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
So, you should build your castle in someone else's kingdom iff that kingdom either

1. Has strong norms against castle seizure or abandonment of the king's duties in kingdom upkeep

2. Has a federation of non-king castle owners strong and unified enough to force the former point.

>>khafra+gH1
3. You are strong enough to provide a serious and credible threat to the king if he implements a policy that threatens you.

Example: Valve in the early 2000s before or as they were building Steam to challenge the video game publisher model. 20 years on and Valve is still printing money, while Sierra Online doesn't exist.

>>hooray+2s2
Sierra Online was acquired through fraudulent accounting, and the company that acquired them went under shortly after as their fraud was revealed.

Unfortunately Sierra had to accept the offer.