Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • I have been and always will be, against all marital community property, alimony

    I have been and always will be, against all marital community property, alimony and child support, but not against fines for the person breaking the marriage. (spoken as a guy with multiple broken marriages. my first wife cheated. I broke my second marriage primarily due to my severe illness, and I broke my third marriage for reasons that I thought were her fault but were mine.) A women cannot regain her fertile years and a man cannot regain the proceeds of his excess production. But a woman can trade her vagina and personal care while a main can only trade his economic productivity and environmental care. Empirically speaking this leaves men at a great disadvantage. But either way, a divorce all but guarantees poverty in later life. IMO the millions I made were not ‘ours’ but mine. And had the court treated them as ‘mine’ then we would still be married. The central problem is that an individual cannot control the bad behavior of one’s spouse in modernity. As such we cannot have common property

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 10:05:00 UTC

  • SOVEREIGNTY IS A GIFT OF THE WARRIOR CLASS by Rakesh Sahgal Liberty flows from s

    SOVEREIGNTY IS A GIFT OF THE WARRIOR CLASS

    by Rakesh Sahgal

    Liberty flows from sovereignty .

    Sovereignty is a gift of the warrior class imposing rule of law, under natural law, universal standing, and universal application, producing markets for reproduction(marriage), production(goods, services, and information), commons, and polities, wherein each man fully insures each other man and his property in toto from imposition of costs.

    Libertarians need to comprehend this reality and either support the warrior class or stay out of it’s way, because they i.e. libertarians exist BECAUSE of the sovereignty the warrior class creates.

    (curt: ‘flawless’)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 08:02:00 UTC

  • Of course I advocate the aristocratic rule of law produces a semblance of libert

    Of course I advocate the aristocratic rule of law produces a semblance of liberty. (And that a militia and rule off law, natural law, property in toto creates sovereignty.)

    I argue, successfully, that the minimum scope of that law is non arbitrary , not voluntary, but necessary given market forces external to the polity, and that the minimum scope of property necessary to form, compete, and survive is not captured in the NAP, and that you like all libertarians avoid that discussion at all costs because it will result in classical liberalism if you try to answer it.

    I have shown that libertarians are adopting the jewish diasporic parasitic strategy, AND I have shown ( i think ) that libertarians are, like homosexuals, developmentally limited, AND that developmental limitation is due to pedomorphism (insufficient maturity).

    Now, it’s possible to defeat each of these arguments, and Rik Storey has defeated the argument (i think) that libertarians choose the feminine strategy of demanding their approval, because of effeminacy, but not because of insufficient maturity.

    In other words, the strategy remains the same.

    Like women: free riding.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 17:37:00 UTC

  • RESTORING ORIGINAL INTENT: VOTING AS VETO by Bill Joslin The vote then, as a mea

    RESTORING ORIGINAL INTENT: VOTING AS VETO

    by Bill Joslin

    The vote then, as a means of preventing polis retaliation, could serve as a post hoc veto run every few years. You don’t vote in a governor general or management team but rather vote them out. This eliminates the parasitic incentive to persuade the polis to get a vote and inverts this toward performance. If you want to keep the job then you must perform. If you don’t perform you get voted out. Negativa vote (veto) which aligns more closely to the Anglo inception (vote provides a last non-violent step to oust tyrants before rebelling)… It ensures bottom-up feedbacks to top-down controls. Just a thought.

    Appointed into position by peers, ousted by peers or polis. If the polis is discontent they can lobby for a vote of no confidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 12:10:00 UTC

  • THE AMERICAN ERROR IN FORMATION OF THE REPUBLIC by Bill Joslin The British reaso

    THE AMERICAN ERROR IN FORMATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    by Bill Joslin

    The British reason for choosing democracy was formulated very differently than the American moral posturing. It was a last resort before revolution where the polis could oust a tyrant without violence: the right to choose who rules you (not self rule.) Without the right to bear arms and right to form civilian militias, democracy is vacuous and pointless.

    Revolution is costly to infrastructure, production and high trust – democracy was to prevent those costs.

    ( CURT: Bill’s argument, which I agree with, was conflating democratic selection of rulers: a republic, with self-rule: democracy. )

    (CURT: IMO, Rule-via-negativa, and Govern-via-positiva are two different things because they presume different knowledge – one theoretical(political) and one empirical(judicial), and that the competition between monarchy-army-judiciary and state-parliament-commerce and Church-academy-family-militia, is simply the best model possible. And this requires rotation of those who govern (the parliament). And that the opportunity modernity presents us with, is direct democracy at the local level, and the replacement of the federal government with the governors, thereby eliminating the house and senate altogether, and devolving all matters other than military, disputes and insurance to the states. There is certain value in a trade union. There is certain value in a military union. The origin of conflicts is when we cannot create norms, commons, and institutions that serve regional/state, local/city-town, and neighborhood/association-disassociation needs. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 09:47:00 UTC

  • 4) The mistake in english parliament was majority discretionary assent, vs minor

    4) The mistake in english parliament was majority discretionary assent, vs minority legal dissent – overriding common law. (We can fix this)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:11:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882904846017449985

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    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/882819237009649664

  • 1) Any national militia, with distributed econ. production, under the common law

    1) Any national militia, with distributed econ. production, under the common law of torts, w/ independent judiciary, will produce ‘liberty’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:05:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882903301678936064

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    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/882819237009649664

  • 1) Any national militia, with distributed econ. production, under the common law

    1) Any national militia, with distributed econ. production, under the common law of torts, w/ independent judiciary, will produce ‘liberty’.

    2) The discourse on liberty is byproduct of religion (belief), whereas all existential liberty is byproduct of rule of natural common law.

    3) The challenge for liberty is scale since production of multiplicative competitive commons is the penultimate competitive advantage.

    4) The mistake in english parliament was majority discretionary assent, vs minority legal dissent – overriding common law. (We can fix this)

    5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liberty can be solved.

    6) But Rothbardianism is merely Marxism for the middle class (jewish separatism) in an attempt to justify parasitism on others’ commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 06:15:00 UTC

  • THE ‘LICENSING’ QUESTION The problem with licensing etc is that it’s a poor subs

    THE ‘LICENSING’ QUESTION

    The problem with licensing etc is that it’s a poor substitute for an Insurer. In other words, you regulate the market going in, rather than regulate the risk of harm. SImilar to the problem of Chinese Bureaucracy – or bureaucracy in general. There is absolutely value to demanding insurance that limits one’s actions to that for which restitution is possible. And there is absolutely value in institutional enforcement of the requirement that men can take no action that they may not pay restitution for. This is a simple test of reciprocity.

    in most of history, the government is the insurer of last resort. So licensing is a cheap (discounted) means of limiting insurance claims (harms).

    And no, we cannot claim rights to engage in any transaction the consequences of which we cannot pay restitution for, any more than we can claim rights to any action that we cannot pay restitution for.

    A license is a government-as-insurer-of-last-resort method of limiting the fraud, consequence, and externalities of actions that those who would seek to ‘learn’ or ‘profit’ by the externalization of risk of their failure. And the very high cost of dispute resolution and restitution.

    An requirement that one is covered by insurance and exposed to the courts, means that the government is no longer responsible for insurer of last resort (regulation), but that professions self regulate or risk prosecution in the courts, and regulation if they fail. This technique seems to work as long as the golden fleece of western civilization prevails: the courts as a priesthood of truth and reciprocity does not fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 10:06:00 UTC

  • THE UKRAINIAN LEGAL SYSTEM Legal system? You have uncles, brothers, cousins, and

    THE UKRAINIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

    Legal system? You have uncles, brothers, cousins, and friends. Why do you need a legal system? 😉 (as it should be.)

    They have at least criminal, civil, state, and human rights courts. IN other words, aside from our criminal and civil, you can legally petition the state if you’re unjustly served by the state. (something we don’t have but need – desperately).

    The law has been upgraded to match european laws in most cases as of 2010. The problem isn’t the law or the lawyers but the judges – all of whom are corrupt. (as are their staffs).

    Business law is fine other than it’s too hard to produce international contracts. usually you write two columns (one english, one russian or ukrainian), and there are translators who perform that service for you.

    There is still some lagging soviet shit like the requirement that you are ‘registered’ to a physical address. And this is punitive and archaic everywhere and a great source of corruption. It’s a holdover from state-allocated-property.

    The cops in my experience are more like our sheriff’s. They aren’t messianic like our cops. they just want to ‘restore harmony’. I love ukrainian police and have had nothing but good experiences with them. Especially the younger generation.

    Their courts are pay-as-you-go corrupt. Their prisons hell holes that you do not come out of alive. Everyone knows this is the central problem in ukraine. Why? a judge makes $700 per month. Right? and they are often the wealthiest people in the community. Right? The USA offered to take over the payroll of the entire Ukrainian Judiciary. This would have fixed the problem. Ukrainian government refused. Why? ’cause you know why.

    If you don’t engage in predatory crime you will never have a reason to need a cop or the legal system. Even car accidents, are just a matter of negotiating the cash cost of repairs on site.

    But if you get on the wrong side of the law – or even get hostile with a cop – you are in… well. I would never want to get into the system over there. You are lucky to come out of it alive. Seriously. They are’t animals like the muslims but it’s a poor country and criminals are at the end of the line.

    More importantly, *the government really hates prosecuting foreigners* for paper crimes, and to some degree you are safer as a foreigner for it. In many cases you need very high level approval to prosecute a foreigner. As high as the office of the presidency. The reason being that the soviets (and the russians still do it) were notorious for fabricating charges in order to extort money from foreigners. And Ukraine can’t afford any of that – at all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 10:57:00 UTC