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).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @mcsam_1
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The royal "right" to property is grounded solely on loyalty, and thus submerges along with it. Cryptography is a better foundation. ...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
... If you have to believe in it for it to be real, it isn't.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @mcsam_1
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Not that it is surprising when weak kings lose territory.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Weak king" and "weak monarchical property rights" are synonymous expressions.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @mcsam_1
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Instead, there was a civil war carried out by proxy. The king didn't show up, so he lost by default.
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.