zlacker

[return to "Don't build your castle in other people's kingdoms (2021)"]
1. openri+El1[view] [source] 2024-10-02 07:23:57
>>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.

◧◩
2. arethu+zB1[view] [source] 2024-10-02 10:28:12
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. Maken+WO1[view] [source] 2024-10-02 12:32:48
>>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.
◧◩◪◨
4. inglor+bd2[view] [source] 2024-10-02 15:06:23
>>Maken+WO1
Removal of a bad king was a possibility, but actually attempting to do it was ... tricky. It could definitely backfire and end up with the rebels on a scaffold, or, worse, with a decade-long civil war that harmed everyone and opened the door of the kingdom to potential raiders from the outside.

In practice, unhappy nobles would often rather deny their necessary cooperation (at war or administering the land in peace) and thus force the king to make some amends and tradeoffs.

Passive aggressivity isn't a modern concept :)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. int_19+Xx2[view] [source] 2024-10-02 16:57:51
>>inglor+bd2
So long as the king is not sufficiently powerful to take on a bunch of nobles who gang up, for all practical purposes, it is not the king's country.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. inglor+aL2[view] [source] 2024-10-02 18:14:41
>>int_19+Xx2
"for all practical purposes"

Well, there is the practical purpose of legitimacy. It may seem too soft for modern power theoreticians, but the legitimate king has something that cannot be acquired by raw power, and that puts somewhat of a damper on potential rebels. Not on each and every one of them, of course, but it has a wide effect. Killing or deposing the legitimate monarch was a serious spiritual crime for which one could pay not just by his earthly life, but in the afterlife as well.

Even usurpers like William the Conqueror tried to obtain some legitimacy by concocting stories why they and nobody else should be kings.

We still see some reverbations of that principle today. Many authoritarians love to "roleplay elections", even though they likely could do it like Eritrea and just not hold any. It gives them a veneer of legitimacy.

[go to top]