Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • “Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103

    –“Curt: what if something happens to you?”–

    a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103 Foundations is done, and LAW203/6 and we have worked through the method, the definitions, and then the long list of applications of that law, we have a purely descriptive science of the psychological and social sciences. I am on the third revision of LAW103 – Foundations, and it is … well it’s where you can understand it pretty easily as a single thing in a hierarchy of applications. And that the number of component parts is just a handful that I could roll off right now with east. I will be done with 103 fairly shortly, and doing so has helped me shorten the book down to something very simple. Between the constitution (which is a chinese menu) , the Course LAW103/LAW203/6, and a book containing both, the work will be rock solid. And it is achievable. And while y’all complain about me taking so long (and I complain too) the time I take matters because it allows me to turn all of this prose into something parsimonious, clear, and accessible to most people by one means or another.

    b) The Institute owns everything I do other than my software biz which is owned by me and my investors. If anything happens to me all IP goes either to the institute, or to my investors, with a portion of any software profits for my family.

    c) In the case where something happens to me, the institute, a few people whose names I won’t mention, and the donors will have license to do what they will with the work after I’m gone.

    d) There are people here today capable of continuing the work. The problem is that I am able for various economic reasons to devote full time to the effort, and they are not. The best people have limited time to devote. My hope would be that the institute will evolve successfully into an online university for teaching this material, and a network of schools and teachers will evolve and will provide income to those people willing and able to continue the work whether contributing or simply persisting it.

    e) I need to be clear though that my age and health are not in my favor. Even this winter I’ve been questionably effective since maybe mid december because of health issues. But, if I can finish the courses, constitution, and book, and then spend the rest of my time using the same method to produce courses and books I will be productive as long as I am able, and reconstruct the western canon – a full academic program that is defended against the left forever. I have to get into a living condition where i can walk and lift every day but sleep enough every night so that I stay healthy enough to do it. And I’m not keen on abandoning care of my elders to do that.

    LAW103 – Foundations – The Method (“The Core”)

    LAW106 Foundations: Man, Law, and Argument

    LAW206 Application and Reformation

    It is possible that if I continue making similar progress that law 106 will be just another 3 credits. I can’t easily estimate the work load without completing the course. People might be able to do the work faster than I assume.

    Law 206 (application to the scope of knowledge) should be a 300 level course i think, and Law 306 a 400 level course, since it involves writing constitutions for different groups of people.

    After that we then go to comparative legal systems and tear apart constitutions and legal systems on a country by country basis. Once that is donet here will be no legal scholars in the world that can compete with Propertarian Jurists with any excuse other than ‘it’s tradition’.

    Now that I feel REALLY secure about the Foundations, I feel like the workload for students will drop, because once you get the hang of it I think a lot of this will come more naturally than I expected. I would love to get this into a two year program, and then spend more time on economics, history and war to fill out a degree.

    But again.

    I have this work and my software work to do and I’m not 30 years old any longer.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 12:50:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53609538_10157036272777264_532877788

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53609538_10157036272777264_5328777881336152064_o_10157036272772264.jpg COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations

    Almost there with these videos

    1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m

    2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m

    3. Serialization (how to) ~15m

    4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30mCOURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations

    Almost there with these videos

    1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m

    2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m

    3. Serialization (how to) ~15m

    4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30m

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-08 13:22:00 UTC

  • DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find t

    DEFINE: RULE OF LAW

    I – RULE OF LAW

    Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law.

    1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights;

    2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist“: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and;

    3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway.

    The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power.

    Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights.

    Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights.

    Rule of Law (By Rights)

    1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights.

    Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation)

    2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law.

    In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges).

    Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”.

    The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law.

    Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion)

    3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”.

    Closing (Summary)

    In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-08 11:21:00 UTC

  • by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society li

    by Philip Clark

    Curt how would propertianism handle

    complex things in society like

    1. Alcohol, Drugs

    2. Pornography

    3. Abortion

    4. Death penalty

    Other controversial stuff that have some negative side effects to society that’s legal to some degree in the US right now.

    I know this is diving deep into the weeds and there’s way bigger problems to solve before hand.

    This would be an interesting video for John Mark to do a video.

    —Answer—

    I’ve answered all of these before but lets condense them here:

    1. ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

    GIVEN

    a) Family and Commons (conservatism/capitalization) take priority over individual satisfaction (hedonism/consumption) – this is the inverse of ‘individualism’ and returns us to ‘familialism’ – intergenerational production instead of temporal consumption.

    b) Alcohol and drugs are no one’s business unless externalized into the commons.

    c) Unfortunately they are frequently externalized into the commons. Therefore the question of alcohol and drugs are empirical (outputs) not blanket (inputs). And therefore a local community decision – not a universally decidable question.

    But that does not mean that we cannot define a point of demarcation.

    We can:

    d) Technically speaking you are no longer human (rational) when not in control, unable to perform due diligence, exposing others to hazard, and therefore have no rights in the commons, because you cannot engage in reciprocity. Therefore you lose your sovereignty because you no longer can demonstrate it.

    I really don’t know why you have the right to be drunk or stoned in public, and I know for certain you can’t claim the right to disconnect (heroin) or trip (hallucinate) in public. What you do on a boat, in the wilderness, or in your home, is up to you. Unfortunately this takes most of the joy out of recreational drugs. That said, if no one can tell, no one can tell.

    e) it is very hard to i) claim recreational use is a bad, ii) claim therapeutic use is a bad, iii) claim self medication in modernity is a bad, UNLESS iv) instead of self medication we provide both conditions non-hostile to mindfulness and provide mindfulness training (Stoicism etc) to the same degree that devotion does (continuous repetition and enforcement), and insurance (medical care, charity) to one another in case we fail and self medication is the only coince. (IMO, suicide should be an option, since all must have the right of exit.)

    f) The line of demarcation is crossed at (v) externalization of addiction. There can be no ‘right to addiction’. Empirically speaking, we should provide death sentences for addicts, or those engage in crime to finance addiction, or those who sell drugs to those who are addicts or engage in grim to finance addiction. (“The Duerte Rule”).

    2. PORNOGRAPHY

    There is no right to anything in public other than quietly walking down a public way or ‘necessary way’ (hedgerow) staring at your feet and keeping your mouths shut.

    We are currently running an experiment in Pornography. This experiment appears to a) suppress sexual frustration due to easy masturbation, b) dramatically reduce male sex drive and competitiveness (producing docility), c) produce sexual dysfunction in males, c) reduce sex crime, d) but feed extreme deviants (pedophiles, etc) – since novelty is part of the excitement that generates sexual stimulation we must run to extremes.

    There is no evidence that the human body (nudity) is a bad thing in public – probably just the opposite. There is evidence that infidelity may follow the degree of nudity in public (I can’t be sure of this). There is some evidence that limiting the range of pornography (which the industry does fairly well) might be of a benefit. There is some evidence that studio quality ‘romantic porn’ is not only not bad but instructive. There is plenty of evidence men are losing the skills (patience) taught to my generation during the 70’s.

    Ergo, if it’s not in public, and meets propertarian criteria, it is a matter of choice. It it externalizes into the public then it’s a violation. This is an empirical statement, and nothing else is decidable. I would recommend a park-like public since online access in private is universally available.

    3. ABORTION

    Search my site for my works on abortion. Net is that it’s undecidable. And therefore a matter of local choice.

    4. DEATH PENALTY

    The experiment with eliminating the death penalty has been a failure – a catastrophic one, and in our constitution I have corrected this to some degree and given license to restore even lynching.

    So the only difficult question here is drugs. The rest are pretty simple.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 12:55:00 UTC

  • “Rule by Judges? Sounds a lot more like Rule by Truth and the Rule of Law. Sure,

    —“Rule by Judges? Sounds a lot more like Rule by Truth and the Rule of Law. Sure, in the beginning there will be more activity in the courts as people adjust to an honest society. However, once the adjustment to a more “clean” Commons is made. The Courts will calm down as the cost of lying will be far too high to pay.”—Stephen Thomas

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 09:41:00 UTC

  • COURSE UPDATE LAW103: A bit wheezy still but recording today. Really happy with

    COURSE UPDATE LAW103: A bit wheezy still but recording today. Really happy with the material. Think I’ve hit the right balance. -cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-05 18:39:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103002062546071552

  • COURSE UPDATE LAW103: A bit wheezy still but recording today. Really happy with

    COURSE UPDATE LAW103: A bit wheezy still but recording today. Really happy with the material. Think I’ve hit the right balance. -cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-05 13:39:00 UTC

  • You shouldn’t trust me or anyone else. If you need trust or faith you’re a moron

    You shouldn’t trust me or anyone else. If you need trust or faith you’re a moron. I don’t matter. Either the law, constitution, and policies I”ve proposed are possible and will function as I suggest or they won’t. Anything else is just right wing cowardice, and signaling.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:34:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102366642506485761

    Reply addressees: @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364988163936256

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — 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/1102364988163936256

  • It’s because I am very smart about what I do, in that I never cross the line bet

    It’s because I am very smart about what I do, in that I never cross the line between talking about it, to encouraging others to act, conspiring to act, or acting on it. It’s not hard for STUPID PEOPLE to make assumptions. Smart people laugh at you for your ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:15:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102361937827020801

    Reply addressees: @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102361051088277509

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — 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/1102361051088277509

  • scold [skōld] NOUN a person, in particular a woman, who nags or grumbles constan

    scold

    [skōld]

    NOUN

    a person, in particular a woman, who nags or grumbles constantly.

    “his mother was the village scold”

    COMMON SCOLD

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing and quarrelling with their neighbours. The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds.

    The offence, which was exported to North America with the colonists, was punished by monetary fines, but also by methods intended to publicly humiliate such as ducking: being placed in a chair and submerged in a river or pond. Although rarely prosecuted it remained on the statute books in England and Wales until 1967.

    Scolding offences were commonly presented and punished in manorial and borough courts that governed the behaviour of peasants and townspeople across England. Scolds were also presented in church courts.[2] The most common punishment was a monetary fine.

    Various historians have argued that scolding and bad speech were coded as feminine offences by the late medieval period. Women of all marital statuses were prosecuted for scolding, though married women featured most frequently, while widows were rarely labelled scolds.[3] In some places, such as Exeter, scolds were typically poorer women, whereas elsewhere scolds could include members of the local elite.[4] Women who were also charged with other offences, such as violence, nightwandering, eavesdropping or sexual impropriety were also likely to be labelled scolds.[5] Individuals were frequently labelled ‘common scolds’, indicating the impact of their behaviour and speech on the whole community. Karen Jones identified 13 men prosecuted for scolding in Kent’s secular courts, compared to 94 women and 2 couples.[6] Men accused of scolding were often charged alongside their wives. Helen, wife of Peter Bradwall scolded Hugh Welesson and Isabel, his wife, in Middlewich in 1434, calling Isabel a “child murderer” and Hugh a “skallet [wretched] knave”. Isabel and Hugh also scolded Helen, calling her a “lesyng blebberer” (lying bletherer). All parties were fined for the offences, though Hugh and Isabel were fined jointly.[7] Like women, male scolds were often accused of many other offences, such as fornication, theft, illegal trading, and assault.[8]

    Note that in american law, Scolding was folded into disorderly conduct in the early 1970’s

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-03 18:29:00 UTC