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. ...
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 -
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.
1 reply 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 -
Eventually -- if not before -- you get a garbage monarch. Giant security hole, surely? It endured only because nothing better was available.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Formalism (as Moldbug says). In practice that's indistinguishable from commercialization. "Commercialize government" is probably not a great slogan, politically speaking, but it's an honest one.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
... Clue-tip: If it's heading in the right direction it will probably include some kind of "tokens".
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.