Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments

    Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 18:00:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765246865877196800

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • Lets take the lie that we live under the code of hammurabi

    Lets take the lie that we live under the code of hammurabi.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 17:59:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765246645932032002

    Reply addressees: @JaimelHemphill @pdamra @mmurraypolitics

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JaimelHemphill

    @curtdoolittle @pdamra @dmataconis @mmurraypolitics Don’t worry- We’re too evolved to treat you like your ancestors treated us.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765245271471120385

  • WE ARE THE STRANGE PEOPLE. THE REST OF THE WORLD IS NORMAL: CORRUPT. that the pu

    WE ARE THE STRANGE PEOPLE. THE REST OF THE WORLD IS NORMAL: CORRUPT.

    that the purpose of the militia, the sheriff, and the judiciary, is to eliminate corruption from the market economy, and resist as much as possible political corruption from entering the market economy, while preserving the natural corruption that exist in the ‘favors’ economy, of the political production of commons.

    American corruption is fairly isolated in the sense that it’s political and systemic, and usually hidden, and rarely interferes with the private economy.

    This differs from most of the world, and certainly within the post-soviet countries, where citizens directly experience corruption with nearly all officials, and where it’s terribly common to have the government collect protection money, or for the government to construct false legal claims in order to force you into bankruptcy so that your business can be bought for pennies by one of the political allies.

    These are normal everyday occurrences here. I have been in stores when people come in seeking bribes. I have paid bribes to policemen. I have paid bribes to administration officials. I have paid bribes to customs officers – not to get away with anything mind you – but to prevent them from imposing HIGHER costs on me unjustly.

    I have no problem with paying anyone for extraordinary work, like higher prices for shorter lines. Some of us have more money than time, and some more time than money. I have no problem paying someone for extraordinary service (rushing some work). This is not corruption, it’s compensation.

    It’s corruption when it costs money to have someone just do a job, or when you aren’t initiating it in order to obtain extra service.

    Most of the world is corrupt/ it is the west that’s unique.

    We are the weird people.

    The rest of the world is normal: corrupt.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 15:47:00 UTC

  • HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very impor

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW

    (very important ideas inside)

    1-Find a Lie

    2-Ask if it is really true.

    3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away.

    4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed.

    AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW

    (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.)

    1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments.

    3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law.

    4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism.

    5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law.

    6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain.

    8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law.

    11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded.

    13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time.

    14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law.

    20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW.

    22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia.

    23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying

    28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language.

    30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies.

    33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women.

    38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek.

    43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER.

    46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law.

    50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading.

    52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique).

    54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth.

    55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON.

    58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ.

    62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse.

    I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 15:33:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”— INTELLECTUAL PRO

    Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”—

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    Forms of Intellectual Property:

    * Trademarks and Branding (Weight and Measure) (may not misrepresent as identical)

    * Creative Commons and Open Source ( free use for non-commercial use)

    * Copyright (License fees to inventors of creative products)

    * Patents (license fees to inventors of material products )

    * Legal Privileges (license fees on partial or total monopolies)

    Trademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry.

    Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others.

    Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others.

    Worse, the reason we have so much (crap) published in every medium, and the reason we have an immoral media, and an immoral Hollywood, and an immoral publishing system, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral – even heinous – to issue copyrights.

    I suggest that we retain the registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism).

    Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use.

    There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research.

    Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents.

    It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license.

    In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others.

    I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others.

    This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy or Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:30:00 UTC

  • “You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should b

    —“You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should be punishable fraud. Could you expand on what you mean as a commodity and how you would determine what forms of “lies” (you usually say leftist pseudo-science) should be punished?”—

    I said I see information as a kind of production that is dumped into the commons, just as pollutants are dumped into the air, land, and water. We don’t care much if you dump clean water into the commons, or clean air into the commons, or even oxygen, and to some degree heat or cold. But why should you be able to pollute the informational commons any more than you can pollute air, land, water, or damage parks, infrastructure, buildings, and monuments?

    It was one when we all have equal voices in the Thang, Square, Church, or Parliament. But it becomes quite different when you can make use of Altar, Pulpit, Throne, Press, media, and entertainment. It’s very different to tell a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, and a white, gray, or black propaganda lie. And it’s far worse if you force a legislative lie.

    Our civilization has been nearly conquered by the Jewish pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, and outright falsehood movements, by the academy, media, and state, just as the ancients were conquered as much by the lies of Jewish monotheism and it’s distribution by pulpit and state. Likely with equally dark ages to follow.

    So how do we prevent correct it now, and prevent it in the future?

    Well, we make it as illegal to lie in politics as it is to commit any other kind of fraud, by removing the right to free speech and replacing it with the right to truthful speech.

    But why is the problem of truth and falsehood so challenging? The answer is that until approximately now, we didn’t know what ‘truth’ was any more than we knew what ‘justice’ was.

    What I’ve tried to do is provide a set of warranties of due diligence (which is what scientists do) that if performed means that a proposition may not be true, but it is very difficult for it knowingly to be false.

    IF we then simply create universal standing for matters of the commons and remove the ability of the state to intervene in matters of the commons, then people will regulate speech in the commons as rigorously as they regulate fraud in the commons.

    Advertisers are highly regulated, but most of us would suggest we regulate them far further. Some speech is regulated, but we could regulate it further.

    We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and adding warranties of truthfulness is certainly not harder than teaching logic or geometry. And if you cannot state logic or geometry or truthfulness we have a question whether you can say anything other than what you desire, versus what is true. In my grandmother’s generation, it wasn’t uncommon for people to say “I don’t know about such things” because that was a truthful statement. Yet in pursuit of socialism, we have told generations to express opinions as if they were a truth that they understood. This attack on truth in favor of self-expression, in order to empower the incompetent classes, has been central to the anti-aristocratic strategy we incorrectly call ‘socialism’.

    So in brief there is absolutely no reason we cannot state in comprehensible and observable legal language the requirements for due diligence in truthfulness when speaking of matters in the commons. We do it with creating a hazard (‘fire in a theater’), and we do it with inciting a riot (‘taking advantage of mob instinct’), and we do it with libel and slander, and prior to the outlawing of judicial duels we did it even for insults. It is not clear at all that the world is a better place for our tolerance of insult, libel, slander, advertising representation, political representation, teaching of pseudosciences, and other conflationary public speech.

    It’s just the opposite.

    We’ve just endured a century of pseudoscience.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 16:21:00 UTC

  • Do We Have The Right To Have Rights?

    We SEEK rights. Rights can only exist if insured by an insurer.
    So we don’t CAN’T have the right to have them.
    We can on the other hand desire them.
    We pretty much need them.
    And we can work to obtain them.

    Although if you look at the present era, we’re lucky if we get negative rights and we will never get positive rights. It’s suicidal. Look at europe.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-right-to-have-rights

  • What Does The Voter Rights Act And The Civil Rights Act Contain That The 14th And 15th Amendments Didn’t Cover?

    The 14th and 15th were disasters that were as bad or worse than the war itself.
    The 60’s legislation implemented reverse discrimination.
    Societies work when you just use rule of law and leave people alone to sort the way they want to.

    Both were catastrophes

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-does-the-voter-rights-act-and-the-civil-rights-act-contain-that-the-14th-and-15th-amendments-didnt-cover

  • Do We Have The Right To Have Rights?

    We SEEK rights. Rights can only exist if insured by an insurer.
    So we don’t CAN’T have the right to have them.
    We can on the other hand desire them.
    We pretty much need them.
    And we can work to obtain them.

    Although if you look at the present era, we’re lucky if we get negative rights and we will never get positive rights. It’s suicidal. Look at europe.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-right-to-have-rights

  • What Does The Voter Rights Act And The Civil Rights Act Contain That The 14th And 15th Amendments Didn’t Cover?

    The 14th and 15th were disasters that were as bad or worse than the war itself.
    The 60’s legislation implemented reverse discrimination.
    Societies work when you just use rule of law and leave people alone to sort the way they want to.

    Both were catastrophes

    https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-does-the-voter-rights-act-and-the-civil-rights-act-contain-that-the-14th-and-15th-amendments-didnt-cover