Sandefur backhands his compliments nicely. For the record, I am no defender of tyranny. I am, however, a preferer of Caesar to Cato, and Cicero to Cato, and Crassus to Cato. I think it inapposite to compare Caesar to Benedict Arnold, chiefly because Caesar succeeded and Arnold failed, and the people ratified his acts. That may be glib, but at least it's honest, and I'm sticking to it. I will concede that the legitimacy of Caesar's government was contested by other nation-states until shortly before his assassination.

Gaius Gracchus did indeed create the grain dole as a standing measure in Rome; it had been used in the past, but only as an emergency. The necessity of the dole became apparent as Rome's population grew; Sandefur may not like it, but the dole allowed Rome to become great, by allowing individual citizens who would otherwise have been farming concentrate their efforts in other fields. All of the farmland around Rome was well-tenanted or ager publicus, so subsistence farming was out of the question for residents of the City.

Now, like Sandefur, I detest the fall of the Republic. But suggesting that Cato's rigid adherence to Caesar hatred is anything other than personal animus by the most stubborn man in history is disingenuous, to say the least. Cato failed, not only because he was out of step with Rome, but because he was irrational and addicted to the idea that the unwritten constitution of Rome could not be changed. This is a peculiar solecism: in the early Republic, it was forbidden for freedmen and their descendants to marry into the Famous Families, whether plebeian or patrician. Had Cato the Censor not defied this portion of the mos maiorum, Cato the Younger would not have been deemed a legitimate grandson of the Censor.

Rome's constitution was not like America's constitution: immutable, save by amendment or judicial legislation. The Plebeian Assembly or the Centuriate Assembly or the Senate could and did make constitutional changes regularly. The office of dictator, a wholly constitutional office, was created by the Senate to permit an individual (Cincinnatus) to take supreme command of Rome, win a war and do whatever was necessary to win that war, without fear of retribution when he laid down that power.

I confess to a severe degree of hero worship for both Caesar and Cicero: together, they were pre-eminent lawyers, legislators, and provincial governors of their day. If only Cicero had not been Pompey's man, history may have been different. Caesar could very well have been elected consul again, and the Roman Empire would have been deferred. Certainly, Caesar and his heir are the pivot point of Roman history, and I think that without Caesar, Augustus would have remained Gaius Octavius.

I agree with Sandefur that it's a great pleasure to conduct an argument like this with one so knowledgeable. I'd provide quotations and sources too, but my time at work is limited for blogging. Until next time, the blogosphere is yours!