Isaac Chan’s Reviews > In Catilinam I-IV > Status Update

Note 2/2:
is the nature of land distribution in the very long run? Presumably, land ownership is only enforceable by a state: thus, after an empire crumbles, like the Roman Empire, land ownership starts from scratch. The nature of this is something I must get my finger on if I am to figure out who owns the land 'in the first place', which is necessary to answer my questions about why land tends to concentrate in the hands of the few, the tension between land as both a consumption (in the sense that you live on it!) and capital good, and how this tension leads to political tensions over land price appreciation (those who seek to consume land want cheap consumption goods; those who own land want appreciating asset prices).

But anyway, what interests me more is Cicero's uncanny ability to convince people against something that benefits them. According to Google, Cicero argued that the bill would deplete the treasury and remove grain subsidies and public entertainment, thus harming the plebs. This may be true, or it may not - that is beside the point for now. My current reflection is that our public discourse has failed to persuade the public against things that do NOT benefit them! For example, socialist Zohran policies like rent control and state-owned supermarkets.

So who is more educated: the ancient Romans or current New Yorkers? The former were willing to listen to Cicero to vote against a policy that benefited them (presumably not a smart thing to do); the latter are not willing to listen to centuries of economic science that price controls do not work (not a smart thing to do)!

After some more of the contemptible 'Google/ Gemini scholarship', I've collected more views on De Lege Agraria. I think in this case, Cicero was part of the Roman Republic's decaying institutions itself. The people of Rome had already lost faith in the Republic's rule of law, since in the late Republic, the law was just used as a weapon by politicians to crush their rivals, instead of delivering true justice. The law was being used as a tool of partisan warfare.

So I think Cicero does no better. Land reforms were supposed to benefit the people (you may call Rullus a populist with his own political motives, but ultimately, land reforms are good for the plebs), but Cicero fought against it to crush Rullus. So how was Cicero not part of the lawless Republic itself?

Cicero, being a novus homo, has a deeply inspiring story. But the tendencies of the novus homo echo to the present day: occasionally doing questionable things (in Cicero's case, supporting questionable policies) just to fit in with the old-school aristocrats of the Senate. Like how the new money, with all their wealth, still try to cosy up to the old money.