Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • “WRONGNESS (n) : (general) a false, misleading, bad, immoral, or unjust statemen

    —“WRONGNESS (n) : (general) a false, misleading, bad, immoral, or unjust statement, idea, implication, action, object or circumstance. (in law) an infringement of another person’s rights, rendering the offender liable to a civil action, as for breach of contract or tort: a private wrong.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 10:13:00 UTC

  • “Does Rule of Law by Natural Law assume we need a “ruler”?—@Curt Morehouse A d

    —“Does Rule of Law by Natural Law assume we need a “ruler”?—@Curt Morehouse

    A distributed dictatorship of sovereign men: the militia.

    We do however, require a judge of last resort (monarch).

    Not a ruler, but a judge of last resort.

    Via-Negativa in Everything.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 08:28:00 UTC

  • Rule of Law = Non-Discretion. Discretion != Rule of Law. One cannot have rule of

    Rule of Law = Non-Discretion. Discretion != Rule of Law.

    One cannot have rule of law, and at the same time, command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation, because command, legislation, regulation, and judicial interpretation are discretionary.

    Nomocracy: Government by Rule of Law.

    How is a nomocracy possible without command, legislation, regulation and judicial interpretation? Markets in everything: Markets for participation, association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and dispute resolution.

    But how do we provide decidability in all those markets? Reciprocity. Why? Because reciprocity always provides decidability.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-24 09:50:00 UTC

  • Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia

    WHAT I’M SAYING ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED. IT”S THE OPERATIONALIZATION, ADVOCACY, AND DEFENSE OF IT THAT’S COMPLICATED. Michael Churchill Curt you’ve argued that you want the US to have multiple legal frameworks via devolution of power from the national to the state level. Isn’t that a sort of acceptance of different strokes for different folks? Curt Doolittle Different production of commons. one legal (truthful) law. But yes. Hey. I’m a libertarian. do what you fucking want. Just let me live with my people as I want. Michael Churchill Okay that’s what I thought you’d say. Makes sense. Think i fully understand the core thesis of Propertarianism now. (Also thanks for that elevator pitch description of it a bit earlier.) Curt Doolittle I”m sayin’ just this: Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia, but with strictly constructed natural law that is as inviolable as mathematics. The whole ‘trick’ is in that law. It’s that law I spent all the time on.

  • Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia

    WHAT I’M SAYING ISN’T THAT COMPLICATED. IT”S THE OPERATIONALIZATION, ADVOCACY, AND DEFENSE OF IT THAT’S COMPLICATED. Michael Churchill Curt you’ve argued that you want the US to have multiple legal frameworks via devolution of power from the national to the state level. Isn’t that a sort of acceptance of different strokes for different folks? Curt Doolittle Different production of commons. one legal (truthful) law. But yes. Hey. I’m a libertarian. do what you fucking want. Just let me live with my people as I want. Michael Churchill Okay that’s what I thought you’d say. Makes sense. Think i fully understand the core thesis of Propertarianism now. (Also thanks for that elevator pitch description of it a bit earlier.) Curt Doolittle I”m sayin’ just this: Restore the monarchies, rule of law, multi-house government, and the militia, but with strictly constructed natural law that is as inviolable as mathematics. The whole ‘trick’ is in that law. It’s that law I spent all the time on.

  • Yep. Transcendence and Sovereignty were the last pieces. In the end, warriors ma

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 08:54:00 UTC

  • we solve it every day in courts everywhere with extraordinary predictability

    we solve it every day in courts everywhere with extraordinary predictability


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-19 17:55:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854755299625926657

    Reply addressees: @FormerlyFormer @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854675179200536576


    IN REPLY TO:

    @FormerlyFormer

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 You can’t solve the “who decides” problem, though. You get to limit false speech, but I get to decide what’s false. Deal? If not, why not?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/854675179200536576

  • CONSENT? We can’t hold people to specific implicit consent because we can’t real

    CONSENT?

    We can’t hold people to specific implicit consent because we can’t really state that they understood what they were doing. What we tend to do is hold people account for continuous implicit consent because they can’t say they didn’t understand.

    this is how the law works today.

    You can demonstrate your consent by benefiting from something. You cannot demonstrate your consent to some specific agreement that you may or may not have understood. This is why board members and all sorts of organiations vote. It’s a claim that ‘I understand’.

    This is not true in government and that’s a problem. If liablity were applicable to polticians like it is to boards and officers then we woould ahve 1% of the political problems that we do.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 10:51:00 UTC

  • Why can’t local, regional, and national courts adjudicate by reciprocity as well

    Why can’t local, regional, and national courts adjudicate by reciprocity as well?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:53:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697925205172224

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209

  • Don’t international courts already adjudicate by reciprocity? (yes)

    Don’t international courts already adjudicate by reciprocity? (yes)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 19:53:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853697833677017089

    Reply addressees: @mcmaz1ng @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Its_Lynnocent

    @curtdoolittle @gmiller @JayMan471 Do juries do this? Sometimes. Is their record fantastic. Not particularly. Do i trust a court to through out all their biases in cases

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853693264939102209