Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • “It’s not worth it. It’s wrestling in the mud with pigs. You both get dirty but

    –“It’s not worth it. It’s wrestling in the mud with pigs. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.”— David Mondrus

    Wisdom of one’s friends.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 02:32:00 UTC

  • I LOVE CHILDREN. I LOVE MY PEOPLE’S CHILDREN. Ukraine is full of my people and t

    I LOVE CHILDREN. I LOVE MY PEOPLE’S CHILDREN.

    Ukraine is full of my people and their children.

    I need more kids. Mine or someone else’s. I don’t much care.

    I’m happy to participate in kin redistribution.

    It’s non-kin redistribution that makes me angry.

    OFFSPRING CONSTITUTE A CATEGORY OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION. CONVERSION OF CONSUMPTION TO ENTERTAINMENT RATHER THAN OFFSPRING IS BAD. CONVERSION TO COMPETITORS IS WORSE.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 02:31:00 UTC

  • Las leyes prohiben la transferencia involuntaria. Los contratos intercambian derechos

    Artículo original de Curt Doolittle Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U. [C]uando se redacta una nueva constitución, nosotros fácilmente podemos privar al gobierno (que es un productor de bienes comunes) y al poder judicial (encargado en la adjudicación y administración de la ley) de la habilidad de poder legislar.- Las únicas leyes que pueden existir son aquellas que prohiban los medios para que se origine el parasitismo (chuleo, imposición de costos). Y esas leyes deben ser descubiertas y tener un desarrollo teórico. Inversamente, todos los derechos positivos sólo pueden existir como provisiones contractuales en lo que a materia de intercambio se refiere. La justicia inherente a los contratos es algo que nosotros cómo hacer, y hemos hecho a lo largo de la historia de la humana. Ahora que podemos, cada uno de nosotros puede negociar o directamente, o darle poderes a otra persona, partido, grupo o afines, el derecho de negociar contratos a nombre nuestro. Y el hecho de que lo puedan hacer los ata y nos ata al cumplimiento de los contratos que se negocien. Pero de ninguna forma, se puede negociar un contacto que vaya en contravención de las leyes- que imponga transferencias involuntarias, o externalice las transferencias involuntarias. Tampoco se puede engañar en los contratos, por medio del oscurantismo verbal (lenguaje no operativo) o al violar la constricción estricta, o en su equivalente cuantitativo (dinero).

  • Las leyes prohiben la transferencia involuntaria. Los contratos intercambian derechos

    Artículo original de Curt Doolittle Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U. [C]uando se redacta una nueva constitución, nosotros fácilmente podemos privar al gobierno (que es un productor de bienes comunes) y al poder judicial (encargado en la adjudicación y administración de la ley) de la habilidad de poder legislar.- Las únicas leyes que pueden existir son aquellas que prohiban los medios para que se origine el parasitismo (chuleo, imposición de costos). Y esas leyes deben ser descubiertas y tener un desarrollo teórico. Inversamente, todos los derechos positivos sólo pueden existir como provisiones contractuales en lo que a materia de intercambio se refiere. La justicia inherente a los contratos es algo que nosotros cómo hacer, y hemos hecho a lo largo de la historia de la humana. Ahora que podemos, cada uno de nosotros puede negociar o directamente, o darle poderes a otra persona, partido, grupo o afines, el derecho de negociar contratos a nombre nuestro. Y el hecho de que lo puedan hacer los ata y nos ata al cumplimiento de los contratos que se negocien. Pero de ninguna forma, se puede negociar un contacto que vaya en contravención de las leyes- que imponga transferencias involuntarias, o externalice las transferencias involuntarias. Tampoco se puede engañar en los contratos, por medio del oscurantismo verbal (lenguaje no operativo) o al violar la constricción estricta, o en su equivalente cuantitativo (dinero).

  • I need some hugs. From a woman. 😉

    I need some hugs. From a woman. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 11:14:00 UTC

  • Mises, Popper and Rothbard were half-right. Popper was saved because libertarian

    Mises, Popper and Rothbard were half-right.

    Popper was saved because libertarians didn’t use him as a vehicle for heaping undue praise, or pseudoscientific justificationism. Rothabardians damaged Mises so much that he is almost impossible to recover except by grouping him with Poincare, Brouwer and Bridgman as the people who failed to construct existential testing: operationalism.

    Popper makes it half way to operationalism by correctly identifying scientific criticism but not operationalism (scientific operationalism). Then getting stuck in falsificationism.

    Mises tries with praxeology to construct economic operationalism. Gets stuck in praxeology trying to state that something is true or not versus whether something is false or not.

    The Legal profession struggles with strict construction and textualism (legal operationalism) – and I am not so sure why that movement failed like the other disciplines.

    No one in the social sciences or philosophy creates moral or political operationalism – possibly because it would have to come from law or economics.

    So this is the great philosophical failure of the 20th century. Why?

    Probability and Statistics, Set Theory, The Philosophy of Language.

    Attempts to abandon action. These are means of complex free association, not means of truth finding.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:47:00 UTC

  • ROUGH PERCENTAGE OF CASES OVERTURNED? For example. With Courts of Appeals, it’s

    ROUGH PERCENTAGE OF CASES OVERTURNED?

    For example.

    With Courts of Appeals, it’s not so important that judges be approved so much as that judges are prohibited from judging after some (small) number of losses of appeal. I don’t like entry requirements, but exit prohibitions are epistemologically sound. You don’t want to be a judge on a matter that will be overturned.

    If I remember correctly, about 10% of cases are not settled and must be adjudicated. In very round numbers something like 40% of trial cases go to appeal, and something like 15% of them are overturned. So of 1000 cases, 100 cases that reach judgement, 40 go to appeal, and 6 are overturned. There are a lot of variables in there and this overstates it a bit, but for the purposes of a broad overview of the american legal process thats good enough. So if you choose to go to court, at the other end of 1000 cases, 6 get overturned. that’s half a percent.

    I would guess that if we made the law much clearer, that the number would drop to the statistically insignificant.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:29:00 UTC

  • “Libertarianism for Beginners?” You do know why there are Soooooo many books on

    “Libertarianism for Beginners?”

    You do know why there are Soooooo many books on beginning libertarianism and NONE on advanced licbertarianism don’t you?

    Cause ‘sophism. Thats why.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:14:00 UTC

  • THE COURTS ARE FAR BETTER THAN YOU THINK. Well, you know, ***courts are not free

    THE COURTS ARE FAR BETTER THAN YOU THINK.

    Well, you know, ***courts are not free of deceit, wishful thinking, stupidity, bias, and error for the simple reason that they are populated by people.*** That is the virtue of the jury and judge system. Twelve jurors reduces the probability of rendering idiocy dramatically.

    I have nothing but burning hatred for the federal government, and I think that the rule of law has been destroyed by the democratic legislature, the tyrannical presidency, judicial activism, judicial and review.

    But I have a little more faith in my fellow americans, that if provided with the tools of acquittal, nullification, and conviction, and the the simplicity of Natural Law, that they will render a great judgement under all but the most extreme circumstances. And should judges be allowed if not required to specialize even extreme circumstances would improve. And if judges could be chosen rather than assigned then that would improve further. This would create a market for judges. Appeals would manage the problem of whether rule of law was violated or not.

    I find that many laws the judges are asked to enforce – credit law, family law, regulatory fines and costs, and other bits of nonsense – are objectively immoral. But if judges were given strict construction, and natural law, and nothing could override this but contract, then I think that all would be fine.

    Judges and the law are not so much the problem as the ability of the state to legislate and regulate as an insurer of last resort over the objections of the people who are regulated.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:09:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 09:59:00 UTC