Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Q:What Do You Mean by Falsification? (in Court)

    Q:What Do You Mean by Falsification? (in Court) https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/qwhat-do-you-mean-by-falsification-in-court/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 14:56:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267469965122306048

  • Q:What Do You Mean by Falsification? (in Court)

    “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FALSIFICATION? (IN COURT)”

    —“I don’t think I understand what you mean by “falsification.” I doubt you mean it in the Popperian sense because it is entirely possible to put questions before the judiciary that pray for verification, rather than falsification. And falsification does not just happen on the basis of substantive “operational” concerns but also on matters of legal or administrative procedure.”— Duke Newcomb (awesome alias)

    DEFINITION OF FALSIFICATION No amount of justification or confirmation provides us with satisfaction of demand for infallibility given the question at hand. Only due diligence by attempted falsification of identity, internal consistency, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, external correspondence, completeness, full accounting, parsimony, and coherence. JURIDICAL FALSIFICATION The jury and judge do not find a matter of truth or falsehood, but sufficient falsification of alternatives to render a judgement of under reasonable doubt. REGARDING ‘PROOF’ In law, “Proof” does not exist because existential reality is not constructed axiomatically and not closed – so we only use the term by analogy. Instead, we are providing a theory (argument) and evidence (external correspondence) that alternative explanations (theories) are unreasonable (fail to satisfy the demand for consistency, possibility, rationality, correspondence, full accounting, and parsimony. This confusion is possible because of the inarticulate vocabulary of legal jargon that is non-operational, and not constructed from the tests of demonstrated interest, or court insured property constructed by demonstrated interest, or reciprocity, or argued under testimonial truth. This is what P-law provides: disambiguation and operationalization, and therefore scientifically stated, internally consistent, law (rules of jurisprudence). RESULTS OF FALSIFICATION Restating your claim in scientific prose: It is possible to test a theory by putting a question before the judiciary and determining whether or not they falsify it. All that it tells us is that it survived falsification or not. Nothing else. WHAT ABOUT PROCEDURE? Legal and administrative procedure have nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but with regulation. Whether those regulations affect truth, falsehood, or reciprocity, irreciprocity is a matter of convenience (cost) for the court and nothing to do with truth and reciprocity. CAUSAL RELATIONS The Natural Law of Reciprocity > A constitution for operational under it > a judiciary for adjudicating differences under it > Procedures (regulations) demanded by the court (often arbitrary, often pragmatic, but not always) < regulations (enforcement of, proceduralization of, legislation and command) < Legislation (contract or command) < Command. A SMART GUY GETS IT RIGHT AWAY —“Ah. It is not the proposition before the trier of fact that is falsified, it is the alternatives. And they are not falsified in the sense of having their falsehood established. They are falsified in the sense of being inferior in their explanatory power of the facts of the matter before deliberation to the preferred theory of the case. By falsification, you mean the process of reasoning to the best (most apparently reasonable) legal theory on the basis of the best evidence. Got it.”— Duke Newcomb Impressive. Uncommon. Rare case of fully grasping it. Nice work. The Darwinian survival of theories of causality in the competitive market for infallibility of juridical decisions given the harm caused and restitution demanded. —end— ( FYI: Daniel Roland Anderson: Another one with potential? ) Edit

  • Q:What Do You Mean by Falsification? (in Court)

    “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FALSIFICATION? (IN COURT)”

    —“I don’t think I understand what you mean by “falsification.” I doubt you mean it in the Popperian sense because it is entirely possible to put questions before the judiciary that pray for verification, rather than falsification. And falsification does not just happen on the basis of substantive “operational” concerns but also on matters of legal or administrative procedure.”— Duke Newcomb (awesome alias)

    DEFINITION OF FALSIFICATION No amount of justification or confirmation provides us with satisfaction of demand for infallibility given the question at hand. Only due diligence by attempted falsification of identity, internal consistency, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, external correspondence, completeness, full accounting, parsimony, and coherence. JURIDICAL FALSIFICATION The jury and judge do not find a matter of truth or falsehood, but sufficient falsification of alternatives to render a judgement of under reasonable doubt. REGARDING ‘PROOF’ In law, “Proof” does not exist because existential reality is not constructed axiomatically and not closed – so we only use the term by analogy. Instead, we are providing a theory (argument) and evidence (external correspondence) that alternative explanations (theories) are unreasonable (fail to satisfy the demand for consistency, possibility, rationality, correspondence, full accounting, and parsimony. This confusion is possible because of the inarticulate vocabulary of legal jargon that is non-operational, and not constructed from the tests of demonstrated interest, or court insured property constructed by demonstrated interest, or reciprocity, or argued under testimonial truth. This is what P-law provides: disambiguation and operationalization, and therefore scientifically stated, internally consistent, law (rules of jurisprudence). RESULTS OF FALSIFICATION Restating your claim in scientific prose: It is possible to test a theory by putting a question before the judiciary and determining whether or not they falsify it. All that it tells us is that it survived falsification or not. Nothing else. WHAT ABOUT PROCEDURE? Legal and administrative procedure have nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but with regulation. Whether those regulations affect truth, falsehood, or reciprocity, irreciprocity is a matter of convenience (cost) for the court and nothing to do with truth and reciprocity. CAUSAL RELATIONS The Natural Law of Reciprocity > A constitution for operational under it > a judiciary for adjudicating differences under it > Procedures (regulations) demanded by the court (often arbitrary, often pragmatic, but not always) < regulations (enforcement of, proceduralization of, legislation and command) < Legislation (contract or command) < Command. A SMART GUY GETS IT RIGHT AWAY —“Ah. It is not the proposition before the trier of fact that is falsified, it is the alternatives. And they are not falsified in the sense of having their falsehood established. They are falsified in the sense of being inferior in their explanatory power of the facts of the matter before deliberation to the preferred theory of the case. By falsification, you mean the process of reasoning to the best (most apparently reasonable) legal theory on the basis of the best evidence. Got it.”— Duke Newcomb Impressive. Uncommon. Rare case of fully grasping it. Nice work. The Darwinian survival of theories of causality in the competitive market for infallibility of juridical decisions given the harm caused and restitution demanded. —end— ( FYI: Daniel Roland Anderson: Another one with potential? ) Edit

  • I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership

    I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership. https://t.co/DXSVllsIho

  • I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership

    I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/i-wouldnt-know-how-to-test-secret-society-membership/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:39:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267450719248035842

  • I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership.

    Oct 26, 2019, 12:08 PM

    —“Does the P constitution support citizen legislatures by prohibiting lawyers, foreign nationals, and secret society membership? The original #13A”—Kurt King @KurtKurtking

    Caution: P-Law only tests for reciprocity. P-law can be used to write any constitution whatever, for any polity, as long as it’s transparent. But, if you mean our proposed US constitution, its Prohibitions are: Lawyers, Govt., Immigrants under six generations, and Foreign Nationals; restores houses for the classes and genders; and requires demonstrated achievement in military, family, biz. I wouldn’t know how to ‘test’ secret society membership. I think all of it’s pretty much conspiracy theory – I mean religions? I would say instead that all organizations pursuing irreciprocity are by definition criminal, and criminals cannot sit The Jury of any House. There is very little reason for a federal legislature under P-law because we revert to european tradition wherein the Houses Juries but not majoritarian bodies. This means that anyone can propose a contract of the commons that does not violate the law, and then the houses (juries) vote whether to deny it. The selection of jurors of the houses is random, and so it’s impossible to use special interests to achieve your ends. Instead all contracts of the commons are subject to transparent public debate under which all statements thereof must be truthful and reciprocal and not in violation of the Law of reciprocity, or the constitution. This de-politicizes the country, and reduces people to either reading ‘proposals’ themselves, or using public intellectuals who are also limited to truthful reciprocal speech, to debate for and against different groups interests. ANy attempt to conspire between these intellectuals to deceive the public is also prosecutable. That means far better more talented smarter people will lead the public intellectual discourse. And even so, ‘parasites’ (liberals) will be prohibited from federal discourse if not all discourse. My preference is a return to monarchy, so that the process of forwarding ideas to the jury for decision is pre-filtered by the Cabinet, or the Cabinet is overridden by request of the people from the jury. However, that said, the federal government is devolved back to the original constitution as a provisioner of insurance of last resort limited to military, judicial, treasury, and insurance functions, and prohibited from interference in norms within the ‘states’. In other words he constitution restores the historical relationship between the catholic church as a juridical body between the states, and thes state as a local body, except using rule of law by P-law of reciprocity.

  • I Wouldn’t Know how To ‘Test’ Secret Society Membership.

    Oct 26, 2019, 12:08 PM

    —“Does the P constitution support citizen legislatures by prohibiting lawyers, foreign nationals, and secret society membership? The original #13A”—Kurt King @KurtKurtking

    Caution: P-Law only tests for reciprocity. P-law can be used to write any constitution whatever, for any polity, as long as it’s transparent. But, if you mean our proposed US constitution, its Prohibitions are: Lawyers, Govt., Immigrants under six generations, and Foreign Nationals; restores houses for the classes and genders; and requires demonstrated achievement in military, family, biz. I wouldn’t know how to ‘test’ secret society membership. I think all of it’s pretty much conspiracy theory – I mean religions? I would say instead that all organizations pursuing irreciprocity are by definition criminal, and criminals cannot sit The Jury of any House. There is very little reason for a federal legislature under P-law because we revert to european tradition wherein the Houses Juries but not majoritarian bodies. This means that anyone can propose a contract of the commons that does not violate the law, and then the houses (juries) vote whether to deny it. The selection of jurors of the houses is random, and so it’s impossible to use special interests to achieve your ends. Instead all contracts of the commons are subject to transparent public debate under which all statements thereof must be truthful and reciprocal and not in violation of the Law of reciprocity, or the constitution. This de-politicizes the country, and reduces people to either reading ‘proposals’ themselves, or using public intellectuals who are also limited to truthful reciprocal speech, to debate for and against different groups interests. ANy attempt to conspire between these intellectuals to deceive the public is also prosecutable. That means far better more talented smarter people will lead the public intellectual discourse. And even so, ‘parasites’ (liberals) will be prohibited from federal discourse if not all discourse. My preference is a return to monarchy, so that the process of forwarding ideas to the jury for decision is pre-filtered by the Cabinet, or the Cabinet is overridden by request of the people from the jury. However, that said, the federal government is devolved back to the original constitution as a provisioner of insurance of last resort limited to military, judicial, treasury, and insurance functions, and prohibited from interference in norms within the ‘states’. In other words he constitution restores the historical relationship between the catholic church as a juridical body between the states, and thes state as a local body, except using rule of law by P-law of reciprocity.

  • The Constitution is for normies, not the methodology

    The Constitution is for normies, not the methodology. https://t.co/92bH68tMGJ

  • The Constitution is for normies, not the methodology

    The Constitution is for normies, not the methodology. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-constitution-is-for-normies-not-the-methodology/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 12:47:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267437511237947392

  • The Constitution is for normies, not the methodology.

    THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE FOR NORMIES I’m pretty sure the ‘constitution’ is the deliverable you’re looking for. I think I should be able to get it to where it has the full case in it. And it’ll be a long paper, short ‘book’ or what was called a pamphlet in the past. Working on it and it’s getting ‘clear’. The List of “proofs’” of internal consistency of P-Law judgements will be for the politically interested. The book is for supergeeks. If I live long enough to work on religion that will be for everyone.