Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Rule of Law Produces Trust, and Trust Produces Opportunity for Risk

    —“Many people keep deploring the low level of formal education in the United states (as defined by, say, math grades). Yet these fail to realize that the new comes from here and gets imitated elsewhere. And it is not thanks to universities, which obviously claim a lot more credit than their accomplishments warrant. Like Britain in the Industrial Revolution, America’s asset is, simply, risk taking and the use of optionality, this remarkable ability to engage in rational forms fo trial and error, with no comparative shame in failing again, starting again, and repeating failure.” ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. RULE OF LAW PRODUCES TRUST, AND TRUST PRODUCE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    RULE OF LAW PRODUCES TRUST, AND TRUST PRODUCES OPPORTUNITY FOR RISK

    —“Many people keep deploring the low level of formal education in the United states (as defined by, say, math grades). Yet these fail to realize that the new comes from here and gets imitated elsewhere. And it is not thanks to universities, which obviously claim a lot more credit than their accomplishments warrant. Like Britain in the Industrial Revolution, America’s asset is, simply, risk taking and the use of optionality, this remarkable ability to engage in rational forms fo trial and error, with no comparative shame in failing again, starting again, and repeating failure.”
    ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-26 11:41:06 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW PRODUCES TRUST, AND TRUST PRODUCES OPPORTUNITY FOR RISK —“Many peo

    RULE OF LAW PRODUCES TRUST, AND TRUST PRODUCES OPPORTUNITY FOR RISK

    —“Many people keep deploring the low level of formal education in the United states (as defined by, say, math grades). Yet these fail to realize that the new comes from here and gets imitated elsewhere. And it is not thanks to universities, which obviously claim a lot more credit than their accomplishments warrant. Like Britain in the Industrial Revolution, America’s asset is, simply, risk taking and the use of optionality, this remarkable ability to engage in rational forms fo trial and error, with no comparative shame in failing again, starting again, and repeating failure.”

    ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb,

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-26 07:41:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discr

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 14:54:34 UTC

  • Anarcho – *(Rothbard, Hoppe) = at best, discretionary poly-logical, market law.

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-23 10:54:00 UTC

  • The Differences Between European Legal Codes Whether Germanic, Hellenic, or Roman Differed in Little Other than Scope of Cooperation.

    THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMAN DIFFERED IN LITTLE OTHER THAN SCOPE OF COOPERATION. (Note that Rik Storey deleted my comment on the site.) The argument that early governments were stateless is specious (questionable). The state existed and is referenced throughout the literature. Applications of the law (“laws”) evolve with demand for them, and demand for them is almost entirely the function of production, distribution, and trade. The universality european customary law, which evolved into germanic law, and the european customary law of the Etru, Ital, Hellenes was as similar as were their religions. As the Lotharingian trade routes expanded, creating inter-territorial trade (particularly between northern italy and the rivers of france, germany, and the north-sea/baltic routes), demand for law increased, and the more advanced versions of the mediterranean commercial codes were adopted. They were adopted in large part because they were logically the same. The church functioned as a very weak central government and power between the church (50%) of the lands, and the states (manor-holdings) was in constant competition – the church then tended to take credit for that which was produced organically. The ancient traditional law of europeans is was of military necessity, natural law ( reciprocity ). The romans discarded hellenic idealism during the romanization of Greece, just as anglos discarded continental idealism in the enlightenment era. Thereby returning it to its anglo saxon > germanic > west indo european origins. The church then re-idealized it. Anglo enlightenment then restored it. The 20th century can largely be seen as a third attempt to make natural law idealized or supernatural. And some of us struggle to restore it.

  • The Differences Between European Legal Codes Whether Germanic, Hellenic, or Roman Differed in Little Other than Scope of Cooperation.

    THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN LEGAL CODES WHETHER GERMANIC, HELLENIC, OR ROMAN DIFFERED IN LITTLE OTHER THAN SCOPE OF COOPERATION. (Note that Rik Storey deleted my comment on the site.) The argument that early governments were stateless is specious (questionable). The state existed and is referenced throughout the literature. Applications of the law (“laws”) evolve with demand for them, and demand for them is almost entirely the function of production, distribution, and trade. The universality european customary law, which evolved into germanic law, and the european customary law of the Etru, Ital, Hellenes was as similar as were their religions. As the Lotharingian trade routes expanded, creating inter-territorial trade (particularly between northern italy and the rivers of france, germany, and the north-sea/baltic routes), demand for law increased, and the more advanced versions of the mediterranean commercial codes were adopted. They were adopted in large part because they were logically the same. The church functioned as a very weak central government and power between the church (50%) of the lands, and the states (manor-holdings) was in constant competition – the church then tended to take credit for that which was produced organically. The ancient traditional law of europeans is was of military necessity, natural law ( reciprocity ). The romans discarded hellenic idealism during the romanization of Greece, just as anglos discarded continental idealism in the enlightenment era. Thereby returning it to its anglo saxon > germanic > west indo european origins. The church then re-idealized it. Anglo enlightenment then restored it. The 20th century can largely be seen as a third attempt to make natural law idealized or supernatural. And some of us struggle to restore it.

  • Choices vs Necessities

    Tinker Tailor Soldier Sailor Rich-Man, Poor-Man, Beggar-Man, Thief, Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief. Those are choices. Every man A Warrior, a Sheriff, a Judge, and his own Legislator Those are not choices, but necessities.

  • Choices vs Necessities

    Tinker Tailor Soldier Sailor Rich-Man, Poor-Man, Beggar-Man, Thief, Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief. Those are choices. Every man A Warrior, a Sheriff, a Judge, and his own Legislator Those are not choices, but necessities.

  • We Are Irrelevant Under the Law, Not Equal

    AFAIK, humans cannot be compared as equal by any measure. The law does not consider equality but reciprocity (“exchange of consideration”). We use the term ‘equal under the law’ as a proxy for reciprocity, simply because in the past, different classes could seek privileges of rank (largely differences in restitution). We are in fact always and everywhere unequal, which is why reciprocity solves the problem of our inequality. Better said we are not considered whatsoever by the law, only our property. We have no part in it. As such the law does not treat us equally, it ignores us entirely and considers only the property transferred.