Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • THE “UNDESIGN” OF THE COMMON LAW (the source of catallaxy) Philosophers argue mo

    THE “UNDESIGN” OF THE COMMON LAW

    (the source of catallaxy)

    Philosophers argue mostly, as do theologists, via positiva.

    Meanwhile the common law of sovereign men, via negativa, without any design or intent, forces us to produce wonders we could not have imagined. Because we do not need to know what is good. What is good is a preference. We need only to rally around preferences and to cooperate to produce those ends. And to remove all frictions from doing so, by prohibiting all those inhibitions we place upon each other whenever we can get away with it, because parasitism is preferable to production.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:20:00 UTC

  • ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS) PATENTS It must be product

    ON THE LIMITS OF IP (PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS)

    PATENTS

    It must be productive (fully informed, warrantied, voluntary).

    Therefore:

    a) IP must protect an investment (born cost), not squat an option: piss-on-a-fire-hydrant.

    b) IP cannot be used to deny a product to market, only to recoup an investment at some non-arbitrary multiple from a market.

    c) As a consequence it is hard to understand the grant of a monopoly rather than a commission. And it is hard to understand unquantified and long term IP.

    d) It is almost impossible to argue in favor of aesthetic ‘design patterns'(interpretive). It is quite easy to argue in favor of scientific, engineering, and software patterns(operational).

    e) it is human nature to retaliate against profiting from non-contribution (copying). This violates the test of productivity.

    In addition to productivity, grasping this subject requires an understanding full accounting (in this case opportunity costs),

    a) Polities form to decrease opportunity and transaction costs.

    b) Competition is the battle to seize opportunities created by density and property, and competition cannot form if one can squat opportunities (seize unhomesteaded property). Squatting opportunities is just a form of theft. Ergo IP that squats opportunities rather than recoups a risky investment is just theft by rent seeking.

    TRADEMARK

    A trademark is just another form of weight and measure that prevents misrepresentation. it is easy to argue for ‘design patterns’ (interpretive) limits on the use of them in a market – although it appears that enforcement is ridiculously overzealous because the law has no empirical means of measurement. This means of measurement is now available by the 2-3 second discretion test. Meaning that If a random group of people can glance at a pair of trademarks and not be be confused between or inferred by one another then empirically there is no confusion. Trademarks are very difficult to argue with.

    COPYRIGHTS

    Copyrights are the most questionable, although the market has solved this with the various Creative Commons and MIT etc licenses, which require consent for commercial use, but not for personal use. This preserves the demand for productivity for market participation.

    The central problem with copyrights is that they create opportunities for profitability in the ‘lower’ arts, producing low quality arts in volume and saturating the environment, the marketplace and the informational commons with low quality arts. The great works would not cease being produced by great artists if no money was available except by sponsorship. Conversely, the low arts would be impossible to fund. Revoking the total copyright on literary and artistic works, and defaulting to the creative commons instead, would collapse the hollywood market. Prohibiting dramatization of the lives of individuals would complete the suppression of their propagandism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 11:31:00 UTC

  • “See, for example, the insightful comments by Childs (1914, 1-2) who notes ‘[t]h

    —“See, for example, the insightful comments by Childs (1914, 1-2) who notes ‘[t]he word “property”, in law, has two significations, meaning, first, “something owned”; and, second, “ownership”. … Property in its first sense – that of “something owned”, is classified into Real Property, or Realty, and Personal Property, or Personalty’.

    Blackstone uses the term ‘property’ in the sense of dominium (ownership right over a thing): see Blackstone (1893 [1753]), for example Chapter II. In contrast. Pollock in his seminal work on possession uses the term ‘ownership’, while the term ‘property’ mostly identifies the thing owned; see for example Pollock (1888, 8-12; also Pollock and Maitland 1898, Chapter IV).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 20:00:00 UTC

  • “No man has (or ever had) any inherent right to the use of the earth; nor to per

    —“No man has (or ever had) any inherent right to the use of the earth; nor to personal independence; nor to property, nor to wives, nor to liberty of speech; nor to freedom of thought; nor to anything except he can (by himself or in conjunction with his allies) assert his ‘rights’ by Power.

    What are (in popular parlance) called ‘rights,’ are really ‘spoil’ — the prerogatives of formerly exerted Might; but a ‘right’ lapses immediately, when those who are enjoying it, become incapable of further maintaining it.

    Consequently all ‘rights’ are as transient as morning rainbows, international treaties, or clauses in a temporary armistice. They may be abrogated at any moment, by any one of the contracting parties, holding the necessary Power.

    Broadly speaking therefore, Might is incarnated Right, and rights are metamorphosed mights. Power and Justice are synonyms; for Might is mighty and does prevail. They who possess the undisputable Might (be they one, ten, or ten million) may and do proclaim the Right.

    Government is founded on property, property is founded on conquest, and conquest is founded on Power— and Power is founded on brain and brawn — on Organic Animality.

    Just as parents dictate right to their children, so masterful animals dictate right to millions and millions of sodden-livered, baby-minded men.

    Monarchic rulers are the gaudy jumping-jacks, and representative institutions the tax gathering mechanism of the Mighty-Ones. Banks and safe-deposits are their treasure-stores, and armies and navies their sentinels, executioners, watchmen.” – Sam Hyde

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 13:17:00 UTC

  • WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM? Rights CAN only exist as contract rights. Rights are

    WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM?

    Rights CAN only exist as contract rights.

    Rights are brought into existence when a third party insures the terms of a normative, commercial, or political contract (usually brothers, extended family, a chieftain, set of elders, king, or government).

    We can NEED those rights.

    We can WANT those rights.

    We can DEMAND those rights.

    But those rights can only be brought into existence by a group of insurers. And those insurers insure them by force.

    Anyone who says otherwise is lying, engaging in wishful thinking, fantasizing, stupid, or ignorant.

    PERIOD.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 11:28:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM VIA THE COMMON LAW

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM VIA THE COMMON LAW

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:13:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (thinking) One of the issues I wrestle with is the poi

    THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (thinking)

    One of the issues I wrestle with is the point of demarcation. It’s clear that:

    (a) political speech (in any forum), is different from

    (b) commercial public speech (via media), from

    (c) public speech (via media), from

    (d) interpersonal speech (people you don’t know), from

    (e) private speech (people you know), from

    (f) home speech (family members), from

    (g) mental ‘speech’ (the self).

    And it’s clear that human beings need:

    (a) to vent frustrations

    (b) to test ideas

    (c) to seek allies in cooperation.

    And it’s clear that there is a difference between the form of communication:

    (a) A question: ‘What’s wrong with (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (b) A criticism: ‘I wish we could (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (c) An assertion: ‘it’s moral/right/good if we (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (d) An act of conspiracy: “Who will, or will you (insert immoral concept here)?” (or confirming it)

    (e) An act of treason: “I propose(submit) that we legislate (insert immoral concept here)!” (or confirming it)

    But what is the point of demarcation in the audience?

    (a) It’s reasonably clear that home and mental speech are not in a commons.

    (b) It’s arguable that private speech is not in a commons.

    (c) It’s arguable that interpersonal speech is not in a commons.

    (d) it’s inarguable that public speech is not in a commons.

    And what is the point of demarcation in the form of communication?

    (a) It’s reasonably clear that a question and a criticism are not in advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons).

    (b) it’s reasonably clear that assertions, conspiracy and treason are in fact advocacy (creating a hazard/damaging the commons)

    And it’s also pretty clear when someone is trying to circumvent those two tests of demarcation by “art and artifice”.

    It would seem PRUDENT to consider:

    (a) use of the government (any use of institutions)

    as treason.

    (b) use of the media (any form of publication)

    (c) commercial use (any form of for profit activity)

    as felonies, and

    (d) interpersonal human error, passions, etc

    as misdemeanors.

    We can easily test for due diligence (although this would take me a while)

    (a) definitions

    (b) whereas (initial state)

    (c) positiva (assertion, claim, desire)

    (d) negativa (survival from testimonial criticism)

    …..categorical

    …..logical

    …..empirical

    …..operational (existential)

    …..moral (reciprocal)

    …..scope (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

    (e) therefore (remedy)

    (f) yields (subsequent state) morally.

    The practice of law does this already but lacks the One Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) that preserves Sovereignty, that we call Natural Law. And current law fails to require positiva (complete arguments rather than simple prohibitions).

    And just as in law and every other discipline, conventions readily develop that we use as shorthand for the longer form.

    Very few of us know the law. We know only that we must not impose costs upon others without government (legislative) license to do so. And we have no current means of appeal against legilsative license – although the great lie that the ballot box can alter these conditions persists it’s empirically nonsensical. We vote by sentiment. Representation forces us to.

    Natural Law is Simple Law.

    So, the more difficult challenge is restructuring government into an insurer of last resort ONLY, eliminating all legislation, and allowing only contracts to be constructed either by direct action or representative assemblies.

    So as far as I know this is a sufficient test of the circumstantial limitations on damaging the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 10:21:00 UTC

  • ( The Prosecution Shall Begin )

    ( The Prosecution Shall Begin )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 21:21:00 UTC

  • Restore hereditary peers to the house of lords or wait for a new aristocracy to

    Restore hereditary peers to the house of lords or wait for a new aristocracy to emerge in the upcoming civil war?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 13:52:00 UTC

  • MONARCHY AND RULE OF LAW Monarchy requires rule of law. It’s impossible to hold

    MONARCHY AND RULE OF LAW

    Monarchy requires rule of law.

    It’s impossible to hold an absolute monarchy.

    It’s impossible to hold a dictatorship under rule of law.

    An absolute monarchy is a contradiction in terms.

    European Monarchy is, as far as I know, the correct label for common law monarchies of our ancient past.

    Christian Monarchy is, as far as I know, the correct label for medieval monarchies, since monarchies did not exist as we know them prior to the church’s crowning of ‘legitimate’ kings of europe.

    Constitutional Monarchies are perhaps where we went wrong, since it make the judge of last resort (monarch) subservient to a legislature(politics), rather than to the rule of natural law (the church), or to the rule of common law (judges).

    Stated in these terms which emphasize the negative (judging) it is more obvious than when stated in the positive (legislation or command).

    A ruler can only judge. A market can only choose. Anyone can envison.

    By envisioning, choosing my market, and judging (limiting) by monarch we funnel ideas through a series of challenges that ensure that only those with the most merit survive.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 13:15:00 UTC