Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • STAND YOUR GROUND MOVES IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION (a) man (rightly) criticizes woma

    STAND YOUR GROUND MOVES IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

    (a) man (rightly) criticizes woman in car for parking in handicapped spot.

    (b) other man (wrongly) comes from behind and shoves him to the ground.

    Correct behavior?

    (c) do not park in handicapped.

    (d) do not shove people to the ground for criticizing your behavior.

    Difference?

    (e) some of us have higher agency (self control, and insulation from impulse)

    (f) some of us have lower agency (self control and insulation from impulse)

    Anyone who is not ignorant of the the daily video releases on blacks beating whites for amusement and hatred will have a normal reaction to these consequences.

    Our different interpretations tell us nothing other than whether we have agency or lack it.

    This is why liberals (feminine) are incompatible with conservatives (masculine) – because our perception of the world, and our judgement of behavior differs meaningfully given our genetic differneces.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 19:45:00 UTC

  • Anarchism cannot survive

    Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.

  • Anarchism cannot survive

    Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law. And therefore is limited to defense of intersubjectively verifiable property; since law can only form as such at the minimum tolerable scope of application. Just as the church majority parasites then, the state parasites, left parasites, and immigrant parasites, in group feminists, and in group libertines today and the abrahamists in all their forms, more people always want to preserve their means of cheating (parasitism) than want to suppress them – despite all evidence that the forgone parasitisms produce multiples of returns far beyond their individual abilities to produce such returns. This is why Anarchism cannot survive – because as the complexity of cooperation increases to produce higher returns, individuals and groups must exit in order to find insurers (governments) that permit the more productive, higher risk, means of production.

  • The Incentive for Marriage Restored.

    |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National. The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child. Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions. When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization. Or not. Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.

  • The Incentive for Marriage Restored.

    |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National. The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child. Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions. When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization. Or not. Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comer

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National.

    The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child.

    Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions.

    When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization.

    Or not.

    Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 12:43:26 UTC

  • COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National. The family

    |COURTS:| Criminal > Civil > Familial > Comercial > Civic > National.

    The family is the smallest corporation with the least assets, and the problem with family court is not a separate court for adjudication of differences in those corporations we call the family, but the notion of common property and the proposition that and interdependency can survive ending of that corporation. Ergo, no alimony, child support, and children to the mother and young adults from 12 to the father – pending the discretion of the child.

    Lets remember that men with children remarry, while women with children tend to circumvent marriage because they can use children for spousal substitution, and cannot bear compromise or competition in a new household where she must adapt her intuitions.

    When the corporation ends, it ends. And each party negotiates a new inter-gender organization.

    Or not.

    Hence the incentive for marriage is restored.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 08:43:00 UTC

  • Revoking the Legitimacy of A Monarchy (sovereign)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend There are only three conditions: 1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions). 2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions). 3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification. And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria. The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly) The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”). I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch. Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry). (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

  • Revoking the Legitimacy of A Monarchy (sovereign)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend There are only three conditions: 1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions). 2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions). 3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification. And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria. The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly) The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”). I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch. Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry). (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVERE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend

    There are only three conditions:
    1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions).
    2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions).
    3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification.

    And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria.

    The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly)

    The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”).

    I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch.

    Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry).

    (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:21:44 UTC