zlacker

>>lopesp+(OP)
The elephant in the room is the size distribution of "other people's kingdoms". Having oversized kingdoms and overbearing kings is not a god-given parameter, its down to regulation, political and economic choices. Its not for nothing that the current digital world has been called neo-feudal.

The real solution is to force these kingdoms to build permanently open gates and roadways that connect the land, increase all around traffic and opportunity.

Only when people turn from digital vassals to digital citizens will we emerge from the middle ages we are currently in. In this sense the most important development in the online world is still ahead if us.

>>openri+El1
I live somewhere that has a lot of castles - there are 3 (possibly 4) within 2km of where I am sitting writing this.

I don't think any of these castles were built directly by kings - although I suspect their construction was either approved by a king or by someone who had delegated authority from a king. NB I can also see a large castle about ~11 km away that was a royal castle (and still has a military garrison).

I suspect that most castles are probably in other people's kingdoms.

>>arethu+zB1
If you are in France or some other central European old Kingdom, the people living in those castles were the ones who either put the king in the throne or had the power to remove him if he started some funny business, so it was their kingdom in a sense. The problem with modern platforms is, as always, how much leverage the users have against the administrators.

>>Maken+WO1
Yes, in the case of Scotland there is a famous document (Declaration of Arbroath) that was written to the Pope asking him to, amongst other things, acknowledge that Scotland had been pretty much always been independent of England. This was "signed" by the Scottish nobles and has a section saying that if the current king (Robert the Bruce) wasn't good enough at fighting the English he'd be removed and they'd find someone more capable.