Isn’t land under the kings rule the kings property? Therefore making secession a form of theft?
-
-
"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 -
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.