Continued Studies; 12/31/2005

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

12/31/2005

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12-31-2005

In Book XXI, Chapter XV, Montesquieu addresses something that I see as rather interesting pertaining to Roman commerce.

He cites that commerce between Romans and barbarians as non-existent firstly due to Rome not wanting their skills at war to be "learned" through such trade.

If they couldn't conquer a nation, they did no trade with them.

This means they were "cannibalistic" in a social sense and as well pertaining to commerce.

They "ate" only of "themselves" and traded only with themselves.

He further cites the aspect of conquered people's populating "their" society being a main reason that the Roman empire stayed together at all. Being that their actual weakness served as binding socially out of fear of anything else.

The Roman empire "neglected enriching themselves out of the fear of carrying to nations they had not subdued – the art of conquering."

They did not even communicate with nations other than their own.

"The weakness of the people and the tyranny of their laws united all the parts of this immense body."

This paints an entirely different picture of the Roman empire than is most widely promoted and believed in the modern day.

Essentially the Romans bullied anyone they could and kept away from any they couldn't.

Conquering an "uniting" the weak nations in one large pathetic body so to speak – a body surely to "need" any sort of governing (and safety) the Romans chose to employ upon them.

This gives a different perspective to various things pertaining to Roman Law and Justinianus as well.

Even more in regard to how such has influenced the modern American dynamic within government and law – seeing as such writ is such an obvious influence there-in.

Sadly, in a humorous note – it would seem that such “need to be needed” tactics to unify the weak is one of the more efficient governing tactics in regard to the longevity of a given example government.

To “snivel” at the top of you lungs so as to insure your government remains seen as “needed” to remain a government.

It makes sense that such would be an influence on the U.S. government in the degree it seems to have.

“Give us your weak…..,” I suppose it only becomes problematic then, when (as is it’s nature from what I can tell) it begins to demand more of the “stage” within combination of so many other incredible elements put forward in the concept itself – within that proposed third degree of civilization. Overshadowing other, more modern efficiencies through overstepping its own optimum efficiencies in combinations with others.