what lent Athenian democracy its radical nature was this history, because it was not always democratic and did fall under the spell of strongmen most notably Pisistratus.
A republic res publica or t hing of the people is a form of government in which those with a vote elect representatives to… act for them in a legislative body. This does not seem to apply to all legal institutions. This is what distinguishes it from ademocracy - a republic can be a democracy or an oligarchy.
There was often pressure to influence votersthrough the patron-client relationship, where rich patrons helped aretinue of poor clients in exchange for political support. It is difficult to admit, however, that a reduction in the number of those represented would be compatible with individual freedom if we assume that they are entitled to express their own will at least as electors.
But other countries, while already offering a completely different kind of picture, reveal at the same time how much farther the legislators can go in this respect.
On the other hand, only if we fully realize how much constraint is implied by the very process of legislation are we in a position to decide how far we should go in introducing any legislative Edition: While in the Anglo-Saxon countries common law and ordinary courts of judicature are constantly losing ground to statutory law and administrative authorities, in the Continental countries civil law is undergoing a parallel process of submersion as a result of the thousands of laws that fill the statute books each year.
It is undeniable that today this result is due both to inflated legislation and to the enormous increase of a quasi-legislative or pseudo-legislative activity on the part of the government, and one cannot help agreeing with writers and scholars like James Burnham in the United States, Professor G.
My earnest suggestion is that those who value individual freedom should reassess the place of the individual within the legal system as a whole. The resulting situation in contemporary society is a kind of schizophrenia, which, far from being denounced, has been hardly noticed so far.
Both ancient Greeks and Roman thinkers conceived of society as containing two permanently distinct and mutually antagonistic groups: In this way, legislation is conceived as an assured means of introducing homogeneity where there was none and rules where there were none.
It is well known that people sometimes prefer to have any rule whatsoever rather than none at all. Fortunately we do not need to take refuge in Utopia in order to find legal systems different from the present ones.
But no historism and no relativism could prevent us from recognizing that in any society feelings and convictions relating to actions that should not be done are much more homogeneous and easily identifiable than any other kind of feelings and convictions.
But I would suggest that it is particularly necessary in these times of semantic confusion.What Are the Differences and Similarities of Roman and Greek Politics? By Laura Leddy Turner ; Updated June 27, The ancient Roman and Greek civilizations had well-organized political processes that greatly influenced the manner in which later governments were structured in Europe and the United States.
One of the most important differences between ancient Greek democracy and ancient Roman Republicanism was institutional.
Both ancient Greeks and Roman thinkers conceived of society as containing two permanently distinct and mutually antagonistic groups: the few (the rich) and the.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs.
The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman. About. Both Athens and Sparta hold historic value for Greece and the world. Athens is the capital and the largest city of Greece. It is a center for economic, political, financial and culture life in Greece.
Citizenship was determined in a different way, "In ancient Athenian democracy, the right to citizenship was not determined by socio-economic status; but the power of appropriation, and relations between classes were directly affected by democratic citizenship" (Euben, Wallach, and Ober, 75).
is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.Download