Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Why should we copyright and protect investment in movies and books but not homes

    Why should we copyright and protect investment in movies and books but not homes, buildings, and land?


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:41:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731932439153639424

    Reply addressees: @Noahpinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926274277412864


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Noahpinion

    3/Property owners, mostly middle-aged or old, seem very cagey and uptight. They know they’re the beneficiaries of a broken system.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926274277412864

  • I’ve been working on legal corruption for three years. It’s not hard. The questi

    I’ve been working on legal corruption for three years. It’s not hard. The question is only why it’s not fixed.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:15:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731926053753638912

    Reply addressees: @Hromadske @JudithGoughFCO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hromadske

    Appointment of new Ukraine’s Prosecutor General is not enough, whole office needs to be reformed – @judithgoughfco https://t.co/MSaJSEvv3i

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128

  • We (in Ukraine) are the only poor europeans remaining. Why? Our judiciary makes

    We (in Ukraine) are the only poor europeans remaining. Why? Our judiciary makes financial risk-taking impossible.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:14:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731925768163475456

    Reply addressees: @Hromadske @JudithGoughFCO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hromadske

    Appointment of new Ukraine’s Prosecutor General is not enough, whole office needs to be reformed – @judithgoughfco https://t.co/MSaJSEvv3i

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128

  • It may take $750M to pay the judges but what’s the cost of NOT paying them? Lust

    It may take $750M to pay the judges but what’s the cost of NOT paying them? Lustration, new judges, pay them.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:13:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731925517348311040

    Reply addressees: @Hromadske @JudithGoughFCO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hromadske

    Appointment of new Ukraine’s Prosecutor General is not enough, whole office needs to be reformed – @judithgoughfco https://t.co/MSaJSEvv3i

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128

  • When you pay judges $500-$1000 a month, you will get corruption. It’s $750M a ye

    When you pay judges $500-$1000 a month, you will get corruption. It’s $750M a year to pay the judges well enough.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 19:12:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731925341892120576

    Reply addressees: @Hromadske @JudithGoughFCO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hromadske

    Appointment of new Ukraine’s Prosecutor General is not enough, whole office needs to be reformed – @judithgoughfco https://t.co/MSaJSEvv3i

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731908273482416128

  • Is human rights a cultural thing that simply does not apply to cultures that do

    Is human rights a cultural thing that simply does not apply to cultures that do not support them? Why or why not? https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=bff30a05


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 18:51:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731919997711360001

  • human rights a cultural thing that simply does not apply to cultures that do not

    https://t.co/btpPWny4F2—“Are human rights a cultural thing that simply does not apply to cultures that do not support them? Why or why not?”— https://t.co/btpPWny4F2

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.

    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 14:51:00 UTC

  • THE POSITIVE AND JUSTIFICATIONARY LAW OF TYRANNY AND COMMAND VS THE NEGATIVE AND

    THE POSITIVE AND JUSTIFICATIONARY LAW OF TYRANNY AND COMMAND VS THE NEGATIVE AND CRITICAL LAW OF LIBERTY AND INNOVATION.

    +THE POSITIVE LAW

    The Soviet Law was not law at all but ideological command, from the superior to the inferior – and dramatically counter to the behavior of human beings.

    The Chinese ‘law’ is not law at all, but ‘moral’ command, from the superior to the inferior, with the unstated purpose of maintaining Han control of the territory and people.

    The Continental Law (the french and germans) separates the law of citizens and the law of government. It is a law of unequals. It is a law of nationalism.

    The english constitution treats all men as unequal and entirely empirical, in an attempt to constrain the discretion of the king and government.

    The american common law, treats all men as equal – it is a law for aristocratic egalitarians, it states only what may not be done.

    Propertarianism (my work) separates Natural Law of all men, from contracts for the commons, which may not transgress natural law. It is a law for preventing the political and legal inequality of men.

    -THE NEGATIVE LAW


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 04:16:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION STARE DECISIS (PRECEDENT) AND THE COMMON LAW VS STRICT CONSTRUCTION. (

    EVOLUTION STARE DECISIS (PRECEDENT) AND THE COMMON LAW VS STRICT CONSTRUCTION.

    (important concept)

    The common law (customary law between competing courts) relies upon Precedent rather than strict construction from first principles.

    The fact that westerners practiced non-parasitism and the oath, meant that by consequence, the common law evolved to REFLECT empirical and natural law, as much as cause and perpetuate it.

    But into the colonial era, then the industrial era, under the strain of complexity and scale,

    We start out as hunter-agrarian tribes, where consensus can be formed and headmen decide disputes, to agrarian urbanism under either despotism, or democracy, where majorities decide and judges resolve disputes according to tradition, to industrial division of labor under either bureaucratic despotism, or multi-house democracy creating a market for commons between the classes reliant on assent, and layers of courts that resolve disputes according to legislation, to the present information era, where we will have corporate-state despotism, or multiple houses creating a market for commons limited only by legal dissent, and a market for courts that resolve disputes by appeal to strict construction under natural law.

    In other words, ***as we scale in population and productive complexity we increasingly transform from the use of consensus and justification of small groups of common interest, to the use of a market to calculate common interest and criticism between groups.***

    We move from majority voluntary assent to minority legal dissent.

    We move incrementally from justification to criticism: from democratic proof to natural law falsification.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 02:07:00 UTC

  • That is a far cry from your original criticism. Our courts are not good. But not

    That is a far cry from your original criticism. Our courts are not good. But not bad either.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-14 15:06:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731500948200259584

    Reply addressees: @GaltsGirl @GrossmanJoshua @pye @RightOnCrime

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731496601479348227


    IN REPLY TO:

    @GaltsGirl

    @curtdoolittle Not solely, no. There is plenty wrong with our justice system, from top to bottom. @GrossmanJoshua @pye @RightOnCrime

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731496601479348227