Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • THE LAW MUST BE EXPLICITLY RIGHT So that trade is the only possible means of con

    THE LAW MUST BE EXPLICITLY RIGHT

    So that trade is the only possible means of constructing a leftist experience.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-05 02:28:00 UTC

  • Houses must represent classes and tribes for a market to form. And use legal dis

    Houses must represent classes and tribes for a market to form. And use legal dissent not majority assent.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 05:18:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771940466480775168

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness @NickLand7 @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771780755714301952

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    @NickLand7 @JonHaidt That’s because you’ve not been paying attention.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771780755714301952

  • Ergo: single house majoritarianism is the cause of the failure of worldwide demo

    Ergo: single house majoritarianism is the cause of the failure of worldwide democracy. (Let that sink in)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-03 05:14:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771939303735881728

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness @NickLand7 @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771780755714301952

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    @NickLand7 @JonHaidt That’s because you’ve not been paying attention.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771780755714301952

  • SOROS FOR RACKETEERING? I have only participated in one case of racketeering and

    SOROS FOR RACKETEERING?

    I have only participated in one case of racketeering and it was in the 80’s.

    But why couldn’t we use the racketeering statutes to chase soros?

    He profits right?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-01 05:29:00 UTC

  • RESTITUTION AND PUNISHMENT ARE EVERY MAN’S PRICE OF LIBERTY. Every Man A Sheriff

    RESTITUTION AND PUNISHMENT ARE EVERY MAN’S PRICE OF LIBERTY.

    Every Man A Sheriff

    – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law.

    – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime.

    – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education.

    – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us.

    – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us.

    Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and baises. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other.

    But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law.

    I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity.

    I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes.

    I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not enage in parasitism.

    It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 21:31:00 UTC

  • HOMESTEADING(CREATION) -> POSSESSION(DEFENSE) -> PROPERTY(NORM) -> PROPERTY RIGH

    HOMESTEADING(CREATION) -> POSSESSION(DEFENSE) -> PROPERTY(NORM) -> PROPERTY RIGHTS(LAW)

    It’s probably clearer to label possession as my opinion and property as insured by third parties. I can possess material things, but I can have an interest in far more things.

    I’m going to try to correct this in my own usage.

    I may hold possessions, but property is a normative construction, and property rights are a legal construction. And I think that is pretty much what the common law says.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 06:55:00 UTC

  • LAW, SCIENCE, OUR DEMANDS, AND REBELLION Well, we CAN’T teach law as science any

    LAW, SCIENCE, OUR DEMANDS, AND REBELLION

    Well, we CAN’T teach law as science any longer because of the conflation between regulation, legislation, and Natural Law, where regulation and legislation are not bound by Natural Law. We cease having law that is categorically, internally, externally, and morally consistent, and therefore we no longer possess rule of law, but rule of discretion: the need for subjective information not provided by the law.

    If we taught Natural Law, common, judge-discovered law, universal standing, universal application (rule of law), and that it was possible to create strictly constructed, categorically, internally, externally, morally, scope, consistent law, then we could teach law as social science not ‘an attempt at unbiased discretion’ while advancing some agenda or other.

    We CAN teach law as social science, and we can live under a scientific and contractual government (rule of law: nomocracy). But to do so will require as violent a revolution as all other anglo revolutions: to raise the cost of discretionary, and arbitrary rule, such that non-discretionary rule of law is preferable to constant rebellion.

    This is our mission really.

    1 – demand for rule of law: natural law, judge-discovered common law, universal standing, and universal applicability.

    2 – demand for multi-house, market government, under legal dissent rather than majority assent.

    3 – demand for the defense of the informational commons

    4 – demand for the restoration of the militia and the regiments.

    5 – demand for the circumvention of the financial system in the issuance of liquidity.

    And to issue these demands, then interrupt and destroy the economy and the abilty to rule until there is no alternative left but the restoration of moral and scientific government instead of corrupt, immoral, and discretionary government.

    Fire is our first technology of mass destruction

    And it is still our best.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 04:18:00 UTC

  • THE OWNERSHIP SPECTRUM This might help everyone demarcate the different terms. u

    THE OWNERSHIP SPECTRUM

    This might help everyone demarcate the different terms.

    unaffilliated(individual) -> citizen(insured) -> stakeholder(in unenumerated commons) -> shareholder(enumerated commons) -> partner(inter personal decidability) -> “executive”(leadership decidability) -> (sole)owner(limited decidability) -> unaffilliated uninsured individual (total decidabilty)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 04:01:00 UTC

  • POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY AND NEGATIVE LAW If you want to inspire, inform, and rally,

    POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY AND NEGATIVE LAW

    If you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).

    Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.

    We attempt to advocate and inform, and prohibit and prosecute.

    As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>

    And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.

    Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 07:46:00 UTC

  • ABSENT JURIDICAL DEFENSE WE MUST RETURN TO VIOLENCE As Sovereign men we create j

    ABSENT JURIDICAL DEFENSE WE MUST RETURN TO VIOLENCE

    As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs.

    But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us.

    As far as I know we can kill Soros.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 05:20:00 UTC