We are going to destroy them you know: 1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents. 2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words. 3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos). 4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it. 5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit. 6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends. This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking. This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit. It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale. Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear. Huge reallocation of intellectual capital. Huge reduction in propaganda. Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books. STARVE THE BEAST.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
We Will Destroy Them Forever
We are going to destroy them you know: 1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents. 2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words. 3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos). 4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it. 5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit. 6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends. This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking. This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit. It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale. Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear. Huge reallocation of intellectual capital. Huge reduction in propaganda. Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books. STARVE THE BEAST.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. WE WILL DESTROY THEM FOREVER We are going to
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WE WILL DESTROY THEM FOREVER
We are going to destroy them you know:
1) Reinforce Trademarks, Eliminate Copyrights and Drastically limit patents.
2) Outlaw lying in the commons by involuntary liability and warranty of words.
3) De-financialize the credit system and eliminate consumer interest on consumer capital assets (residences and appliances and autos).
4) Eliminate the transportability (escape) of debt instruments while institutionalize the rights to income from it.
5) Reform shareholder laws to prevent hostile takeovers, and to equalize risk and exit.
6) Restructure taxation rates to reflect risk. Eliminate double taxation of dividends.
This will have the effect of destroying nearly all manipulation of the population and all rent seeking.
This will be the greatest competitive advantage since the invention of fiat credit.
It means that there are no rents that allow you to escape the market – anywhere. Even at scale.
Taxes for entrepreneurs, particularly small and medium businesses will nearly disappear.
Huge reallocation of intellectual capital.
Huge reduction in propaganda.
Huge temporary expansion of courts and litigation until enough law accumulates on the books.
STARVE THE BEAST.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 20:35:02 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. RULE OF THE SOVEREIGN If the Truth is not eno
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
RULE OF THE SOVEREIGN
If the Truth is not enough, and therefore law is not enough, then you are weak, and lack the agency necessary for demands of reciprocity between sovereigns. As such you may not rule, or govern, and may have only liberty(capital), freedom(property), and subsidy(insurance), by permission, as the sovereign see fit. And you may purchase liberty, freedom, subsidy, and defense under the natural law of sovereigns, by acts of and military and civic defense of the commons, civil contribution by payment of fees, and the reciprocal defense of the subsidy, property, and liberty of peers.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 20:15:38 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.
In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.
That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.
As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.
As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.
Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 21:04:36 UTC
-
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW There are a number
MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.
In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.
That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.
As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.
As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.
Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 17:04:00 UTC
-
When you are paid, its not free speech but commercial product, and open to regul
When you are paid, its not free speech but commercial product, and open to regulation like any other product – because payment is a malincentive to gossip, straw man, and mislead. Why shouldn’t paid speech be warrantied like any other product brought to market? it should?
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 01:15:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012504829867057152
Reply addressees: @WheresMyArk_23
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012493862500290561
IN REPLY TO:
@GumbysGrandson
We have a president who promised the NRA he will continue to protect the 2nd amendment but considers journalists employing their 1st amendment rights like the ones murdered in Annapolis the “enemy of the people.”
This isn’t right.
#CapitalGazetteOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012493862500290561
-
“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project?
—“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project? (With recent political events, leftists intensifying harassment, etc, I’m thinking we might need one sooner rather than later.)”—John Mark Last summer I had to break the book apart because it was too big. And so I have two books, one shorter that is targeted to reforming libertarianism, and one much much longer targeted to revolution and constitution. The first and shorter book is more technical, and the longer book more explanatory. The other reason being that I had to burn a long time on the Grammars and I felt that I could now get the shorter book out ‘shortly’ and then take the technical component and move it into the larger book. This means that the two books have similar technical content, but the larger book ignores ‘temporal’ issues (liberty, freedom, libertarianism), and contains entirely the new law. What I *can* say is that I have definitely gotten to the point where I can explain everything to a freshman college student. Which I never thought would happen. Whether the book is as understandable as I can manage in a class environment I’m not sure. And there is a certain virtue to timing. The Overton window for revolution has to be open to get maximum effect. Although we are certainly getting there as I expected… The clock ticks, the world turns, the window opens, anger burns.
-
“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project?
—“Curt does your book include a new constitution, or is that a separate project? (With recent political events, leftists intensifying harassment, etc, I’m thinking we might need one sooner rather than later.)”—John Mark Last summer I had to break the book apart because it was too big. And so I have two books, one shorter that is targeted to reforming libertarianism, and one much much longer targeted to revolution and constitution. The first and shorter book is more technical, and the longer book more explanatory. The other reason being that I had to burn a long time on the Grammars and I felt that I could now get the shorter book out ‘shortly’ and then take the technical component and move it into the larger book. This means that the two books have similar technical content, but the larger book ignores ‘temporal’ issues (liberty, freedom, libertarianism), and contains entirely the new law. What I *can* say is that I have definitely gotten to the point where I can explain everything to a freshman college student. Which I never thought would happen. Whether the book is as understandable as I can manage in a class environment I’m not sure. And there is a certain virtue to timing. The Overton window for revolution has to be open to get maximum effect. Although we are certainly getting there as I expected… The clock ticks, the world turns, the window opens, anger burns.
-
Untitled
https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/21/14990732/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-scalia-gorsuch?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1530202225https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/21/14990732/kennedy-retire-supreme-court-scalia-gorsuch?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=sprout&utm_content=1530202225SEE?
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 22:46:00 UTC