That doesn't change anything except in making it look even MORE partisan.
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Fast forward about a decade and Caesar is marching on Rome because political changes in Rome mean that he cannot secure another command with imperium, which means he's about to become a private citizen with literally ten years of obvious, public crimes to be prosecuted for.
So the issue here is not that every cutpurse will run for high office. The issue here is that if we set the precedent that winning high office renders one immune to prosecution, we've incentivized a **lot** of law-breaking in order to land in high office...
-
-
...and effectively infinite law-breaking in order to remain in high office. That's not a great set of norms to set in place. Once someone leaves office, there has to be accountability at some stage.
-
Since we're talking incentives ... wouldn't this give people incentives not to leave office?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
The people who run for higher office are already pretty driven ... and there is the slight problem that you might not win, and in fact, probably won't.
-
I think the Roman example here is instructive though - Caesar wasn't the only one who tried this. Some of the efforts failed catastrophically (like Cataline, or Lepidus (cos. 78)). But, you know, Octavian became emperor.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I think I agree, but if Caesar had been made immune to prosecution would he have still crossed the Rubicon? The incentives appear complex to me
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.