Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Will the P constitution include a modern version of the law of Hue and Cry?

    May 8, 2020, 10:48 AM By Noah J Revoy

    —“Will the P constitution include a modern version of the law of Hue and Cry? “By the Statute of Winchester of 1285, 13 Edw. I cc. 1 and 4, it was provided that anyone, either a constable or a private citizen, who witnessed a crime shall make hue and cry, and that the hue and cry must be kept up against the fleeing criminal from town to town and from county to county, until the felon is apprehended and delivered to the sheriff. All able-bodied men, upon hearing the shouts, were obliged to assist in the pursuit of the criminal, which makes it comparable to the posse comitatus. Men who failed to join the posse “the whole hundred … shall be answerable” for the theft or robbery committed, in effect a form of collective punishment for failing to uphold the law. Those who raised a hue and cry falsely were themselves guilty of a crime.” Every man a sherif.”—

    Yes, it’s in there: NEW CONSTITUTION > … Article III – Rights, Obligations, and In-alienations > … … Section IV – Reciprocity in Defense > … … … Topic: Extra-Judicial Discipline, Cessation, Restitution, and Punishment … … … … Item 7 – The Obligation To Defend … … … … Item 8 – Obligation to Discipline … … … … … Item 9 – Obligation to Accept Discipline …

  • May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— F

    May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH

    Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciproal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils. === UPDATE === To answer AunMarie Grooms’ question – P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— F

    May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Woman have a right. It’s simple property rights.”— Frankie Hollywood @TheRealFMCH

    Actually, it’s the most difficult question of law. Rights are exchanged. So no it’s not a property right. Its irreciproal. So no it’s not a right of any kind. Instead it’s decided by consequences. And because we coddle women. We don’t hold them responsible for their actions. We allow them to murder. Conversely we don’t coddle men and we hold them accountable. We allow women to murder and fail to take responsibility for their actions because they historically pursue risky abortions, murder their infants, or mistreat their young, reduce their marriage value, remain in poverty, and externalize all those harms on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with rights. Its an arbitrary judgement of the lesser of two horrible evils. === UPDATE === To answer AunMarie Grooms’ question – P lands with: “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • Republic Existed to Create the Perfect Structure

    Oct 5, 2019, 12:10 PM

    —“The Founding Fathers had a similar goal [to Doolittle]. They believed a republic existed to create the perfect structure where a man could pursue virtue, or was free to pursue virtue, explicitly rejecting any hedonistic concepts of “freedom”. They did not consider any form of democracy fit for non-virtuous men who did not have virtue as their primary goal. That it would descend into chaos. A complete monarchy populated by virtuous men is far preferable to a democracy infested with unprincipled degenerates. As we’re observing, in real time.”—James Louis LaSalle

  • Republic Existed to Create the Perfect Structure

    Oct 5, 2019, 12:10 PM

    —“The Founding Fathers had a similar goal [to Doolittle]. They believed a republic existed to create the perfect structure where a man could pursue virtue, or was free to pursue virtue, explicitly rejecting any hedonistic concepts of “freedom”. They did not consider any form of democracy fit for non-virtuous men who did not have virtue as their primary goal. That it would descend into chaos. A complete monarchy populated by virtuous men is far preferable to a democracy infested with unprincipled degenerates. As we’re observing, in real time.”—James Louis LaSalle

  • Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whe

    Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whether we be trained or not, and the debate as one of cost not existence. The result of which was that being armed with practice one or twice a year was enough – if affordable. It was never a question of our bearing arms.

  • Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whe

    Oct 5, 2019, 7:23 PM As far as I know the argument over the militia was only whether we be trained or not, and the debate as one of cost not existence. The result of which was that being armed with practice one or twice a year was enough – if affordable. It was never a question of our bearing arms.

  • Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law

    Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/ending-leftism-is-a-matter-of-ending-parasitism-by-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 18:51:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265717313606746112

  • Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law

    Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes:

    (a) multi-ethnicity (genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.

  • Ending Leftism Is a Matter of Ending Parasitism by Law

    Oct 6, 2019, 5:30 PM Of the choices we could make to end the current politio-demographic conflict turning into civil war includes:

    (a) multi-ethnicity (genetic homogeneity, (b) multi-culturalism (cultural homogeneity), (c) democratic process (universal access to political power), (d) or political ideology (Dysgenic or Eugenic), the most obvious choice is to end leftism as a political preference, and frustrate the undermining of western civilization. And ending leftism is a matter of ending parasitism by law. The rest will follow if leftism isn’t legally possible, and is even illegal speech. The market will serve its purposes. Now, I suspect that we will end democratic process as well. And this well end mutli-culturalism. And this will end immigration. But mutli-ethincity would remain, even if by neighborhood, or city, or state, or region. My understanding is that without subsidy immigration dries up and reverses. But the urban rich and poor, suburban-rural middle will continue. By definancializing the system we restore the balance between urban-high-low vs the middle.