Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Definition: Law

    DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure

  • Definition: Law

    DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government). 2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality, 3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law) 4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government). 5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort. 6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance). 7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance. Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure

  • My take is that the common law of torts, the articulation of natural law from th

    My take is that the common law of torts, the articulation of natural law from the common law of tortes, is empirical, evidentiary, and demonstrably superior to all other works of fiction. There is much good fiction. I prefer fiction that says it is fiction, not fiction that lies, and says its truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 13:13:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY —“Curt: Could you please define Aristocracy?”— A Friend Simply?

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/natural-law-doesnt-justify-aristocracy-it-justifies-markets-it-is-just-that-natural-law-is-only-possible-under-aristocracy/Q&A: ARISTOCRACY

    —“Curt: Could you please define Aristocracy?”— A Friend

    Simply? Meritocracy.

    Meritocracy how? Markets in Everything.

    Markets how? Limited by natural law.

    ARISTOCRACY = MARKETS

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/natural-law-doesnt-justify-aristocracy-it-justifies-markets-it-is-just-that-natural-law-is-only-possible-under-aristocracy/

    ALL MY POSTS INCLUDING THE TERM ‘ARISTOCRACY’

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=aristocracy


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-11 16:56:00 UTC

  • (very advanced stuff) —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst th

    (very advanced stuff)

    —“The former are concerned with impossibility, whilst the latter are concerned with impermissibility”—

    1) Are they possible? In other words, are you creating a point of demarcation (the error of sets and digital/binary thinking) rather than continuous/analog causes and effect? (yes)

    2) physical reality provides decidability (possibility), but does not human behavior provide decidability (possibility), with the distinction that humans can ‘recall’ as well as ‘forecast’ and therefore we can take on debts and make investments in cooperation. But can we in fact, state that humans will tolerate free riding, parasitism, predation and genocide? and if so where is some evidence of that? (there isn’t any, because it isn’t possible, it’s just SLOWer than physical phenomenon because of the ‘capacitance’ and ‘resistance’ provided by our ability to remember and forecast.)

    ( Tip: you’ve studied enough philosophy to fall into the trap of 20th century thought inherited from mathematics: set theory, and non contradiction. This is rationalism and includes only a subset of information about reality. Once you include the additional – missing – dimensions of reality you will no longer be able to make use of ‘the error of rationalism’: sets. … which is a very long discussion outside of the context of this topic.)

    —“Could you unpack this a bit? My statement is directed more towards the limits of empiricism, so I am unclear as to what you mean by unlimited and insufficient.”—

    3 – The positivism/empiricism debate, especially those who were unfortunately poisoned by first Kantian, and second Jewish (so called austrian, but not austrian) thought, as well as all cosmopolitan thought (freud, marx, boaz, cantor, frankfurt) is, like all late 19th and 20th century philosophy, a failed program.

    So, to deflate this set of fallacies, let’s start over with the dimensions of reality:

    a) identity (categorical consistency) ie: point

    b) logic (internal consistency) ie: line

    c) empiricism (external consistency / external correspondence) ie: space

    d) operationalism (existential consistency ) ie: time (change)

    f) morality (reciprocal consistency / reciprocity ) ie: cooperation (volition)

    g) limits (full-accounting, limits, and parsimony) ie: consequence.

    And to speak of reality we can also use terms that correspond to those dimensions, and thereby avoid errors of the past.

    a) Operational Definitions, therefore deflating experience, intention, assumption, and analogy. (identity, point)

    b) Operational Definitions in a series, therefore deflating the natural conflation of ideal types, by describing any concept on a scale – usually a scale of quantity (or population) on one axis, and time on the other axis. (identity, logic, line)

    c) Supply Demand Curves (competition) (identity, logic, line, space)

    d) Multiple Supply Demand Curves (equilibria) (identity, logic, line, space, time )

    e) Models consisting of all discernably causal equilibrating forces (identity, logic, line, space, competition)

    SUMMARY

    So like we cannot predict the location of a molecule of gas released in a vacuum, and we cannot predict subatomic phenomenon, because we cannot measure the states without affecting them; and like we cannot measure certain economic phenomenon at the individual level for the same reason, (we simply lack the information on the one hand, and attempting to obtain it would change the state), and just as we cannot determine the future competition between civilizations, that does not meant that there are not universal and necessary rules to these phenomenon whehther conditionaly invariant (physical), heuristically variant (interpersonal), or exogenously invariant (civilizational). The reason being that there are limits to human perception, cognition, retention, forecast, trust, ethics/morality, and action.

    Man is his own measure.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 09:50:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’). 1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (d

    DEFINITION: LAW (‘inescapable’).

    1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government).

    2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,

    3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law)

    4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).

    5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.

    6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).

    7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.

    Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insured by an empire: a larger insurer of last resort.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 21:08:00 UTC

  • DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD “LAW” (and lesser things) So, you want to hold to the de

    DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD “LAW”

    (and lesser things)

    So, you want to hold to the definition of ‘involved’ as including the consequences of some action, rather than ongoing action, then I’m going to be forced to ask now someone is no longer involved?

    I leave psychologizing, conflation, loading, framing, and overloading (acts of suggestion) to people engaged in deceit.

    LETS UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTATIVE METHOD OF MARXISM

    I (correctly) call acts of ridicule, shaming, rallying, psychologizing, conflation, loading, framing, overloading, fictionalism (supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-science), straw-manning, straw-manning to avoid exposition, heaping of undue praise on unworthy heroes, slighting of worthy competitors – what they are: the techniques of Marxists and Feminists. What is this technique? There are only three means of coercion: force, cooperation (reciprocity, truthfulness, in argument in this case), and Gossip (attempts to create or eliminate opportunities). Ergo: Marxist/Feminist/postmodern substitution of argument is in fact, nothing more than *gossip*.

    NOW FOR THE MEANING OF LAW (‘inescapable’).

    1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government).

    2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,

    3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law)

    4 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).

    5 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.

    6 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).

    7 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.

    Of these seven, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, unenforcible, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insured by an empire: a larger insurer of last resort.

    SUMMARY

    I don’t rely on fuzzy terminology to construct a pretense of argument in order to invoke moral indignation because I cannot make my argument by substantive means – in fact, my reputation, justly deserved, is for the exact opposite, usually including the ironic criticism ‘autistic’, because I specialize in the prosecution of deceptions carried out by those who practice elaborate gossip as a pretense for argument.

    —“I don’t call that ‘involved’. It means we had an interaction. But to be ‘involved’ requires ‘persistence’. So you’re either ignorant of the terminology, not very bright, or engaging in rhetorical fallacy, or rallying and shaming in the usual neocon (marxist), libertarian(marxist), or socialist(marxist) tradition of conflation, heaping of undue praise, straw manning, and propagandizing.”—

    Q.E.D. Criticism stands.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.facebook.com/MisesUK/photos/a.283608325389931.1073741828.251337711950326/309122929505137/?type=3


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 20:57:00 UTC

  • Um. we are supposed to be smart people. There is no law of war. there are on the

    Um. we are supposed to be smart people. There is no law of war. there are on the other hand agreements. And there are international agreements. And almost without exception international agreements rely upon natural law (non-provocation). Spain is violating the principle of non-provocation, and violating the principle of natural law, where natural law is the method of decidabilty we use in international agreements, the purpose of which is to ensure non-provocation, and therefore a reduction of war. Spain is attempting to reclaim Gibraltar but it is (as most weak nations do) a bit of theatre for the voters and nothing more. The people of Gibraltar are british citizens, they desire to be (who wouldn’t), the territory is British by long tradition and mutual agreement, and britan could eradicate the entirety of the spanish navy, airforce and army as a training exercise.

    So lets be the smart people. Spain violated britan’s territorial waters in an effort to defend the pride of the voters.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 22:33:00 UTC

  • “I went from legal immigrant to legal alien to naturalized citizen. The process

    —“I went from legal immigrant to legal alien to naturalized citizen. The process took 15 years and cost $20,000. We have 11,000,000 illegals in the country that we know of. That’s $220 Billion in outstanding debt. Until the free riders pay what they owe, I don’t want to hear shit about immigration.

    The only thing that surprises me anymore is that I, as someone whose homeland was viciously bombed by America not once, but twice over the past 70 years (first to install a commie and then to “liberate” an Islamist narco cartel and invent a state out of it) am a bigger American patriot than the majority of this country’s voting public.

    Could it have something to do with the fact that I’m here legally?”—Emil Prelic


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 10:07:00 UTC

  • CHAPTER STRUCTURE OF 48 LAWS, USING ONE CHAPTER (I am a fan of this model, and w

    CHAPTER STRUCTURE OF 48 LAWS, USING ONE CHAPTER

    (I am a fan of this model, and would like to extend Propertarianism into this format, and add examples in multiple forms of literature. So that the unification of every system of thought is more obvious)

    #3 – CONCEAL YOUR INTENTIONS. (<<< LAW )

    (EXPLANATION >>> )

    Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelop them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

    TRANSGRESSION (<<<VIA NEGATIVA)

    The Marquis de Sevigne was young and inexperienced in the art of love. He confided in the infamous courtesan of seventeenth-century France, Ninon de Lenclos, to instruct him on how to seduce a difficult young countess. She made him follow a plan over a number of weeks, where the Marquis would be appearing in public always surrounded by beautiful women, in the very places the countess would be expected to see him. He was supposed to assume an air of nonchalance. This increased the jealousy of the young countess, who was not sure of his interest in her. One day the Marquis, unable to control his passion, broke from Ninon’s plan, and blurted out to the countess that he loved her. After this admission, the countess no longer found him interesting and avoided him.

    OBSERVANCE (<<< VIA POSITIVA)

    Otto von Bismarck was a deputy in the Prussian parliament at a time when many fellow deputies thought it was possible to go to war against Austria and defeat it.

    Bismarck knew the Prussian army was not prepared, so he devised a clever way to keep the war at bay. He publicly stated his praises for the Austrians and talked about the madness of war. Many deputies changed their votes. Had Bismarck announced his real intentions, arguing it was better to wait now and fight later, he would not have won. Most Prussians wanted to go to war at that moment and mistakenly believed their army to be superior to the Austrians. Had he gone to the king his sincerity would have been doubted. By giving misleading statements about wanting peace and concealing his true purpose, Bismarck’s speech catapulted him to the position of prime minister. He later led the country to war against the Austrians at the right time, when he felt the Prussian army was more capable.

    WISDOM (<<< ACTIONS)

    • Use decoyed objects of desire and red herrings to throw people off scent.

    • Use smoke screens (a poker face) to disguise your actions.

    • False sincerity is one powerful tool that will send your rivals on a wild goose chase.

    • Publicly declare your false intentions to give misleading signals.

    • A noble gesture can be a smoke screen to hide your true intentions.

    • Blend in and people will be less suspicious.

    REMEMBER

    It takes patience and humility to dull your brilliant colors, to put on the mask of the inconspicuous. Do not despair at having to wear such a bland mask-—it is often your unreadability that draws people to you and makes you appear a person of power.

    AUTHORITY

    Have you ever heard of a skillful general, who intends to

    surprise a citadel, announcing his plan to his enemy? Conceal your

    purpose and hide your progress; do not disclose the extent of your

    designs until they cannot be opposed, until the combat is over. Win

    the victory before you declare the war. In a word, imitate those war-

    like people whose designs are not known except by the ravaged country through which they have passed. (Ninon de Lenclos, 1623-1706)

    REVERSAL (<<< REVERSAL – JUST LIKE IT SAYS)

    No smoke screen, red herring, false sincerity, or any other diversionary device will succeed in concealing your intentions if you already have an established reputation for deception. And as you get older and achieve success, it often becomes increasingly difficult to disguise your cunning.

    Everyone knows you practice deception; persist in playing naive and you run the risk of seeming the rankest hypocrite, which will severely limit your room to maneuver. In such cases it is better to own up, to appear the honest rogue, or, better, the repentant rogue. Not only will you be admired for your frankness, but, most wonderful and strange of all, you will be able to continue your stratagems.

    As P. T. Barnum, the nineteenth-century king of humbuggery, grew

    older, he learned to embrace his reputation as a grand deceiver. At one point he organized a buffalo hunt in New jersey, complete with Indians and a few imported buffalo. He publicized the hunt as genuine, but it came off as so completely fake that the crowd, instead of getting angry and asking for their money back, was greatly amused. They knew Barnum pulled tricks all the time; that was the secret of his success, and they loved him for it. Learning a lesson from this affair, Barnum stopped concealing all of his

    devices, even revealing his deceptions in a tell-all autobiography. As

    Kierkegaard wrote, “The world wants to be deceived.”

    Finally, although it is wiser to divert attention from your purposes by

    presenting a bland, familiar exterior, there are times when the colorful, conspicuous gesture is the right diversionary tactic. The great charlatan mountebanks of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe used humor and entertainment to deceive their audiences. Dazzled by a great show, the public would not notice the charlatans’ real intentions. Thus the star charlatan himself would appear in town in a night-black coach drawn by black horses. Clowns, tightrope walkers, and star entertainers would accompany

    him, pulling people in to his demonstrations of elixirs and quack potions. The charlatan made entertainment seem like the business of the day; the business of the day was actually the sale of the elixirs and quack potions.

    Spectacle and entertainment, clearly, are excellent devices to conceal your intentions, but they cannot be used indefinitely. The public grows tired and suspicious, and eventually catches on to the trick. And indeed the charlatans had to move quickly from town to town, before word spread that the potions were useless and the entertainment a trick. Powerful people with bland exteriors, on the other hand—the Talleyrands, the Rothschilds, the Selassies—can practice their deceptions in the same place throughout their lifetimes. Their act never wears thin, and rarely causes suspicion. The colorful smoke screen should be used cautiously, then, and

    only when the occasion is right.

    (IMAGERY – IN POETIC VERSE >>> )

    Image: A Sheep’s Skin.

    A sheep never marauds,

    a sheep never deceives,

    a sheep is magnificently

    dumb and docile. With a

    sheepskin on his back,

    a fox can pass right

    into the chicken coop.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 12:56:00 UTC