Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Position on Marriage?  It’s a Contract.

    [M]y position is that the state has no place in private contracts, and that a marriage is a private contract.

    My concern is that the nation produce laws for individuals and policy for families and this may further reduce the policy bias toward the family as a unit of production and reproduction, and increasingly toward the consumption (hedonism) of individuals – dysgenia.

    A marriage creates a corporation in which shareholders pool assets, and it conveys limited power of attorney, to both (or more) shareholders to act on behalf of the other. If prenuptial agreements are adhered to rigidly, and there is no child support or spousal support then I am happy with it.

    So my suggestion is to take the Alabama strategy and remove the state from marriage agreements, and let people engage in whatever relations they want.

    So I am against state marriage en toto, and fully supportive of any voluntary contract that people wish to enter into. I would be comfortable with polygamy/polyamory evolving. But when I say I believe these things, it’s in the context of freedom of association and disassociation. So if you don’t want to serve polygamists, you don’t have to.

  • Position on Marriage?  It’s a Contract.

    [M]y position is that the state has no place in private contracts, and that a marriage is a private contract.

    My concern is that the nation produce laws for individuals and policy for families and this may further reduce the policy bias toward the family as a unit of production and reproduction, and increasingly toward the consumption (hedonism) of individuals – dysgenia.

    A marriage creates a corporation in which shareholders pool assets, and it conveys limited power of attorney, to both (or more) shareholders to act on behalf of the other. If prenuptial agreements are adhered to rigidly, and there is no child support or spousal support then I am happy with it.

    So my suggestion is to take the Alabama strategy and remove the state from marriage agreements, and let people engage in whatever relations they want.

    So I am against state marriage en toto, and fully supportive of any voluntary contract that people wish to enter into. I would be comfortable with polygamy/polyamory evolving. But when I say I believe these things, it’s in the context of freedom of association and disassociation. So if you don’t want to serve polygamists, you don’t have to.

  • (LIBERTARIAN) CONSTITUTION WRITTEN BY A PRODIGY IN CHILDHOOD

    http://www.sidis.net/hesperia.htmAWESOME (LIBERTARIAN) CONSTITUTION WRITTEN BY A PRODIGY IN CHILDHOOD

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 09:31:00 UTC

  • LAW: CROWDFUNDING – YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MONEY (virtue of common law)

    http://www.businesspundit.com/ftc-decides-failed-crowdfunding-companies-are-responsible-for-paying-back-customers/NEW LAW: CROWDFUNDING – YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MONEY

    (virtue of common law)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 03:21:00 UTC

  • Where Does The American ‘obsession’ With The Constitution Come From?

    BECAUSE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF “Rule of Law“

    The U.S. Constitution sets limits upon what a people in a government can do, and what people in the citizenry can do, that cannot be modified. Under democracy, the ‘rule of law’ has been intentionally modified via propaganda to mean ‘rule by law we agree upon’ so that the government can enact any law that it desires. The american system was designed to make it HARD to pass laws, so that the government could do as little as possible.  And presidents, especially since Franklin D. Roosevelt, have undermined that constitution whenever possible.

    Americans historically operate under the anglo saxon principle of voluntary order: “I will allow the government certain actions for our common good, and disallow the government all other actions. If the government violates those actions I will replace it with a government that does not.”

    https://www.quora.com/Where-does-the-American-obsession-with-the-constitution-come-from

  • Where Does The American ‘obsession’ With The Constitution Come From?

    BECAUSE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF “Rule of Law“

    The U.S. Constitution sets limits upon what a people in a government can do, and what people in the citizenry can do, that cannot be modified. Under democracy, the ‘rule of law’ has been intentionally modified via propaganda to mean ‘rule by law we agree upon’ so that the government can enact any law that it desires. The american system was designed to make it HARD to pass laws, so that the government could do as little as possible.  And presidents, especially since Franklin D. Roosevelt, have undermined that constitution whenever possible.

    Americans historically operate under the anglo saxon principle of voluntary order: “I will allow the government certain actions for our common good, and disallow the government all other actions. If the government violates those actions I will replace it with a government that does not.”

    https://www.quora.com/Where-does-the-American-obsession-with-the-constitution-come-from

  • The Law Evolves as Science Evolves: By Reaction

    [A]ll progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.

  • The Law Evolves as Science Evolves: By Reaction

    [A]ll progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.

  • THE LAW EVOLVES AS SCIENCE EVOLVES All progress in truth, like all progress in l

    THE LAW EVOLVES AS SCIENCE EVOLVES

    All progress in truth, like all progress in law, is a reaction to progress in imagination, error, bias, deception and propaganda. The reason we could not suppress the left, is because we did not yet understand Truth. Now that we understand Truth, we can criticize, suppress and punish the left as the liars and thieves that they are.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-14 12:22:00 UTC

  • Answering Charles Murray on Legalizing Blackmail

    RE: http://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-asks-why-should-blackmail-be-a-crime-walter-block-makes-the-case-for-legalizing-blackmail/ [W]alter Block starts with the rhetorical position that property is a natural right rather than the result of a necessary contractual exchange of rights, agreed to in order to construct property rights that are adjudicable, in order to prevent retaliation for impositions of costs upon one another, by providing a means of restitution and punishment by the community rather than retaliation by the individual. His position is illogical. The first question of ethics is not one in which we assume the value of cooperation, but one in which we assume the value of predation. So cooperation must be preferable to predation. And it is only preferable if it is productive.

    Cooperation must be rational or it is irrational (obviously). For cooperation to be rational, it must be: – Mutually Productive, – Fully informed, – Warrantied to be fully informed, – Consisting of Voluntary Exchange or Transfer, – Free of negative externality (of the same criteria). If these are all true then there is no need for retaliation. Walter Block, like his mentor Rothbard, is attempting to restate Maimonides’ dualist ethics as if they are a universal good. Instead of a utilitarian tactic for a minority living at the behest of a tyrant attempting to minimize his costs of policing. But, the first logically necessary question of ethics is ‘Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?’ Block’s position on blackmail is one in which it is preferable to kill the blackmailer and take his stuff rather than to cooperate with him. So, it’s not complicated. Dualist (and poly-logical) ethics cannot by logical necessity be advocated as a universal ethic – it’s a logical contradiction. Natural rights are used as a nonsensical justification for various spurious ends. We do not presume rights, nor are they ‘existent’ prior to contract. They are merely the necessary terms for rational political contract. Cosmopolitan ethics attempt to preserve ingroup parasitism on outgroup members, while at the same time prohibiting the formation of family organizations that suppress parasitism. Rothbardian anarchism (libertinism), is an expression of group evolutionary strategy that ‘games’ (circumvents) the defenses of western aristocratic, truth telling civilization. So, instead, the first rule of ethics is that one should not engage in parasitism. Blackmail is unproductive and parasitic, and therefore a violation of the agreement for non-imposition of costs that serves as the only rational incentive to cooperate. (Although this level of argument is probably a bit deep for even the interested and informed.) Cheers