Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL 1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked). So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin. Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous). So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation. (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting. In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed. 2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—- TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-

    —-”Why do Americans love to sue each other?”—-

    TWO REASONS, 1-COMMERCIAL, and 2-CIVIL

    1 – COMMERCIAL. Europeans and most of the world REGULATE ability to engage in agreements. Americans RESOLVE conflicts in court instead. This is why there is such a big difference between american and european innovation at all but the macro industrial levels, and frankly why europeans are poorer than americans (aside from the number of hours worked).

    So europeans and most others use BUREAUCRATIC PRIOR RESTRAINT to limit conflict at the expense of experimentation, innovation, and the size of the entrepreneurial classes, and Americans use JURIDICAL RESOLUTION to resolve conflict in order to obtain experimentation, innovation, the size of the entrepreneurial classes, despite the (lower) cost of juridical resolutoin.

    Americans consider the RIGHT TO FAIL part of liberty. Europeans (it seems strange to us) are afraid of failure. For example Bankruptcy for an american entrepreneur who tries again, simply means he’s heroic for having tried, and more heroic for getting up and doing it again. Whereas in europe it’s still socially unacceptable. (Which in modern economic terms is rather ridiculous).

    So different societies place controls at different places and pay different prices for those controls. Americans favor rule of law by the natural law of tort while what we consider the ‘nanny state’ prohibits such experimentation.

    (I have owned businesses internationally and … I wouldn’t even consider doing business in France because of laws, or Italy because of the impossibility of the tax code). It’s 10x as hard in canada, and 50x as hard in the UK. For no good reason. It’s always seems like some moron takes great pride in throwing up requirements and objections to suppress non existent or marginal risks. (That and brits tend to be fairly lazy.) Germans are wonderful people at all levels but the bureaucracy inhibiting entrepreeneurship is just daunting.

    In america you can pretty much lose money for three years and never pay a dime in taxes. If you do it right you can lose money for ten years an never pay a dime in taxes. This is how people learn to become entrepreneurs – by failing a little bit until they succeed.

    2 – CIVIL. We have nothing in common except commerce, and all claims of a melting pot outside of dense urban centers are false. Unlike European countries we have been prohibited sine the 1960’s from enforcing norms. So Americans had the same problem with Jewish conformity in the 20th century that Europeans are having with Islamic conformity – and for the same reasons. We allowed this process to continue with tolerance and it ended up destroying our nation by way of ‘diversity’. Ergo, without norms enforced we must LITIGATE disputes. This will come to europe if it hasn’t already.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 08:10:00 UTC

  • No. We just do as we already do, wich is that we require due diligence against a

    No. We just do as we already do, wich is that we require due diligence against a list of requirements, all of which are not all that difficult, before we make public speech. If that is done, then it is simply error, not deceit, or discounting (laziness).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:57:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954895591443746816

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954892257324396544


    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/954892257324396544

  • People generally lose their jobs and their careers. People in medicine and other

    People generally lose their jobs and their careers.
    People in medicine and other invasive disciplines ARE prosecuted.We just regulate the hell out of that business PRE so that we have less prosecution POST.What is the difference between the social sciences, and physical? property


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:52:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954894491827212288

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_ @yacks_91

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954891451342745601


    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/954891451342745601

  • (the trick is that it allows us to use the courts AGAINST authoritarians. that’s

    (the trick is that it allows us to use the courts AGAINST authoritarians. that’s the elegance of it.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:38:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954890838106165253

    Reply addressees: @yacks_91 @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954887815719944192


    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/954887815719944192

  • we require warranty of all sorts of speech in he markes. why not economic and po

    we require warranty of all sorts of speech in he markes. why not economic and political speech? why not restore libel and slander and extend warranty o due diligence from commercial to informational markets. Why is ant attempt to steal by force of government legal?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:19:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954886015164080128

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954885124084072448


    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/954885124084072448

  • you certainly cant deny that speech causes people to commit property violations

    you certainly cant deny that speech causes people to commit property violations of various scales under pretende of restitution. or that premiums can be gained by pseudoscience – thats empirically undeniable.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:13:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954884741739753472

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954882183935725570


    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/954882183935725570

  • why is it that we demand warranty of speech in some cases and not in others? how

    why is it that we demand warranty of speech in some cases and not in others?
    how does that differ from the property a community insures and does not insure?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:11:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954884220446543872

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954882183935725570


    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/954882183935725570

  • so the speech had no cause on the consequence? yelling fire in the theatre diffe

    so the speech had no cause on the consequence? yelling fire in the theatre differs from publishing pseudoscience how? is there anywhere in the world this is practiced? instead, what is the criteria by which man limits public speech?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:11:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954884017169551360

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954882183935725570


    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/954882183935725570

  • what is the difference between yelling fire in a theatre and stating a poisonous

    what is the difference between yelling fire in a theatre and stating a poisonous substance does no harm and writing the Freudian pseudoscience?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 01:00:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954881330168385539

    Reply addressees: @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954880731716685825


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TheAustrian_ So marxism freudianism, boazianism, keynesianism, and islam did no harm?Lies and frauds do no harm? Creating hazard creates no harm? what is the difference between the markets for goods, services, information, and opportunity? nothing. speech can only exist if we act to say it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954880731716685825


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @TheAustrian_ So marxism freudianism, boazianism, keynesianism, and islam did no harm?Lies and frauds do no harm? Creating hazard creates no harm? what is the difference between the markets for goods, services, information, and opportunity? nothing. speech can only exist if we act to say it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954880731716685825