Quirites...

I thank the honourable Lucius Iulius for his comments on the proposals before this house.

I wish to address his contention that in someway that limiting a man's largess with his own money when it concerns himself is somehow pious or worthy.

Men are all different.

There are some in this city who hold themselves to be more pious and to be 'better' Romans that others because they are frugal or because they are dour.

Yet these people invariably are as tight with their public largess as they are with their own private lifestyle.

Take a look around you Quirites, look at the Rome of today compared to the Rome of 10 years ago.

How many buildings have the names Livius, or Domitius or Curius or Minutius Palus, or Ulpius on them?

Consider now how many carry the names of Porcius Cato and of other well known champions of austerity?

Quirites, public largess is a matter of generosity, private largess is a matter of personal freedom. Let us not confuse the two.

Why should a man be prevented from spending his own money on his own property?

Why should private villa's be artificially limited to a set, random amount? is this fair or at all realistic?*

No fellow citizens, we may not pick and choose our freedoms, nor should one man impose on another his own version of morality, all society defines morality, it is not defined by it's severest possible interpretation.

I ask you to support the removal of such un-Roman restrictions and treat the matter on a case by case basis. After all, how can the state condemn a man for what he MIGHT do? let the man exceed the boundaries of taste and decency and THEN sanction him, not condemn him before he has done wrong.

Support this proposal and continue to see more largess from those that have given to the public in the past like no others or listen to the words of those who seek to limit a man's possibilities because of their own jealousy and mean spiritedness.

All men are not created equally, if they were there would never be a Rome, let us not assume all private domus are either.

On a final point I wish to address the honourable Iulius' error with regards to the quoting of the SC Furia de Saturnum and it's implications with regards to this month's Lex Aemilia Lepida.

The SC Furia only applies to proposals in the SENATE and the Lex Aemilia is an Assembly proposal. There is therefore nothing to stop MAL doing as he has done and his proposal is perfectly legal.


OOC: A couple of points:

*1. The domus limits are bad for the game. There should be no laws that limit competition in any of the areas used to make up the rankings. It is not a good thing for the players to set a limit that effectively removes one element from the rankings; are we to legislate restrictions to Family reputation value or Civil or Religious or Military value? Of course not, and if not, then why this one category? It's clearly wrong. The proposal that created the limit on domus value would not be allowed today seeing as it contravenes the rules. The point of the game is to compete and restrictions on fair competition are not in the interests of the game.


2. Senatus Consultum Furia de Saturum - MFC - Conservative - 77.37% PASSED
That unrelated matters may not be submitted to the Senate together in the same proposal.