Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • THE ORIGIN OF OUR CONSTITUTION Our constitution was proposed as an alternative –

    THE ORIGIN OF OUR CONSTITUTION

    Our constitution was proposed as an alternative – a third way – an alternative to the parasitic rents of the arbitrary commands of the martial aristocracy, and the dysgenia, deceits, and parasitic rents of the church bureaucracy. A *purely meritocratic order* free of rents whether constructed of arbitrary commands or superstitious excuses – A constitution of Natural Law. And the restoration of our ancient meritocratic order.

    Our founders created an *alternative* to the classes of europe, and not a duplication of it.

    All nations need not be the same. Some for the low, some for the strong, and some for the meritocratic. All those who pursue rents via arbitrary command and rents by deceit, merey flee to the green fields of meritocratic orders to parasitically profit from the high trust that they engender. Then drive them asunder through arbitrary command and incremental deception.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 14:58:00 UTC

  • UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – First Paragraph. —When in the cours

    UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – First Paragraph.

    —When in the course of human events it becomes preferable for one people to dissolve the political institutions, laws, agreements, and territorial commons which have united them, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of all mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 14:03:00 UTC

  • THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE COURTS —“If in the opinion of the People the distributi

    THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE COURTS

    —“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”—In his farewell address, President George Washington

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 10:33:00 UTC

  • UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – Paragraph 2 —We hold these truths t

    UPDATING THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE – Paragraph 2

    —We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created unequal; that to prosper despite our inequality we must voluntarily cooperate; and to voluntarily cooperate we must be considered equal under the law; and as such we must establish equal rights under the law; and that among these rights are Life, Body, Mind, Freedom of Action and the Pursuit and Accumulation of Property-in-Toto, for self, Family, Kin, Clan, Tribe, and Nation, through productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of the imposition of costs against the property of others by externality.—

    Jefferson unfortunately lacked the language to state the preamble more perfectly.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 09:45:00 UTC

  • WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS? Let’s go thru the logic: AFAIK Marriage consists o

    WHAT ABOUT MISTRESSES/LOVERS?

    Let’s go thru the logic:

    AFAIK Marriage consists of the following contractual properties.

    1) insurance by the community that they will not interfere in the corporation you have created for the production of offspring, in exchange for not forcing them to pay the cost of paying for your offspring by moral hazard.

    2) the right of killing, harming, or demanding restitution from those who interfere in that corporation and create the hazard for the members of the contract, and their offspring.

    3) a contract of exclusivity between a man and a woman for sex, affection, care-taking, children, economic cooperation (household cost sharing).

    4) Grant of general power of attorney to the spouse in all matters, of property, life, and death

    I have no problem with (meaning I don’t seen an argument against) prostitution, call girls, courtiers, or ‘paid’ mistresses (or studs). This poses no threat to the corporation that consists of the family, nor the contract between the community and the members of the corporation.

    I am not a fan of unpaid mistresses unless you can easily afford them and the offspring that they produce. Ergo, the difference between polygamy and ‘mistresses’ is arbitrary, other than polygamy means sharing the same household) and paid mistresses not. The question is whether one can create a marriage contract with more than one woman and I think the answer is no, but then we can certainly create ‘lover/mistress’ contracts outside the marriage (or instead of them). And I would prefer we do this rather than continue this nonsensical debate over the redefinition of marriage. We use different corporation structures (c, s, llc, partnerships, sole proprietorships) and there is no reason we cannot create marriages with similar decreasing requirements.

    Normatively we required you pay for your legitimate offspring but not your illegitimate. And you continue to pay for your legitimate and illegitimate offspring as a means of retaining the sex and affection of a woman. This provides the correct incentives to all. For a woman she dooms herself and her children to relative poverty, so she keeps men at bay and does not interfere in other marriages. But if she is willing she can gain offspring, sex, and gifts, from superior males. For a man, this means he can pay for sex without incurring responsibility for offspring, or sacrifice his family. Male sex is a need. Female sex is a want. Motherhood is exhausting, and servicing men is an option while servicing children is a necessity. This is the way we evolved.

    Moreover, a mistress that you pay for sex and affection is only logical for a man. A woman has access to child’s affection, and a man far less so. Men will kill each other over women and so that’s a different thing. Both a mans and a women’s status is harmed by male infidelity. Risk is increased for the economic unit that is the family.

    The french and italian (latin) models seem effective: a lot of extramarital sex in exchange for preservation of the family unit, with the presumption that there are high costs for either embarrassing the spouse and family, or interfering with that relationship. This is possible because of the retention of the intergenerational family (traditional family). Which provides insurance to one another. The traditional family, in turn, is possible because of lower geographic mobility (less big sorting going on), and the retention of older generations in low cost geographies out of the city, and younger generation employment in the high cost cities; the limited use of suburbs rather than family sized urban apartments, and suburban/rural ‘grandparents’ homes. (the germans do this the best it seems.)

    Conclusions:

    (a) marriage is irreplaceable as a means of long term economic cooperation. You will be more prosperous if married and poorer if unmarried.

    (b) a man must produce, in a short time, during his productive phase, sufficient reserves to carry him through late life. He can produce those reserves through investment in family that will care for him in the future, or in capital that will provide care for him in the future. For women, they are much more fungible in society and are lower cost in old age. men specialize and adapt poorly, women generalize and adapt highly.

    (c) children always ‘belong’ to a woman unless she is unfit. A man trades sex, affection, care, shared costs, and support in exchange for exclusivity. A woman for the same plus the care for her offspring.

    (d) If you interfere in the marriage you demonstrate willingness to take up the costs of the man or woman you seek to replace. In other words, you are liable for damages (which are empirically, quite substantial).

    (e) If a marriage dissolution is voluntary, then all exchange and all responsibility, and all corporate relations end. Period. Individuals may negotiate money for access etc if they choose. No child support, no spousal support.

    (f) Community property never exists and never can, and never should. End marital community property entirely. Make this a negotiating point in relationships.

    (g) Prenup contracts must be the most enforceable contracts of all contracts, without exception.

    (h) yes to paid sex and affection. yes to uninsured polygamy (non-marriage). yes to monogamous (insured) marriage. yes to ‘casual encounters’. No to interference in the corporation that insulates the community from the costs of your reproduction.

    IMHO these questions are largely irrelevant, because we all fool around quite a bit. The question is only what insurance we provide and what behaviors we demand in order to prevent fooling around producing costs that are imposed upon others.

    Empirically, and rationally, the latin model traditional family is superior to the germanic absolute nuclear family. or said differently, the absolute nuclear family is too fragile as a general rule for other than the genetic, cultural, and occupational elite.

    History has solved this problem for us by gradual empirical means. If you have a marriage and women who bear children you will survive. If you do not you will be conquered and defeated. If you wish to be conquered and defeated then you may not make that choice for others. And so we must revolt and separate so that those of us who do not wish to be conquered defeated, displaced, and removed from history, and the future, are not conquered, defeated, and displaced by the weak among us.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 12:32:00 UTC

  • ITS LAW NOT ECONOMICS – THE FALSE DICHOTOMY We fail at communism and a hundred m

    ITS LAW NOT ECONOMICS – THE FALSE DICHOTOMY

    We fail at communism and a hundred million die.

    We fail at capitalism, create cronyism, and a civilization dies.

    We fail at natural law and give birth to capitalism and communism and everything in between.

    If we succeed at natural law, we create markets not capitalism.

    And our civilization will flourish – yet again.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 09:58:00 UTC

  • “Rule of law certainly does not depend on democratic principles, but on the mark

    —“Rule of law certainly does not depend on democratic principles, but on the market exchange of fully informed sovereign parties.

    Almost by definition democracy requires that people are duped into believing that ideology runs the world (as opposed to interests) and that politicians and their establishment colleagues form cartels to perpetuate this illusion.

    Case in point: election campaigns have very little connection to what an elected politician will actually pursue in office. The mechanisms at play in the exercise of power are not advertised.

    Instead of institutionalizing swindle we should institutionalize the pursuit of our proper interests.

    What mechanisms are at play in aristocracies?

    Well, at first glance, norms of reproduction and inheritance (multi-generational investments), a degree of nepotism and the threat of violent ousting of rulers when exchange is not reciprocal.

    Because if guns are traded for common suffrage we have a democracy instead.”—Simon Ström

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-06 17:07:00 UTC

  • Transcendence and Sovereignty Were The Last Pieces

    Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations. The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes. And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war. And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests. There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation. The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle. We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives. He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.

  • Transcendence and Sovereignty Were The Last Pieces

    Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors make rule possible, but Judges rule. In the monopoly of soldiery officers rule, and in the market of cooperation judges rule. Judges and Officers provide the same function under positiva (military) and negativa (market) organizations. The question is only which method judges use to rule. And there is only one scientific, logical, true, and perfectly decidable method by which judges *can* rule, and that is Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Sovereign Men. The west has always been poly-narrative. With each class evolving its own narrative. And with each class narrative justifying its role in the natural law of sovereign men. The cult of sovereignty for the aristocracy, the cult of law for the priesthood of the aristocracy, the cult of philosophy for the middle aspirational classes, and the cult of religion for the laboring classes, and the cult of rejection, rebellion, and escape by the undesirable classes. And in turn, there is only one method of producing Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and sufficient surplus for subsidy, and this is via the incremental suppression of parasitisms in all its forms, producing sovereign men, and eliminating parasitic men – leaving only means of survival in markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, and production of polities. The monarchy provides the judge of last resort in war, the judiciary the judge of markets, and the officer corps the commander of the monopoly that is war. And so, as long as the men willing and able to fight for sovereignty are trained in, and participate in, a local militia, a regional regimental system, and are trained by a national army, in exchange for rights of public speech, access to territorial and capital ownership, and participation in the choice of commons, then because of their arms and their numbers, no usurper can deprive them of sovereignty; and because of their investment and advantage from it, they will preserve their sovereignty, and because of their universal standing in courts of natural law, they will have incentive and peaceful and productive means of preserving their sovereignty, through the incremental suppression of all parasitism of which they are aware. Men must create a market for the suppression of parasitism, by in turn creating a market for cooperation, because of the market for violence that is the result of a large militia of diverse personal but homogenous collective, interests. There is but one method of obtaining and preserving the sovereignty, necessary for the production of agency, necessary for the transcendence of man, and that is the organization of a franchise (corporation) of warriors of sufficient number, with sufficient incentives, and sufficient institutional means, that the only conditions that prevent conflict and preserve cooperation. The advantage of this order is that we preserve our original innovation: maneuver (what we call today ooda-loops) because of the distribution of decision making to the lowest possible level of the organization: a market for heroism in battle. We developed markets in everything, because markets adapt faster and innovate faster than all alternatives. And for a small population of people, the use of excellence(professionals) and technology (excellence), and markets (maneuver) is simply *faster* in all dimensions than all larger and slower alternatives. He who adapts fastest and best has the advantage. Because the first and last enemy of all is TIME.

  • The Relationships Within The Hierarchy of Laws

    THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE HIERARCHY OF LAWS 1) Laws of Nature: Equilibria: The DISCOVERY of which is the subject of physical science. We can know the first causes of the deterministically equilibrial universe – but we cannot sense them without extensive work. 2) Laws of Man: man is an expensive organism fighting the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and must act to acquire, and in acting to acquire, acts rationally (to ensure returns – in the greatest return for the least effort, in the shortest time, with the greatest degree of certainty at the lowest risk); and in acting rationally, must conserve physical, emotional, and mental energy, and expend physical, emotional, and mental effort; and can choose to cooperate with others, prey upon others, or boycott others at all times; and may make use of violence, remuneration, or gossip(lauding/shaming), to do so. 2) Natural Law: Non-Parasitism, leaving Reciprocity as the only possible action, because only by non parasitism do we produce the incentive to cooperate rather than prey upon, retaliate against, or boycott. We can know the first cause of reciprocity through direct observation, and we do know it. We cannot implement reciprocity without extensive work (institutions) which allow us to concentrate our forces. 3) Natural RIghts: The methods of insuring natural law, by an insurer of last resort (militia, military, judiciary, monarchy). We cannot implement those institutions without rules by which institutions may enact processes, independently of subjective opinion. 4) Property in toto: the means of commensurability (measurement) between our actions: changes in state of property in toto exist in reality (laws of nature), limited by the abilities of man’s action (laws of man), violate or do not violate reciprocity (rule of law), and are insured or not insured by institutions (natural rights), and can be measured or not measured by changes in property in toto. FRAMING: Laws of Nature > (limits of, methods of transformation) … Laws of Man > limits of, methods of action) … … Laws of Cooperation > (limits of and methods of cooperation.) … … … Laws of Information > ( limits of and methods true Speech) … … … … Laws of Sentience > (limits and methods of ‘thinking’)