Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • The Incremental Suppression of Predation: Property-en-toto, The Common law, Rule

    The Incremental Suppression of Predation: Property-en-toto, The Common law, Rule of Law, Universal Standing in matters of the commons. #tlot

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-02 10:33:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/627789384625033216

  • Classical Contractualism and Rule of Law

    (law) (definitions) (learning propertariansim) [O]liver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law. The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license with the law given the unanimity of sentiment: seizure of the opportunity to profit from the conquest of the continent. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.) Law consists of the one rule necessary to preserve cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism that causes cooperation to be a rational preference.  And by causing cooperation to be a rational preference, we create and preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate rewards of the division of labor and knowledge in that is possible under cooperation. The one rule of prohibition on parasitism includes all forms of parasitism: violence, theft, extortion, fraud, externality and conspiracy. 

    Parasitism must be performed against something: Life, Mates and Offspring, Relations, Property,  Shareholder Property, Informal Institutional Property, and Formal Institutional Property. And we must know how NOT to perform parasitism: by limiting our actions to Productive, fully informed,  warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of parasitism by the same criteria. And we must agree to enforce this requirement in fulfillment of the prohibition on parasitism, by providing insurance to one another consisting of both the Obverse: we will provide a means of retaliation against violations of the rule; and Reverse: we will not retaliate against  retaliations that are performed against a violation of the rule. To provide means of insurance by providing an organizational means of retaliation against violations of the one rule, we will construct a court (testimony), a jury, presided by one or more judges. To simplify the act of determining whether violations have or have not occurred, we will record our decisions as the obverse: property rights, and the reverse: prohibitions on violations of those rights. THE EVOLUTION OF NON-LAW FROM LAW 1) LEGAL SCIENTISM (SCIENTIFIC) or CLASSICAL LEGAL THEORY Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law) 2) LEGAL REALISM (RATIONAL) – THE FIRST AMERICAN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW Law is constructed from both political and logical origins. 3) LEGAL POSITIVISM (ARATIONAL) – THE SECOND AMERICAN VIOLATION AND THE TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF RULE OF LAW Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin. REFORMATION: LEGAL SCIENTIFIC CONTRACTUALISM (RATIO-SCIENTIFIC) Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others. PROPERTARIANISM = LEGAL CONTRACTUALISM = CLASSICAL LAW See Also: “The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Classical Contractualism and Rule of Law

    (law) (definitions) (learning propertariansim) [O]liver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law. The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license with the law given the unanimity of sentiment: seizure of the opportunity to profit from the conquest of the continent. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.) Law consists of the one rule necessary to preserve cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism that causes cooperation to be a rational preference.  And by causing cooperation to be a rational preference, we create and preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate rewards of the division of labor and knowledge in that is possible under cooperation. The one rule of prohibition on parasitism includes all forms of parasitism: violence, theft, extortion, fraud, externality and conspiracy. 

    Parasitism must be performed against something: Life, Mates and Offspring, Relations, Property,  Shareholder Property, Informal Institutional Property, and Formal Institutional Property. And we must know how NOT to perform parasitism: by limiting our actions to Productive, fully informed,  warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of parasitism by the same criteria. And we must agree to enforce this requirement in fulfillment of the prohibition on parasitism, by providing insurance to one another consisting of both the Obverse: we will provide a means of retaliation against violations of the rule; and Reverse: we will not retaliate against  retaliations that are performed against a violation of the rule. To provide means of insurance by providing an organizational means of retaliation against violations of the one rule, we will construct a court (testimony), a jury, presided by one or more judges. To simplify the act of determining whether violations have or have not occurred, we will record our decisions as the obverse: property rights, and the reverse: prohibitions on violations of those rights. THE EVOLUTION OF NON-LAW FROM LAW 1) LEGAL SCIENTISM (SCIENTIFIC) or CLASSICAL LEGAL THEORY Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law) 2) LEGAL REALISM (RATIONAL) – THE FIRST AMERICAN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW Law is constructed from both political and logical origins. 3) LEGAL POSITIVISM (ARATIONAL) – THE SECOND AMERICAN VIOLATION AND THE TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF RULE OF LAW Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin. REFORMATION: LEGAL SCIENTIFIC CONTRACTUALISM (RATIO-SCIENTIFIC) Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others. PROPERTARIANISM = LEGAL CONTRACTUALISM = CLASSICAL LAW See Also: “The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine, (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW: CONTRACTUALISM Oliver Wendel Holms really screw

    PROPERTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW: CONTRACTUALISM

    Oliver Wendel Holms really screwed American and anglo law.

    The more I study American history the more obvious it becomes that without the many nearby competitors we had faced as Europeans in Europe, that the new continent provided an excuse for the conquerors to take license given the unanimity of sentiment. A unanimity that was not present in Europe (and which is only present under empire.)

    LEGAL SCIENTISM (SCIENTIFIC)

    Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated (true). As such, law is if not a science, at least a formal logic, that is both internally consistent, externally correspondent and universally decidable. Political preference cannot override these principles. (Rule of Law)

    LEGAL REALISM (RATIONAL) – THE FIRST AMERICAN VIOLATION OF RULE OF LAW

    Law is constructed from both political and logical origins.

    LEGAL POSITIVISM (ARATIONAL) – THE SECOND AMERICAN VIOLATION AND THE TOTAL ABANDONMENT OF RULE OF LAW

    Law is a social construction unbound by any constraint other than its origin.

    REFORMATION: LEGAL SCIENTIFIC CONTRACTUALISM (RATIO-SCIENTIFIC)

    Law consists of a set of axioms which cannot be violated, since such violation whether singular grand and visible, or invisibly accumulated from multitudinous and minor errors, would violate and destroy the incentive to cooperate within a government by rule of law. However, nearly any desirable contract can be constructed by voluntary agreement of parties, so long as the internal transfers are enumerated and the net result is productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of external imposition of costs upon others.

    PROPERTARIANISM = LEGAL CONTRACTUALISM

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine, (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-01 04:59:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETWEEN “PROSECUTION” AND “INQUISITION”? I kno

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETWEEN “PROSECUTION” AND “INQUISITION”?

    I know we need a new civic ‘religion’, and I know it contains, love, truth, prosperity, commons, and beauty. But what is the model of organization? Judge, Sheriff, Prosecutor, Inquisitor? Or is it all of the above? Each more proactive than the last.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-30 06:28:00 UTC

  • Strict construction will make transparent transfers so that they require defense

    Strict construction will make transparent transfers so that they require defense.

    But shares are not shares. This is empirically demonstrable.

    The problem as in banking is lack of understanding on the part of depositors and retail investors.

    Shares are not and cannot be equal.

    Not possible

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-26 09:40:00 UTC

  • #tcot #NRx Cultures vary in their needs for commons. But rule of law, common law

    #tcot #NRx Cultures vary in their needs for commons. But rule of law, common law, property rights are objectively universal for all men.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 09:36:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623788797336158208

  • #tcot #NRx Rule of Law and Contractually Constructed Commons are different thing

    #tcot #NRx Rule of Law and Contractually Constructed Commons are different things. Rulers can adjudicate while leaving commons to locals.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 09:35:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623788474601181185

  • Contractual Commons: Law is Discovered, Contracts and Exchanges are Made.

    [W]e can produce a market for un-consumable commons using a government just as we produce a market for consumable private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. But there is no reason whatsoever, that knowing how to construct the common law, government should be capable of producing law. It cannot. Law is discovered, contracts and exchanges are made.
    1. Economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    2.  Central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and as a consequence, eliminated local transaction costs. And using those costs to pay for the suppression of local parasitism.  We trade expensive local transaction costs for less expensive costs of suppression.

    3. Once centralized those costs can be incrementally eliminated. But if and only if an institutional means of deciding conflicts can be used to replace personal judgement as a means of deciding conflicts.

    4.  The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    5. Suppression of violence and theft is fairly easy because the actions are existential and the results obvious.  But as we increasingly suppress violence and theft, people resort to fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, imposition of costs by externality, corruption, and conspiracy. So suppression of these more complex thefts requires testimony and decidability.

    6. Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    7. We cannot expect or demand truthful testimony from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    8. We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    9. Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group.


      The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons.


      The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption.


      But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons.

      Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time.

      Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well.


      The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot.

      Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.


  • Contractual Commons: Law is Discovered, Contracts and Exchanges are Made.

    [W]e can produce a market for un-consumable commons using a government just as we produce a market for consumable private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. But there is no reason whatsoever, that knowing how to construct the common law, government should be capable of producing law. It cannot. Law is discovered, contracts and exchanges are made.
    1. Economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs.

    2.  Central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and as a consequence, eliminated local transaction costs. And using those costs to pay for the suppression of local parasitism.  We trade expensive local transaction costs for less expensive costs of suppression.

    3. Once centralized those costs can be incrementally eliminated. But if and only if an institutional means of deciding conflicts can be used to replace personal judgement as a means of deciding conflicts.

    4.  The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities.

    5. Suppression of violence and theft is fairly easy because the actions are existential and the results obvious.  But as we increasingly suppress violence and theft, people resort to fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, imposition of costs by externality, corruption, and conspiracy. So suppression of these more complex thefts requires testimony and decidability.

    6. Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.)

    7. We cannot expect or demand truthful testimony from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian.

    8. We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies.

    9. Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group.


      The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons.


      The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption.


      But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons.

      Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time.

      Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well.


      The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot.

      Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified.