“The Puritan hated bearbaiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.” TB Macaulay, History of England.

To be fair to you though, Angus, I also agree with Edisons succinctly-made point that “all bibles are man-made”, as truth chimes throughout all lands, but since it is so the point of the quote from Cicero is also still pertinent.

It is of continual refreshment to find ones expectations confounded: I thought claiming Octavian for the liberal cause would be more controversial, especially considering your views on monarchy. There are many more that need to be reclaimed, but it’s a start.

I was trying to ask whether 28 days marks a fair balance between liberty and security or if it is actually TOO LONG to be held without charge, any thoughts?

What was that you were saying about waffle?

How many times was your quotation copied before it reached the invention of printing at the end of the 15th century? How many misreadings and editorial tamperings contaminated the text during these one-and-a-half millenia?

The only reliable Roman documents are ones inscribed on stone (and occasionally bronze and lead). These are usually funerary inscriptions, curses, milestones, short votive texts, ownership marks, workshop imprints, etc.

Consider, for example, the Ravenna Cosmography, of which there are at least two versions. When matched against epigraphic attestations and modern reflexes, almost all the locations listed are wrong. The same goes for Ptolemy, Strabo and Pliny, though none of these authors has had their work so badly mutilated at the Ravenna Cosmography, it has to be said.

The point I am making is we have no way of knowing if Cicero actually did write what you quote, or whether this is actually the work of some anonymous mediaeval monk.

One does have to recall that Cicero could not have written voluminously, given that his writing materials amounted to papyrus, vellum and wax.

Almost all ancient historians lied through their teeth. The one who appears to have been reasonably objective is Pliny the Elder, who seems to have recorded more or less what he saw and learned on his travels (though even Pliny made blunders when he speculated).

The Ancient Romans were possibly the most savage people in history. The only culture they had they stole from the Greeks.

(Pliny refers to the town recorded on a contemporaneous lapidary inscription as “Salpensa” as “Salpesa”. As a civil servant in this very region, one would have expected Pliny to know the town’s true name. And I expect he did. This is likely to be a mis-copy.)

Now back to your Cicero quotation.

These are semtiments with which liberals will agree. But so will conservatives, including libertarian and authoritarian conservatives. And democratic socialists, too.

And I have to tell you that David Icke claims he is putting into practice what Cicero (if it is he) was preaching all those years ago.

When Icke makes his claims about lizards and ritual child abuse he is simply telling the world the terrible truth – as he understands it, of course.

Now, I doubt if anyone could seriously dispute that Icke is a liberal (with a small “l”, that is), however flawed his discriminatory judgment might be.

Laurence, put your tickle-stick away.

… tough liberalism?

Didn’t stop Jefferson

Hold on. I was just about following that stuff about Cicero and Octavian. But what the hell’s Bono got to do with it?

I am more than a little astonished to see Cicero described as a “liberal”! Presumably keeping slaves, invading other people’s countries, nailing people to crosses, watching people being eaten by lions as entertainment, etc, is “liberal”. Small things that Oxbridge educated classicists tend to overlook.

The fall of the Roman Republic was a case of one of two rival elites gaining ascendancy over the other. Both sides were as vile and odious as the other, as far as the historical record is able to tell us.

Oh, and I agree with Laurence on one point at least. Your comments are unintelligible woffle.

The best analogy I can come up with (providing the clearest distinctions) is the classical example of the fall of the Roman republic.

As a party we LibDems do seem to have a tendency to rely on the ‘soft’ liberal creed of an idealised Cicero, while ignoring the realities and decisive nature of the Octavian approach.

Getting back to the ‘documentary’, and particularly the subject of detention without trial, I thought it was an overlooked point that in accepting the current position of 28 days we have already curtailed civil liberty to an extent and this reflects the striking of a balance between the extremes.

And this is the point: liberty is not simple opposition to authority (whatever a multitude of political compasses pretend) and liberals (ie the LibDems) will never have the mentality to be a success in government without exercising an amount of authority: when it comes to first principles you must first establish your princeps!

Ask “cui bono?” and the answer is that some always benefit more than others, but the important issue is whether the common good is served.

Thanks for your comments James. Er . . . what did that all mean?

Any set of provocative comments is far more engaging than the passive homilies and passifying platitudes normally elicited in current climate of commercial media where constantly replayed postures pass for logical argumentation, so I also offer tepid encouragement to Laurence.

I fear, however, Laurence may be undoing his own protestrations against the party by undertaking the very tactics he denounces in order to get the desired reaction.

Talk is infact probably far too cheap to provide a convincing demonstration of the ability to move and motivate people, so the manifestations of political theory in action does provide a real (and the best) test of the ideas that lie behind them, of which war is probably the ultimate example.

It does, though, strike me as perverse to expect to treat militant extremists and environmental campaigners according to the same procedures as it is clearly flawed by counter-productive, short-sighted and heavy-handed neglect of the distinctions and aims of each.

I can only suggest that there does seem to be a difference in how people view the law which emanates from the traditions by which laws have been arrived at – so in this sense Britain (or at least England and Wales) is definitely another country.

One could extrapolate to say that these traditions have resulted in different political arguments and also determine possible courses of history as a consequence (and thus social and political infrastructures), but that may be to go too far.

The current Labour camp does appear to have coalesced (as a direct corollary of acceptance to the social market) around a construition of the European model that legality is such a means by which to engineer society (ie by limiting dissent, since law of this nature can never be wrong), which contrasts with a large residual body of opinion that still holds law to reflect the values and interests of the people (ie where it is unenforcable, incoherent or inconsistent with any of those values and interests the law is an ass to be ignored or actively opposed), but for me this is a simple problem of emphasis – that both understandings should implicitly coalign, rather than explicitly diverge.

Some systems are better (ie worse) at closing off options for choice – FPTP is bad, closed list PR systems are worse because the larger electorates present bigger barriers to smaller/new parties and independents.

Fewer entry barriers to new parties/movements means existing parties have to be more responsive to voters demands, just as a free market is more responsive to consumers demands than a planned economy is.

(I put that last bit in to provoke a response – see, I’m getting the hang of this internet thing).

Much of what you do write leaves me wondering why you call yourself a Liberal Democrat but it does us good to be challenged from any kind of cosy consensus about issues – that’s the very essence of liberalism.

And its the whole point of the ‘blog-o-sphere’ too isnt it? LDV makes me nervous to be honest because of the confusion at the heart of its identity – because of its name there is a real danger that our opponents will lift comments made here and present them as representing the party. The editors of LDV need to bear that in mind. But rather than exercise a heavy editorial hand I would prefer it if the site just changed its name to make it clear that it is not an official organ (and dont point out the disclaimers – Tom Watson wont reproduce those on Labour election leaflets).

Oh, and on PR its not about fairness (how do you define that – list systems completely disenfranchise independents), its about maximising voter choice. STV OUGHT to be the best at providing that except that all parties seek to minimise voter choice (and thus avoid ‘preference leakage’) by only putting up the number of candidates they expect to get elected – if you dont believe me look at Scotland in May.

That was until the execrable Monbiot muscled in on their act.

Monbiot is best known as an environmental hair-shirter who wants us all to live in poverty (epecially black and brown people) so we can “save the planet”. In reality, he is a well-heeled, highly-paid Oxford educated Old Stovian, with the insufferably priggish know-all arrogance that goes with it.

And he is quite prepared to make Mephistopholean pacts to keep the lolly coming in. Witness his disgraceful hit piece on the 9/11 Truth Movement in the Grauniad. Monbiot knows perfectly well the propaganda he is regurgitating is lies from beginning to end, but he does it because he wants his articles published by national papers.

The man is a political prostitute.

Sorry, environmental camp. You have lost my sympathies.