Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • What It Says Right There in Text…

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:38 PM by Jerry Odom

    —“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the “consent” of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, ….”—

    So what it says here is our rights don’t come from government or from words on paper. Let’s be real here the only reason that we actually create government is to protect the rights of the people. So, what are inalienable rights? Among the natural rights of the people, are life, liberty, and property together with the right to protect and defend them with the best possible means possible. So if you don’t have the right to life you’re dead, if you don’t have liberty in your servant of the government you created, if you don’t have a right to property and that you don’t have a right to life and your subject to whoever owns the property, if you don’t have a right to defend these things than you are slave you are not a free man, if you have to ask permission of the government protect my life my and my property then you are not a free man, inalienable rights are not subject to laws of man especially when we gave them the ability to govern based on the consent of the people. Edit

  • What It Says Right There in Text…

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:38 PM by Jerry Odom

    —“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the “consent” of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, ….”—

    So what it says here is our rights don’t come from government or from words on paper. Let’s be real here the only reason that we actually create government is to protect the rights of the people. So, what are inalienable rights? Among the natural rights of the people, are life, liberty, and property together with the right to protect and defend them with the best possible means possible. So if you don’t have the right to life you’re dead, if you don’t have liberty in your servant of the government you created, if you don’t have a right to property and that you don’t have a right to life and your subject to whoever owns the property, if you don’t have a right to defend these things than you are slave you are not a free man, if you have to ask permission of the government protect my life my and my property then you are not a free man, inalienable rights are not subject to laws of man especially when we gave them the ability to govern based on the consent of the people. Edit

  • Inalienable rights

    Inalienable rights https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/inalienable-rights/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 23:05:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264694000302411781

  • Inalienable rights

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:39 PM

    Inalienable means not only that it can’t be taken from you – but you can’t let it be taken from you, and you can’t give it away.

  • Inalienable rights

    Feb 1, 2020, 7:39 PM

    Inalienable means not only that it can’t be taken from you – but you can’t let it be taken from you, and you can’t give it away.

  • Example of How Legal Education Fails

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM

    —“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

    Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

    —“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

    That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

    —-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

    1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

    —“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

    Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

    —“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

    So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.

  • Example of How Legal Education Fails

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM

    —“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

    Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

    —“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

    That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

    —-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

    1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

    —“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

    Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

    —“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

    So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.

  • Coming to Closure on Abortion

    —“How is my plot of land not my property? I can let you plow my fields and even plant your seed within, but ultimately I own this plot of land and have the ultimate say on what grows here. Perhaps I need more understanding of what a right is. Should I not have the right to uproot any weeds forcibly planted in my fields? “—AunMarie Grooms

    Analogy not equality. You can’t own a human, even a fetus or child without others insuring you can. I’m not arguing in favor of this. I’m just stating the facts.

    —“Study admiralty/merchant law”—Justin Coone

    —“Please explain further, as this is not computing. I don’t need anyone else’s authority nor insurance over a fetus no one else may know even exist. Personally, I would not murder any offspring of mine, pending it was not what I consider an act of war (rape) and therefore the result of said act of war an enemy combatant.”—AunMarie Grooms

    ^No but the minute you involve someone else in the abortion you are not acting on your own. For example, why do we resist assisted suicide? Because it involves another party in a decision closed to restitution (reversal).

    —“Interesting. Thank you for the clarity. So as long as you know how much juniper berries it takes to cause a miscarriage or can brew yourself a herbal tea when you wish to take the elders walk, and you are not having to enlist anyone else’s help, you have ownership of yours and your offsprings life.”—AunMarie Grooms

    “I have ownership of my offspring’s life” Do you? When does that ownership end? When they can survive on their ow ie take ownership of their life? Infants will die very quickly without care so do we assume that Mothers (in your scenario it appears Fathers don’t have any Ownership of their offspring) are free to kill their infants? It’s the same argument, ‘My offspring is inconveniencing me (or maybe it’s simply whimsical decision with no reasoning whatsoever) and since it’s mine I can kill it if I like.’

    —“Please understand that personally I am pro-life. However, there are logical arguments to be had here contrary from my own personal feelings. The weed analogy makes perfect since to someone who actually tends to gardens. It’s an …See More”—AunMarie Grooms

    Fetuses don’t manifest in Wombs by happenstance\forces outside of a Woman’s control (barring rape). ‘I allowed a gardener to tend my garden and now I have a weed. I’m going to remove the weed as is my right because I own the garden’ – this is your analogy? “Is the agreement that she will manage the garden in his absence?” Don’t ask me how to make your ridiculous analogy work, I’ve rejected it from the start because it makes no sense. It serves as a diversion\argument suppression tactic whether by design or accident.”—Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Yes, the woman, from what I understand, has complete and utter control over what she does with her womb.”—AunMarie Grooms

    —“So she is responsible for the life growing inside it and bares the responsibility for ending it. Deliberately ending a viable Human life without consent would be called…?”—Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Whose consent? The unborn child cannot consent neither to life nor death. However; it could be viewed as a parasite. (Which I understand is a new post modern explanation/excuse).”—AunMarie Grooms

    —“Could consenting to risking Pregnancy be legally considered consent to a 9 month contract\obligation to seeing a pregnancy to term? I can agree with Men having a similar 12-18 year (financial or otherwise) obligation to a viable Life. Is there not a negative psychological impact to the Commons by allowing Women to kill viable Human lives which wouldn’t exist with their consent?”—Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Seems more than fair to me.”—AunMarie Grooms

    —“Is it an issue that a fetus doesn’t have the ability to ‘exchange rights’ with the Mother? I wouldn’t have thought so since infants\toddlers don’t have that ability either and I don’t see any Pro-Choice people saying it’s morally acceptable for a Mother to kill them…”–Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Until recently, with the VA laws and abortion up to delivery and after. “Make the baby comfortable and let the parents decide”. Historically speaking men had the right to life and death not only of their children but also their wives and livestock. Women would kill them selves and their children to prevent them from becoming slaves should their husbands lose the war.”—AunMarie Grooms

    Correct. by having sex (enjoyment) you took responsibility (manufactured, produced) for a fetus and it had no choice. Thats simply a fact. What we choose to do about it. Abort, externalize costs, create an unwanted and unloved child, and create broken dysfunctional families is the trade off. So to say we prefer abortion, to infanticide, to producing unhealthy people, to But to say it’s not an act of murder is simply false. It’s murder. We have capital punishment and it was always a good thing to have. We have warfare and it’s always a good thing to have. So, it’s not like we don’t justify intentional murder. We do. This is one of those cases where we do. The solution of course is self control by both parties. Or, failing self control, protection.

    —“So by your calculations, Legal Abortion transfers the least amount of cost to the Commons vs other options? I’d be very interested to know if\how you estimated the ultimate cost (ie primarily psychological and perhaps also the Selection\Epi-genetic effects on Personality of the group) of allowing the murder of otherwise viable life of our In-Group/Kin? Is it a case of, it would be a minority of under-class or borderline underclass Women who get abortions so the gene pool would still ultimately be selecting against such behaviour?”—Grant Cameron

    I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that IS the argument that’s being used. The data is increasingly convincing though. But it’s at the low end (reduction in crime), and is offset by the decline in middle and top end (reduction in aggregate Iq)

    —“Sorry I like P, but baby murder is baby murder. Don’t care what system we are under or how you justify it.”—Jesse Daughtry

    —“I agree. But like the argument above sometimes murder is a necessary evil. You don’t like baby murder. Some people think that capital punishment in general is equally as evil. Where is P going to land with this?”—AunMarie Grooms

    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.”

  • Coming to Closure on Abortion

    —“How is my plot of land not my property? I can let you plow my fields and even plant your seed within, but ultimately I own this plot of land and have the ultimate say on what grows here. Perhaps I need more understanding of what a right is. Should I not have the right to uproot any weeds forcibly planted in my fields? “—AunMarie Grooms

    Analogy not equality. You can’t own a human, even a fetus or child without others insuring you can. I’m not arguing in favor of this. I’m just stating the facts.

    —“Study admiralty/merchant law”—Justin Coone

    —“Please explain further, as this is not computing. I don’t need anyone else’s authority nor insurance over a fetus no one else may know even exist. Personally, I would not murder any offspring of mine, pending it was not what I consider an act of war (rape) and therefore the result of said act of war an enemy combatant.”—AunMarie Grooms

    ^No but the minute you involve someone else in the abortion you are not acting on your own. For example, why do we resist assisted suicide? Because it involves another party in a decision closed to restitution (reversal).

    —“Interesting. Thank you for the clarity. So as long as you know how much juniper berries it takes to cause a miscarriage or can brew yourself a herbal tea when you wish to take the elders walk, and you are not having to enlist anyone else’s help, you have ownership of yours and your offsprings life.”—AunMarie Grooms

    “I have ownership of my offspring’s life” Do you? When does that ownership end? When they can survive on their ow ie take ownership of their life? Infants will die very quickly without care so do we assume that Mothers (in your scenario it appears Fathers don’t have any Ownership of their offspring) are free to kill their infants? It’s the same argument, ‘My offspring is inconveniencing me (or maybe it’s simply whimsical decision with no reasoning whatsoever) and since it’s mine I can kill it if I like.’

    —“Please understand that personally I am pro-life. However, there are logical arguments to be had here contrary from my own personal feelings. The weed analogy makes perfect since to someone who actually tends to gardens. It’s an …See More”—AunMarie Grooms

    Fetuses don’t manifest in Wombs by happenstance\forces outside of a Woman’s control (barring rape). ‘I allowed a gardener to tend my garden and now I have a weed. I’m going to remove the weed as is my right because I own the garden’ – this is your analogy? “Is the agreement that she will manage the garden in his absence?” Don’t ask me how to make your ridiculous analogy work, I’ve rejected it from the start because it makes no sense. It serves as a diversion\argument suppression tactic whether by design or accident.”—Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Yes, the woman, from what I understand, has complete and utter control over what she does with her womb.”—AunMarie Grooms

    —“So she is responsible for the life growing inside it and bares the responsibility for ending it. Deliberately ending a viable Human life without consent would be called…?”—Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Whose consent? The unborn child cannot consent neither to life nor death. However; it could be viewed as a parasite. (Which I understand is a new post modern explanation/excuse).”—AunMarie Grooms

    —“Could consenting to risking Pregnancy be legally considered consent to a 9 month contract\obligation to seeing a pregnancy to term? I can agree with Men having a similar 12-18 year (financial or otherwise) obligation to a viable Life. Is there not a negative psychological impact to the Commons by allowing Women to kill viable Human lives which wouldn’t exist with their consent?”—Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Seems more than fair to me.”—AunMarie Grooms

    —“Is it an issue that a fetus doesn’t have the ability to ‘exchange rights’ with the Mother? I wouldn’t have thought so since infants\toddlers don’t have that ability either and I don’t see any Pro-Choice people saying it’s morally acceptable for a Mother to kill them…”–Grant Cameron McPhee

    —“Until recently, with the VA laws and abortion up to delivery and after. “Make the baby comfortable and let the parents decide”. Historically speaking men had the right to life and death not only of their children but also their wives and livestock. Women would kill them selves and their children to prevent them from becoming slaves should their husbands lose the war.”—AunMarie Grooms

    Correct. by having sex (enjoyment) you took responsibility (manufactured, produced) for a fetus and it had no choice. Thats simply a fact. What we choose to do about it. Abort, externalize costs, create an unwanted and unloved child, and create broken dysfunctional families is the trade off. So to say we prefer abortion, to infanticide, to producing unhealthy people, to But to say it’s not an act of murder is simply false. It’s murder. We have capital punishment and it was always a good thing to have. We have warfare and it’s always a good thing to have. So, it’s not like we don’t justify intentional murder. We do. This is one of those cases where we do. The solution of course is self control by both parties. Or, failing self control, protection.

    —“So by your calculations, Legal Abortion transfers the least amount of cost to the Commons vs other options? I’d be very interested to know if\how you estimated the ultimate cost (ie primarily psychological and perhaps also the Selection\Epi-genetic effects on Personality of the group) of allowing the murder of otherwise viable life of our In-Group/Kin? Is it a case of, it would be a minority of under-class or borderline underclass Women who get abortions so the gene pool would still ultimately be selecting against such behaviour?”—Grant Cameron

    I’m not making that argument. I’m saying that IS the argument that’s being used. The data is increasingly convincing though. But it’s at the low end (reduction in crime), and is offset by the decline in middle and top end (reduction in aggregate Iq)

    —“Sorry I like P, but baby murder is baby murder. Don’t care what system we are under or how you justify it.”—Jesse Daughtry

    —“I agree. But like the argument above sometimes murder is a necessary evil. You don’t like baby murder. Some people think that capital punishment in general is equally as evil. Where is P going to land with this?”—AunMarie Grooms

    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.”

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

    —“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 irreciprocal. 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.