Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • @Euroslam —“you do not understand dictatorship”— Dictatorship refers to rule

    @Euroslam

    —“you do not understand dictatorship”—

    Dictatorship refers to rule by discretion of an individual. See? That was easy.

    —“you do not conflate monarchy with the overarching ideology”—
    Um. i correctly disambiguate western monarchy under western law which limits the king as much as the people, and you attempt to equate discretionary rule of more primitive peoples with rule of law of western peoples. This is the foundation of western civilization. It is not the foundation of any other civilization. For reasons I’ve explained in depth a hundred times.

    —“Dictatorship is … absolute rule of a leader, [ translated: the means of production of goods, services, information and institutions does not matter]”—

    Correct, and that is not monarchy. Only the west had kings(pagans) and monarchs (christianity), others had chieftains, rulers, and emperors. We did not invent terms to disambiguate the west from the less developed peoples.

    We fought many european wars to prevent the disease the Alexander found in the east from infecting our people. The abrahamic religions and the church were the second attempt to invade the west with the disease of the east. This is becaue the intelligence and level of neoteny in the east was lower than the west. The western man was capable of sovereignty and the eastern slave is not.

    —“So [define] non-dictatorship monarchy.”—
    European monarchy. Rule of law. Wherein the ruler is bound by the same law as the people – first among equals, producer of commons, and judge of last resort. A ‘decider of last resort’. Where in the monarchy runs the polity as a business, where his rewards are taxes, that allow him to invest (go to war) for additional territories (compete).

    —“[islam will prevail]”—
    Well islam is a cancer upon mankind, just like judaism, christianity. Does cancer prevail? Only as long as it has a host. It took a long time for Muslims to run out of hosts to survive parasitically upon. And the west defeated them with a trivial number of forces each time the chose to. Why would the west not defeat them again, this time? I mean, the only reason we don’t exterminate them all is simply good manners.

    I’m providing the cure for cancer: all the abrahamic breeds of cancer.

    The only reason there is any islam in the west today is women voters.
    Just like the only reason there was any judaism in the west – female whores.
    Just like the only reason christianity got a foothold in the west – weak willed women.

    The problem is easily fixed.
    The anglo germanic civilization will persist.
    Islam, no longer protected by christians, will be contained by the great forces of every other civilization.
    And that is the future.
    Why? Because islam only expands today by tolerance of christian women in the west.
    And that problem is easily (shortly) fixed.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-14 16:12:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102440683341521909

  • The problem with violating conventions of war, is that if you lose, they hang th

    The problem with violating conventions of war, is that if you lose, they hang the lot of you. If you obey the conventions of war they just sigh a treaty of peach

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-14 00:35:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1150202202973192198

  • @ohiostin The only deportation that can and will happen is when we do it ourselv

    @ohiostin The only deportation that can and will happen is when we do it ourselves under a new constitution that explicitly revokes the current standards.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-13 13:11:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102434308714157488

  • Posse Comitatus Would men do that? What would be the consequence if they did?

    Posse Comitatus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
    Would men do that?
    What would be the consequence if they did?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-13 01:04:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149847072738357248

    Reply addressees: @OrienPermu

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149835860885561346

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable โ€” we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149835860885561346

  • 2) Adverse possession: in land disputes you may claim adverse possession (taking

    2) Adverse possession: in land disputes you may claim adverse possession (taking of others property) by capital investment in it (maintenance) if it is not against their interests (does not cause harm), is public (visible, known), and for one more more decades (a long time).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 13:03:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149665604510502913

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1149662309897211908

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    1) Complex test of natural law. Eggs deposited for safekeeping. Clinic accidentally commits an involuntary transfer. The birth mother unknowing recipient. The birth mother paying the costs of the involuntary transfer. Restitution to be paid by clinic. vs fence borders cases… https://twitter.com/sarahzhang/status/1149359060992614400

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1149662309897211908

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    1) Complex test of natural law. Eggs deposited for safekeeping. Clinic accidentally commits an involuntary transfer. The birth mother unknowing recipient. The birth mother paying the costs of the involuntary transfer. Restitution to be paid by clinic. vs fence borders cases… https://t.co/4onOLD1ePL

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1149662309897211908

  • THE LAW ON GOVERNMENTAL ORDERS Markets are necessary for the production of inves

    THE LAW ON GOVERNMENTAL ORDERS

    Markets are necessary for the production of investments in commons among peoples with uncommon means, uncommon interests, and limited interests to invest. It allows uncommon interests to cooperate by uncommon means, on uncommon ends.

    Voting is only useful for the choice of priority of investments in commons, amongst a group with common means and interest, given limited resources to invest. It allows common interests to cooperate, by common means, on common ends.

    Rule is only useful for the choice of the production of commons in pursuit of a singular design of future conditions, by directing the greatest concentration of resources behind the most direct means of achieving that end.

    Dictatorship is only useful in times of war, when the entirety of the people, their capital, and the territory must be allocated to the production of victory.

    Historically speaking, Durable commons are best produced by monarchy; voting to limit the raising expansion of fees (taxes); and Markets for the production of private goods and services.

    The optimal form of government is the one that makes use of each of these orders only for the circumstances for which it is useful.

    The only possible insurer of that process is a monarchy, professional warriors, and a militia whose franchise depends upon it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:57:45 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426231781425441

  • YOU DON’T PERSUADE PARASITES —“You don’t persuade parasites – you implement la

    YOU DON’T PERSUADE PARASITES

    —“You don’t persuade parasites – you implement law that disincentivizes their behaviour. Persuasion is for moral posturing and marketing – law is for molding human behaviour.”—Bill Joslin

    Three sentences. All quotable. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:53:48 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426216262854360

  • “Good tort law punishes frivolous lawsuits sufficiently to keep them to a manage

    —“Good tort law punishes frivolous lawsuits sufficiently to keep them to a manageable level. If you want to sue somebody for not warranting their speech you are going to have to warranty the speech you use to accuse them in your lawsuit. … Reciprocity in all things.”—Noah J Revoy

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:33:12 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424719696889043

  • THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH —“One of the counter currents

    THE SCOPE OF PROPERTARIAN LAW ON TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    —“One of the counter currents arguments was that in a Proprietarian system of law. privacy would be wrecked, because everyone would be suing each other for insufficient warranty of speech. So you would constantly have to justify that your speech was as good as it could have been according to your knowledge at the time. It does seem like a high bar no?”— Michael Churchill

    The bar is science, politics, economics, law, education, religion – in other words we avoid it anyway when speaking to one another. the SCOPE is advocacy of HARM.

    What would you want to sue intellectuals, public officials, news media, political activists for when making public speech?

    Both sides of the discourse want the other to stop. My argument is that once they stop they can only negotiate trades, and truthfully so.

    Which as far as I know solves the problem of politics: extension of market demand to all speech.

    In real life people adapt to laws that promote cooperation because its in their interests.

    Law that is enforceable under tort creates good people without state monitoring, interference, or monopoly out of individual and group self interest.

    Tort law is the via negativa market that mirrors the exchange via positiva market. we need both remunerative and restitutionary markets.

    Asymmetries permit abuses. and neutrality remains possible at all times.

    How this affronts privacy when public speech is by definition public not private, is beyond me.

    My understanding is that humans with interest in public affairs will seek education sufficient for truthful discourse, and that the education system will adapt to provide it.

    P-Law does not ask you to produce public speech and be right, only TRUTHFUL AND MORAL by practicing due dilligence sufficient for the demands, claims, or criticisms you are making.

    P teaches us that t is fairly easy to perform such due diligence if we are taught it like grammar and ethics as we were in the past.

    The socialists removed these from education in order to undermine our civlization – by design. We can not only restore these skills to the common people out of their own self defense, but state them in scientific terms and operational logic rather, than religious, traditional, normative and moral .. and in doing so restoring truth, sacredness of the commons, and good citizens ship to our people.

    I think things trough. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    It’s my job. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    -curt

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:59 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424718754657778

  • PUBLIC SPEECH IS TO THE PUBLIC NOT IN PUBLIC –“Is it a correct summation that p

    PUBLIC SPEECH IS TO THE PUBLIC NOT IN PUBLIC

    –“Is it a correct summation that public speech is not a speech in public but a speech to the public? Because that’s what I’ve been telling people.”—Martin ล tฤ›pรกn

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:32:41 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424717649595144