Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • A FALSE DICHITOMY IN CHESTERSON CLARIFIED. —“You can be guided by the shrewdne

    A FALSE DICHITOMY IN CHESTERSON CLARIFIED.

    —“You can be guided by the shrewdness or presence of mind of one ruler, or by the equality and ascertained justice of one rule; but you must have one or the other, or you are not a nation, but a nasty mess.”–G.K. Chesterson.

    He makes the mistake of confusing republican rule of law, with monarchical discretion. And he does not know enough about his past to identify market government as the third option instead of there being only two. Nor does he seem to grasp that whether we possess one decision maker, or many, or a market, that all three must regulate by rule of law, or none can produce good, and all will produce ill.

    But I am criticizing him for a point he does not make. He is merely saying that there must be rule. whether it is pure rule of law and competing commons (market government), rule of law with representative decision makers producing monopoly commons, or a monarch bound by rule of law, but with sole discretion over the production of commons, rule of law is a constant, and the means of decision making over the production of commons is simply a matter of the heterogeneity (republicanism) or heterogeneity (market and monarchy) of the interests of the population.

    My preference is to treat these three methods of decision making as a distribution of labor, and to say that the king must make decision on war, and hold veto (act as judge), the senate must make decisions on commerce(revenues/production), and the common people must make decisions on commons (insurance and consumption). And that if none can find legal means of veto then the measure should pass as a legitimate contract between the classes.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-15 07:19:00 UTC

  • Defense of the commons and service in the jury, are not revenue sources but cost

    Defense of the commons and service in the jury, are not revenue sources but costs we must pay.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-14 16:14:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709412366606311424

    Reply addressees: @whitespace732 @AidanTTierian @AndrewCFollett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709408940233256960

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709408940233256960

  • If law is logically constructed, the polycentrism equates to polylogism. Instead

    If law is logically constructed, the polycentrism equates to polylogism. Instead, non-parasitism, mono-logism, and polycentric discovery.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 15:10:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708671616830595073

  • Prosecution is western man’s defense against leftist deception. Start with Prose

    Prosecution is western man’s defense against leftist deception. Start with Prosecution. Start with the assumption of deceit and theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 13:06:00 UTC

  • If law is logically constructed, the polycentrism equates to polylogism. Instead

    If law is logically constructed, the polycentrism equates to polylogism. Instead, non-parasitism, mono-logism, and polycentric discovery.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-12 10:12:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Curt; Do you have a concise definition for testimonialism?” Colloquially:

    Q&A: “Curt; Do you have a concise definition for testimonialism?”

    Colloquially: “The completion of the scientific method for the purpose of the conduct of law”.

    Testimonial Truth: Testimony (Speech) that is warrantied by the speaker through the performance of due diligence against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, deception and fraud. The only truth that can exist is that which is spoken. We can never speak the perfect truth because we can never know if we possess it. The most perfect truth we can speak is that which we have performed due diligence, that we do not speak in falsehood: fraud.

    Testimonialism: A set of tests of due diligence, the satisfaction of which allows us to warranty that to the best of our ability our speech (testimony) is free of the falsehoods: error, bias, wishful thinking, imaginary relations, suggestion, deceit, and fraud.

    Truth: that testimony we would give if we possessed perfect (complete) knowledge, perfect language, and an audience possessed of the same – and at that point we speak a name, not a description. Everything has a true name. We seek it. In seeking it we seek truth.

    h/t: Nick Zito

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-10 03:28:00 UTC

  • It is non-trivial. If you understand we have been deceived and it is possible to

    It is non-trivial. If you understand we have been deceived and it is possible to stop deception using the law…

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 20:46:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707306554299707393

    Reply addressees: @retroch @soapjackal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707305908678860800

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707305908678860800

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND KILLING THE FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS. It is against the

    THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND KILLING THE FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS.

    It is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 06:38:00 UTC