Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • FAILURE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE – PUNISHMENT (a) forced restitution is always the best

    FAILURE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE – PUNISHMENT

    (a) forced restitution is always the best solution (enslavement)

    (b) hanging is the cheapest solution.

    (c) prison camps (work camps) are the next cheapest solution

    (d) minimum survival prisons the next cheapest solution.

    (e) maximum survival prisons (today’s prisons) are the next cheapest

    (f) aggressive ‘mental restructuring’ prisons are the next cheapest solution

    (g) letting petty crime escalate is the highest cost solution.

    We don’t hang our mentally ill, sex offenders, murderers, and serial violent felons. We incarcerate the underclass for seeking refuge in drugs instead of sterilizing them. We punish the laboring and working classes for being too poor to pay administrative fines and costs. We punish common men for child support and alimony payments that should never exist. We punish all sorts of people for tax crimes that are ridiculous.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 14:43:00 UTC

  • THE LAW IS SACRED by Simon Ström —“The law is sacred to Aryans. And in accorda

    THE LAW IS SACRED

    by Simon Ström

    —“The law is sacred to Aryans. And in accordance with the Dumézilian function of sovereignty, the spiritual role of Kings is to lead by example and be the high priest of the law; the judge of last resort at the tribunal of the Thang.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 17:20:00 UTC

  • A COMMON DECEPTION VIA FRAMING What is the best for humanity: rule of law under

    A COMMON DECEPTION VIA FRAMING

    What is the best for humanity: rule of law under natural law – meaning non discretionary rule, or one of the variants of discretionary rule: Authoritarian Martial/Fascism, Authoritarian Oligarchical/Liberalism, Authoritarian Syndicate/Social(ism) Democracy, Authoritarian Underclass/Communism?

    I mean. If you ask the question honestly, in operational language, then the answer is pretty obvious. The best rule is by NO ONE but rule of law.

    The question becomes, how then do we construct commons when no one can rule?

    The answer looks increasingly like the swiss model.

    However, that’s assuming you can get rid of the underclasses that destroy any hope of ‘doing what is good for humanity’.

    And that’s the dirty problem of all political systems.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 13:51:00 UTC

  • There is only one way to guarantee rule of law: a militia that won’t tolerate ot

    There is only one way to guarantee rule of law: a militia that won’t tolerate otherwise.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 10:31:00 UTC

  • The american system of law differs a great deal from the continental in that we

    The american system of law differs a great deal from the continental in that we have almost no input limitations on our actions in exchange for requiring courts to decide conflict on outputs. The european system seeks heavy limitation on actions in order to minimize conflicts.

    The american system is superior for the use of truth testing, since it is very difficult to regulate truthful speech going in, other than to test due diligence when conflict arises.

    For this reason I would expect the continental (more restrictive because of high blame avoidance) and the russian (absurdly low trust) to be more resistant to the use of the common law to test the truthfulness of speech than under the anglo system.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:52:00 UTC

  • A QUESTION OF INSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION (serious question) 1) If the church can n

    A QUESTION OF INSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION

    (serious question)

    1) If the church can no longer teach falsehoods, why do we need schools separate from the church? If the curriculum includes Sacredness, Piety, Mindfulness, Ritual, and Oath – all of which are necessary for education – why do we need church separate from schools? if schools can no longer teach falsehoods, why do we need the competition of the church? Why do we need separation of church and school?

    (thinkers please)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 11:24:00 UTC

  • by Joel Davis “A contract is nothing without insurance. A constitution is just a

    by Joel Davis

    “A contract is nothing without insurance.

    A constitution is just a contract.

    Therefore, that contract is nothing without the militia.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 19:39:00 UTC

  • Eli Harman: —“What’s the basis for prosecuting the purveyors of perverse and p

    Eli Harman:

    —“What’s the basis for prosecuting the purveyors of perverse and pernicious entertainment fiction, such as that which has proliferated lately? They use it for the purposes of ideological warfare, so there must be one…”—

    I don’t think we get into true/false with fiction with any more difficulty than we get into true/false with biographies, and fiction as false history. The court is pretty good at this process.

    So:

    1 – We have the easy problem of whether it’s stated as fiction or not.

    2 – We have the the easy problem of whether someone’s making an argument or not.

    3 – We have the medium problem that someone is engaged in fraudulent representation of the narrative or not.

    4 – And we have the hard problem that someone is promoting immorality or not (indirect ir-reciprocity).

    5 – And we have the easy problem that someone is promoting crime or not (direct ir-reciprocity).

    6 – And we have the very easy problem of someone SPEAKING OR TEACHING literature as science or truth.

    I am not sure this is all that difficult.

    We do most of it today. The only difference is that we don’t punish advocacy of parasitism and the teaching of it.

    I mean, if you write a novel where a murderer, or a terrorist or communist is a hero I think we might get there but I think that is very hard to take seriously. That’s the only question.

    I think the issue is one of authority:

    Pretense of truth.

    Academy, church, or state.

    Eli Harman:

    —“What about if you’re using fiction to teach lies, like equality. It could be that an exceptional female or minority character is just an extreme outlier. But when the DISTRIBUTION of female and minority characters is systematically shifted toward “extreme outlier” territory across ALL popular fiction, how do you prosecute any one content creator for lying?”—

    I think that the only reason this is even a question is because we haven’t had our revolution yet and put the law into place, and I”m very certain that the world will change radically because it will be economically too dangerous to tread those waters.

    I think that just as there are things you are careful about doing today – promoting terrorism and thievery in the classroom. And I think that there are things that we don’t do in the classroom – making arguments to supernaturalism. And I think it will be just as uncommon to make pseudo-rational, pseudo-moral, pseudoscientific, arguments in the future as it will be to make supernatural arguments in school and university today

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 18:30:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK) Interesting. Was searching for c

    THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)

    Interesting. Was searching for colloquial opinions on “legislating from the bench” and found this page.

    DECIDABILITY (LOGIC) VS JUDGEMENT (OPINION)

    1) If the Natural Law of reciprocity exists, all questions of law should be decidable by a test of reciprocity. (They are.)

    2) If the constitution was intended as an implementation of Natural Law, then all question of law under natural law should be decidable. (It was, They are).

    3) In those cases of contracts of the commons (legislation, and regulation) that consist of contract provisions (trades) constructed under Natural Law, the terms of the contract may be undecidable given the terms specified in the contract. (painfully common)

    4) In those cases that are undecidable by the Court, because of the insufficiency of the terms of the Contract of the Commons (legislation and regulation) the court has the obligation, (as was intended by the constitution) to return the decision to the legislature rather than to ARBITRARILY provide decidability by subjective preference.

    5) In those cases that are undecidable by the court because the terms of the Contract of the Commons conflict with Natural Law, then the Court has the OBLIGATION to return the decision to the Legislature to correct the contract of the commons (legislation, and regulation) so that conflicts under the contract are decidable.

    6) In those cases that the legislature cannot construct legislation that is decidable by the judiciary because the terms of the contract for the commons is undecidable under the terms of the constitution, the legislature may propose to the legislature of the states (Congress) an amendment to the constitution that would permit decidability of such matters as cannot be decided under natural law, and the contracts of the commons we call legislation and regulation.

    FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS

    1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it.

    But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms.

    2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation.

    3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition.

    THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT

    The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient.

    1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created.

    2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it.

    3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law.

    4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights).

    5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, *despite* lack of reciprocity by foreign states.

    THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW

    Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem.

    The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here).

    The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions?

    The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 14:53:00 UTC

  • ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS (the koran licen

    ANY LAW THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION LICENSES INTERPRETATIONS

    (the koran licenses terrorists)

    Christians and Jews went through the enlightenment and the reformation, and the legal and scientific revolutions. The evil in the west has been caused by the re-introduction of abrahamism (christianity, judaism, and islam) in the forms of Jewish Marxism, and French Postmodernism, and less so by Anglo Egalitarianism. And now we’re dealing with the only people who have failed to go through the enlightenment, and historicize, rationalize, and legalize their customs.

    So the point I’m making is that if you DON’T convert the Koran into uninterpretable (Decidable) propositions, then DE FACTO, all interpretation of the Koran IS IN FACT licensed by the Book, the religion, and all muslims.

    In other words, the jihadis and terrorists are in fact practicing Islam because it is possible to interpret islam from the book as such, because the inability to interpret islam in that way is not restated in a new version of the Book.

    And my argument is, that if it was restated, then it would be untenable for western authors.

    Which is why I suspect western authors will, as some of them have begun to, state the Koran in legal verse.

    We know that the book is a fabrication just as was the Jewish Bible, and the Christian Bible. We know the Koran was only Codified a century ago. We have begun producing an historical literature demonstrating that Mohammed is no more real a character than Jesus, Arthur, or Siegfried.

    We have not however converted it to a set of statements of law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 12:16:00 UTC