NRx is monarchism/autocracy implemented with tech, there is an obvious set of technologically interesting things you could do with republicanism or even direct democracy like in Alistair Reynold’s The Prefect
Rather than what is or isn't property, it's more about what the actors in question consider to be property. And taking what you consider to be someone else's property makes you a thief, regardless of whether they actually own it.
-
-
The actors in 1688 and 1776 were aiming to secure their property FROM the king. People might consider that deluded (but I don't).
-
That's what they rhetorically claimed. It is not actually true. I feel the subsequent reconglomeration by their heirs to be a satisfactory illustration of their actual intents.
-
The royal "right" to property is grounded solely on loyalty, and thus submerges along with it. Cryptography is a better foundation. ...
-
... If you have to believe in it for it to be real, it isn't.
-
The King's right to England was extremely dubious. The King's right to the colonies was actually pretty strong. It was due to royal supplies of men and arms (and presumably other useful things) that the place could exist at all. Going there was voluntary.
-
Not that it is surprising when weak kings lose territory.
-
"Weak king" and "weak monarchical property rights" are synonymous expressions.
-
Can't agree. The problem - which nobody seems to want to name - is that monarchical security is partially a function of the personality of the king in question.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Fragmentation is always good, yes, but doesn't make up for the fact this fragment was founded and is still run by thieves, brigands, burglars, and bandits.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.