(FB 1544807368 Timestamp) IF IT WAS COMMON SENSE WE WOULDN’T NEED THE WHITE LAW —“I follow Curt, but most of what heâs says seems like common sense.”— A Friend (from Chat) So yes. It is f–cking common sense. The difference is that I defend that common sense both logically and scientifically, because what is ‘common sense’ to you ‘is not common’. I made a Law of what you consider ‘common sense’. It is that law, the constitution that embodies it, and the logic and science in defense of it, that make it open to utility in persuasion, resistance to falsification, and institutional implementation, rather than simply a difference of moral bias and condition. I wrote our law. No one ever did that before. We just ‘do it’. For thousands of years. Individual Sovereignty, Truth, Duty (and charity), The Natural law of Reciprocity (Tort), the Sovereignty Judge and the Jury, and markets in everything that result. The Militia of a distributed dictatorship of sovereign men.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545055782 Timestamp) BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” seems like absolutism— Hue Whitman That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545055782 Timestamp) BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” seems like absolutism— Hue Whitman That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545088319 Timestamp) A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle —“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman Answer by Bill Joslin: The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545088319 Timestamp) A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle —“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman Answer by Bill Joslin: The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1545588763 Timestamp) IR-RECIPROCITY AND LICENSE OF PREDATION AGAINST US. It breaks the contract and the law, since if they have no duty to protect, and we have no right to defend, it legalizes predation – which is precisely what we see. Ergo: return to the militia: every man a craftsman, a warrior, a sheriff, a judge, and his own legislator. EVERY MAN A SHERIFF.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545534356 Timestamp) –“Yes please but when is the book coming!?”— Vladyslav Romanyuk IMO: just the constitution is probably the most practical. classes will be easier than the book. book still feels extremely difficult to me as i edit it. constitution widest reach. classes easiest to really learn it. online material using the outline, videos, selected posts, reading list, a bit less easy, but certainly accessible. book very technical and thorough, and pretty hard in my opinion. no way around it. going to need all of those methods. core is epistemology/grammars/operational language, defeating fictionalisms. everything built on it. but total scope and application is huge. ) i mean what bill keeps saying is that general knowledge is required. in that sense you sort of need the classes. i mean we are teaching western civ…. all of it … in scientific language. we are teaching the school and college education people did not receive. its big. its a degree in the science of civilization
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545534356 Timestamp) –“Yes please but when is the book coming!?”— Vladyslav Romanyuk IMO: just the constitution is probably the most practical. classes will be easier than the book. book still feels extremely difficult to me as i edit it. constitution widest reach. classes easiest to really learn it. online material using the outline, videos, selected posts, reading list, a bit less easy, but certainly accessible. book very technical and thorough, and pretty hard in my opinion. no way around it. going to need all of those methods. core is epistemology/grammars/operational language, defeating fictionalisms. everything built on it. but total scope and application is huge. ) i mean what bill keeps saying is that general knowledge is required. in that sense you sort of need the classes. i mean we are teaching western civ…. all of it … in scientific language. we are teaching the school and college education people did not receive. its big. its a degree in the science of civilization
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546014034 Timestamp) IP ABUSE OF THE DAY Athletes Donât Own Their Tattoos by Alex Tabarrok —“NYTimes: Any creative illustration âfixed in a tangible mediumâ is eligible for copyright, and, according to the United States Copyright Office, that includes the ink displayed on someoneâs skin. What many people donât realize, legal experts said, is that the copyright is inherently owned by the tattoo artist, not the person with the tattoos.”— Some tattoo artists have sold their rights to firms which are now suing video game producers who depict the tattoos on the players likenesses: –“The company Solid Oak Sketches obtained the copyrights for five tattoos on three basketball players â including the portrait and area code on Mr. James â before suing in 2016 because they were used in the NBA 2K series. …Before filing its lawsuit, Solid Oak sought $819,500 for past infringement and proposed a $1.14 million deal for future use of the tattoos.”—- To avoid this shakedown, players are now being told to get licenses from artists before getting tattooed.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546014034 Timestamp) IP ABUSE OF THE DAY Athletes Donât Own Their Tattoos by Alex Tabarrok —“NYTimes: Any creative illustration âfixed in a tangible mediumâ is eligible for copyright, and, according to the United States Copyright Office, that includes the ink displayed on someoneâs skin. What many people donât realize, legal experts said, is that the copyright is inherently owned by the tattoo artist, not the person with the tattoos.”— Some tattoo artists have sold their rights to firms which are now suing video game producers who depict the tattoos on the players likenesses: –“The company Solid Oak Sketches obtained the copyrights for five tattoos on three basketball players â including the portrait and area code on Mr. James â before suing in 2016 because they were used in the NBA 2K series. …Before filing its lawsuit, Solid Oak sought $819,500 for past infringement and proposed a $1.14 million deal for future use of the tattoos.”—- To avoid this shakedown, players are now being told to get licenses from artists before getting tattooed.