If I was a monarchist (rather than a neocameralist) I'd bite.
-
-
It's a massively defective tacit theory of property, practically refuted in 1688 and 1776.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @mcsam_1
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 2 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 5 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 0 likes
If "pretty strong" means "realistically enforceable" (as it should), then no.
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.