> Why not ? _Ruling_ a province automatically implies fighting anybody
> who resists your laws. If you are a single man and declare yourself
> ruler of a big province which outlaws any passage and a 1000 man army
> comes marching through the gates then _you_ attack it !
Fine. You seem to have misinterpreted my remarks -- I was complaining
that most of the people proposing systems seemed to be setting them up
such that you either paid the taxes or had to go kill the ruler.
Instead, I would like the default to be not pay taxes, and the ruler
can either convince you to actively pay or attack you. The onus should
lie on the purported ruler, not the alleged subject. Some rulers might
even not tax everyone, in order to avoid confrontations with powerful
subjects. That's the way many medieval societies worked.
Second, the "first occupant of a structure" rule people seem to be
implying that if you have a bigger force but aren't the first occupant
of the structure, you can't rule the province without killing the
first occupant, even if you have a vastly bigger force. Well, that is
a simple way to code it, but doesn't make that much sense.
However, I've yet to see a compelling argument for ownership in the
first place, other than that some people think they own places and
want free money for it. Well, I've got my patch of land too, but I
don't see the need for a windfall.