Re:Inequality Killed the Roman Republic
by xhkkffbf on Monday January 18, 2021 @11:23AM
(#25823287)
The stability and benefits are just another currency. The article, though, wants to pretend that only inequality of money matter. Somehow giving someone extra benefits because of honor is great but giving them money is tacky. In any case, people will find a way to "monetize" other things. That's why the verb "monetize" exists.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Inequality Killed the Roman Republic
by jackcosgrove on Monday January 18, 2021 @12:02PM
(#25823784)
I think the article is correct in that Romans created a system where honor was, at the beginning, not fungible with anything other than public service. There should always be a reward gradient. The problem is when power becomes fungible with money.
You've misinterpreted that part of the article.
The reason to avoid a monetary reward is not that it is tacky, but because money can easily be used to pass on influence to offspring, such as by boosting their profile, or buying votes for them. This can undermine a selection mechanism where they should win or gain reputation by engaging in pro-social activities.
Also, not everything may be monetised. I cannot sublet the garage attached to my apartment for example, because the contract forbids it. AirBnB is banned in some cities/situations.