Cuz he’s trying to simplify assumptions in order to do theorycrafting. See also: fnargl, the immortal unkillable alien king
-
-
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.
-
The King could very well have maintained security over the colonies. He was simply afraid to use the methods necessary to do so. He tolerated traitors in the name of free expression or some such nonsense. In fact the colonies had no actual chance in a war, and didn't win.
-
Instead, there was a civil war carried out by proxy. The king didn't show up, so he lost by default.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The monarchy at those times was still legally based on right of conquest, which is obviously retarded. It's just that the rebel scum replaced that justification with an even more retarded one.
-
Great thread guys. So, would it be feasible for the Afrikaners and Zulus to agree to split the land and remove democratic Parliament? Because white minority us getting really small now. Gotta make a plan.
@boerhat@ronellepretor
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.