Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • On Ukraine and Prosperity – Liberty, Violence and Rule of Law

    [I]n the past two years the hryvnia has lost HALF of its value. Prices on everything are rising, while increases in employee compensation are not. All economies face this problem. Salaries are stickier than contracts, and contracts are stickier than prices, and prices are stickier than currency. So all changes in demand for currency around the world SLOWLY work through the economy ‘unsticking’ one thing after another. And salaries are at two edged sword: employees expect them to go up when currency loses value, but employees do not expect them to go down when currency gains value. ON UKRAINE In our case we have two problems. One, that the dollar is getting more valuable in the world, and two, that the Hryvna is getting less valuable in the world. And our people pay the consequences.

    • We can only fix Ukraine’s problem with credit.
    • We can only obtain credit with legal certainty.
    • We can only obtain legal certainty with rule of law.
    • We can only possess rule of law with judges who obey rule of law.
    • We can only possess judges with the rule of law if we can replace our judges – and for that matter, the entire court staff.
    • We can only replace the judges and the court staff with someone to force them out.
    • We can only force them out if the police to act upon it.
    • We can only expect the police to act upon it if they are also uncorrupt and respect rule of law.
    • We can only have police who are uncorrupt and respect rule of law if we fire them all and re-hire them again with higher standards, higher pay, and higher punishment for corruption – it must be wiser to collect a pension than to accept a bribe of any size.
    • We can only trust that they will be punished and stay honest if we have courts that enforce it.
    • And we can only have courts that will enforce it if we have juries to override the judges.
    • And we can only juries to override the judges if we have people who will act honestly on juries.
    • We will only have people who act honestly on juries once enough Ukrainians understand that all of Ukraine depends upon them and only them:
    • (a) sit a jury and enforce the law, even against friends and family.
    • (b) speak the truth even if it leads to your loss, and require it of others, and punish them if they do not.
    • (c) replace the government by armed violence until all of the above are enacted.

    [T]he only freedom logically possible is that which is obtained by a militia at the point of a gun. Everything else is just benevolent permission – not liberty. Ether a people is able to act as a militia (a militia means every living able bodied male) to demand these things of their government, or they aren’t able to act as a militia to demand these things of their government – or replace their government if needed. You get the government you deserve. All people possess the government that they deserve. Because no government can sustain universal insurrection, because no economy can survive universal insurrection. Some of us are willing to earn the form government we HOPE to deserve by our actions. The rest simply GET the government that they do deserve by their inaction. We are not yet willing to have the government we work to deserve. Because we are not wiling to evict the entire judiciary and police force – and that is what is required. A government is by its nature corrupt. There is no exception in the world – because a government is a monopoly, and the incentives for individuals in a monopoly all favor corruption. This is why governments must remain small – it is harder to steal when it is harder to be anonymous. So keep the number of people who of necessity must be corrupt and will be corrupt – to a minimum. The people must control the government. But if the people are immoral, they will have an immoral and corrupt government. If the people are moral, then they will have a moral government even if the government’s members are of necessity corrupt in one way or another. But the hard economic facts make political corruption irrelevant – it is judicial and police corruption that prevent the expansion of consumer credit.  The corrupt economy may be large, but that does not affect the individual citizens who merely need CONSUMER CREDIT. The assumption that citizens make is that they could obtain the monies that are siphoned off personally by corrupt government employees wither in the Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and asiatic models, or whether they are siphoned off systematically as in the american and european systems, as inflated salaries special benefits, special pensions, absurdly expensive offices, and expensive equipment, or privileges granted to loyal constituents, businesses, organizations and lobbyists. Government people will ALWAYS siphon unearned wealth (corruption). That is what they do. They have no competition other than the militia (armed citizenry) to stop them. [T]he WEST is just as corrupt as the east – it is just systematized into sophisticated corporeal corruption not private corruption. What differs is that in the west, the citizenry has rule of law and therefore credit. So they live well because of their own private sector economy – even though the public sector is just as corrupt everywhere else. Ukraine must evict and ban all sitting judges, clerks and administration from the courts, and all do the same for all police officers. The best choice would be to import a few hundred young German, Scandinavia, and English speaking judges to interview, hire, and manage replacement judges. This would immediately, within one year, change the european perspective on Ukraine and credit. Georgia has already shown us how to fix the police. The problem then is not politicians that prevent us from prosperity WE MUST SOLVE THE RIGHT PROBLEM. The problem that prevents us from prosperity is that we are solving the wrong problem. Politicians are all corrupt. Judges and police who are paid a decent salary are all we need in order to build a prosperous Ukraine. As always the politicians will seek to siphon it off for their own corrupt use just as they do in the west. Just as they do everywhere. Because politicians are by necessity agents of corruption – even when they dont’ intend to be. They have no means of measuring what is ‘right’ other than ‘what they can get away with’. A child has no means of measuring what is right and wrong without a parent. A business has no measure of whether they efficiently serve the world except if they do not do so at a loss. And a politician’s only measure is what corruption can he get away with without voters, judges, police, and competing politicians to stop him. Freedom is created by courts and a militia that demands them freedom and courts. Politicians are just entertainment – they figure out what to do with the profits that they can steal from the people. That’s what politicians do. Ukrainians have never had freedom. Feudal serfs, Soviet Serfs, and now post-soviet cattle to be farmed for the benefit of those in power – in the Russian and Asian model. But for the ordinary people to have profits they must have credit and for credit they must have rule of law. And to have rule of law – all able bodied men must take up arms to demand it. A credible threat alone is enough to force it to happen. SLAVA UKRAINI Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • On Ukraine and Prosperity – Liberty, Violence and Rule of Law

    [I]n the past two years the hryvnia has lost HALF of its value. Prices on everything are rising, while increases in employee compensation are not. All economies face this problem. Salaries are stickier than contracts, and contracts are stickier than prices, and prices are stickier than currency. So all changes in demand for currency around the world SLOWLY work through the economy ‘unsticking’ one thing after another. And salaries are at two edged sword: employees expect them to go up when currency loses value, but employees do not expect them to go down when currency gains value. ON UKRAINE In our case we have two problems. One, that the dollar is getting more valuable in the world, and two, that the Hryvna is getting less valuable in the world. And our people pay the consequences.

    • We can only fix Ukraine’s problem with credit.
    • We can only obtain credit with legal certainty.
    • We can only obtain legal certainty with rule of law.
    • We can only possess rule of law with judges who obey rule of law.
    • We can only possess judges with the rule of law if we can replace our judges – and for that matter, the entire court staff.
    • We can only replace the judges and the court staff with someone to force them out.
    • We can only force them out if the police to act upon it.
    • We can only expect the police to act upon it if they are also uncorrupt and respect rule of law.
    • We can only have police who are uncorrupt and respect rule of law if we fire them all and re-hire them again with higher standards, higher pay, and higher punishment for corruption – it must be wiser to collect a pension than to accept a bribe of any size.
    • We can only trust that they will be punished and stay honest if we have courts that enforce it.
    • And we can only have courts that will enforce it if we have juries to override the judges.
    • And we can only juries to override the judges if we have people who will act honestly on juries.
    • We will only have people who act honestly on juries once enough Ukrainians understand that all of Ukraine depends upon them and only them:
    • (a) sit a jury and enforce the law, even against friends and family.
    • (b) speak the truth even if it leads to your loss, and require it of others, and punish them if they do not.
    • (c) replace the government by armed violence until all of the above are enacted.

    [T]he only freedom logically possible is that which is obtained by a militia at the point of a gun. Everything else is just benevolent permission – not liberty. Ether a people is able to act as a militia (a militia means every living able bodied male) to demand these things of their government, or they aren’t able to act as a militia to demand these things of their government – or replace their government if needed. You get the government you deserve. All people possess the government that they deserve. Because no government can sustain universal insurrection, because no economy can survive universal insurrection. Some of us are willing to earn the form government we HOPE to deserve by our actions. The rest simply GET the government that they do deserve by their inaction. We are not yet willing to have the government we work to deserve. Because we are not wiling to evict the entire judiciary and police force – and that is what is required. A government is by its nature corrupt. There is no exception in the world – because a government is a monopoly, and the incentives for individuals in a monopoly all favor corruption. This is why governments must remain small – it is harder to steal when it is harder to be anonymous. So keep the number of people who of necessity must be corrupt and will be corrupt – to a minimum. The people must control the government. But if the people are immoral, they will have an immoral and corrupt government. If the people are moral, then they will have a moral government even if the government’s members are of necessity corrupt in one way or another. But the hard economic facts make political corruption irrelevant – it is judicial and police corruption that prevent the expansion of consumer credit.  The corrupt economy may be large, but that does not affect the individual citizens who merely need CONSUMER CREDIT. The assumption that citizens make is that they could obtain the monies that are siphoned off personally by corrupt government employees wither in the Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and asiatic models, or whether they are siphoned off systematically as in the american and european systems, as inflated salaries special benefits, special pensions, absurdly expensive offices, and expensive equipment, or privileges granted to loyal constituents, businesses, organizations and lobbyists. Government people will ALWAYS siphon unearned wealth (corruption). That is what they do. They have no competition other than the militia (armed citizenry) to stop them. [T]he WEST is just as corrupt as the east – it is just systematized into sophisticated corporeal corruption not private corruption. What differs is that in the west, the citizenry has rule of law and therefore credit. So they live well because of their own private sector economy – even though the public sector is just as corrupt everywhere else. Ukraine must evict and ban all sitting judges, clerks and administration from the courts, and all do the same for all police officers. The best choice would be to import a few hundred young German, Scandinavia, and English speaking judges to interview, hire, and manage replacement judges. This would immediately, within one year, change the european perspective on Ukraine and credit. Georgia has already shown us how to fix the police. The problem then is not politicians that prevent us from prosperity WE MUST SOLVE THE RIGHT PROBLEM. The problem that prevents us from prosperity is that we are solving the wrong problem. Politicians are all corrupt. Judges and police who are paid a decent salary are all we need in order to build a prosperous Ukraine. As always the politicians will seek to siphon it off for their own corrupt use just as they do in the west. Just as they do everywhere. Because politicians are by necessity agents of corruption – even when they dont’ intend to be. They have no means of measuring what is ‘right’ other than ‘what they can get away with’. A child has no means of measuring what is right and wrong without a parent. A business has no measure of whether they efficiently serve the world except if they do not do so at a loss. And a politician’s only measure is what corruption can he get away with without voters, judges, police, and competing politicians to stop him. Freedom is created by courts and a militia that demands them freedom and courts. Politicians are just entertainment – they figure out what to do with the profits that they can steal from the people. That’s what politicians do. Ukrainians have never had freedom. Feudal serfs, Soviet Serfs, and now post-soviet cattle to be farmed for the benefit of those in power – in the Russian and Asian model. But for the ordinary people to have profits they must have credit and for credit they must have rule of law. And to have rule of law – all able bodied men must take up arms to demand it. A credible threat alone is enough to force it to happen. SLAVA UKRAINI Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • CAUGHT ONE – “HIGH TREASON”

    http://www.rferl.org/content/treason-ukraine-bik-arrest-counterintelligence/26683395.htmlWE CAUGHT ONE – “HIGH TREASON”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 07:52:00 UTC

  • Marriage with legal requirement for commitment but without legal requirement for

    Marriage with legal requirement for commitment but without legal requirement for sex is unequal representation. It’s not that legal requirement for sex is necessarily the right answer. The right answer is to abandon legal requirement for commitment and financial support.

    (And yeah, my rather absurd costs for this are constantly on my mind.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 08:58:00 UTC

  • THE “RUSE” OF MORAL PRINCIPLES LIBERTY CAN ONLY EXISTS UNDER RULE OF LAW, AND TH

    THE “RUSE” OF MORAL PRINCIPLES

    LIBERTY CAN ONLY EXISTS UNDER RULE OF LAW, AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GENERAL RULES EXPRESSED AS LAW.

    The only question is the scope of permissible law: the range of property humans intuit to aspire to acquire, that the community agrees to organize and apply violence to defend. And that which we are willing to defend depends entirely upon the marginal indifference of our political needs. Which is why diverse polities have lower trust and higher demand for more authoritarian intervention, and more homogenous polities have higher trust and less demand for authoritarian interventions.

    So no, despite the attempted distraction via overloading and framing of libertines, a ‘moral principle’ is just a deceptive argument, and a ‘guiding principle’ is just a ruse – a justification for not solving the very hard problem: of that which we consider to be property by our actions, and that which we are willing to enforce with our actions.

    Everything else is just an elaborate deception or convenient justification. In the cast of libertines, it’s an excuse to intentionally conflate libertinism with libertarianism. And worse, it’s an attempt to forbid the law from use as a means of retaliating against free riding, imposed costs, and involuntary transfers (all synonyms), each of which makes cooperation irrational.

    So the purpose of libertinism is to use a moral principle as a ruse to define a limit to the law, that specifically licenses free riding, imposed costs, and involuntary transfers – the labels we use for these thefts include unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions – by prohibiting both physical and legal retaliation for them.

    Worse, since the western competitive advantage is our ability to construct commons free of privatization, including the commons of property rights themselves, libertinism is an well designed attack on our ability to produce commons, and therefore our reproductive and competitive evolutionary strategy. Libertinism is as genocidal for the west as is the Cathedral’s democratic secular socialist humanism’s universalism.

    And I use the term “justification” as a synonym for self-deception – and yes, it is possible for our genes intuitions to deceive our consciousness through overloading. Just as it is possible for others to deceive us through loading, framing then overloading. That is why religions work in the construction belief despite overwhelming experiential evidence. Unconscious selection bias exists and is testable. Suggestion exists and is testable. There is no reason why evolution would favor a superiority of reason over intuition. That would a losing proposition.

    The only question is, what scope of suppression of involuntary transfers (imposed costs/free riding) is necessary for liberty to be rationally preferable over a state that imposed universal rules? The answer is to the rational question is found in transaction costs. At what point are local transaction costs sufficiently suppressed that the remote explicit costs of a state are no longer preferable?

    The moral ruse has harmed the course of liberty. Thankfully, the question, reframed as transaction costs, and rational choice, necessary to eliminate demand for the state, can restore the course of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 06:55:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY EXISTS ONLY UNDER RULE OF LAW AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GEN

    LIBERTY EXISTS ONLY UNDER RULE OF LAW AND THEREFORE ONLY UNDER EXPRESSION OF GENERAL RULES IN LAW.

    As far as I know liberty can only be constructed under rule of law. The only question is the scope of permissible law: the range of property humans intuit to aspire to acquire, that the community agrees to organize and apply violence to defend.

    So no, a ‘moral principle’ is just a deceptive argument, and a ‘guiding principle’ is just a ruse – a justification for not solving the very hard problem: of that which we consider to be property by our actions, and that which we are willing to enforce with our actions.

    Everything else is just an elaborate deception or convenient justification.

    (And I use the term justification as a synonym for self deception)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 10:54:00 UTC

  • NO, MR. LIBERTINE, YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. 🙂 Your opinion as to whether you

    NO, MR. LIBERTINE, YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. 🙂

    Your opinion as to whether your a libertarian or a libertine is immaterial. Either you’re a libertarian and the law must suppress all free riding in both public and private spheres; or you are an advocate for the most extensive free riding that is possible without the application of violence – by forbidding the use of violence in retaliation for free riding.

    So you’re a libertarian under rule of law, or a libertine to escape rule of law.

    Your opinion is not material – only your choice of the scope of property to be protected from parasitism.

    It’s that simple.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 10:09:00 UTC

  • ANGLO WORLD: THE SPORT OF CONFLICT In the anglo world, our law evolved such that

    ANGLO WORLD: THE SPORT OF CONFLICT

    In the anglo world, our law evolved such that the judge was a trusted referee for combatants, not an authority. The judge is a referee, the two sides enter combat and the jury (the audience) determines who has won or lost. The common law had then to be understandable by common jurors, since they determine the outcome -they ‘judge’. The ‘judge’ himself or herself, is merely a referee to ensures that the rules of the game are obeyed.

    Why does the jury system work in the anglo-sphere and why is it either feared or unworkable in others? And what can we learn from that?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 05:03:00 UTC

  • “What a stark contrast to the realities of our present, co-opted, american syste

    —“What a stark contrast to the realities of our present, co-opted, american system, wherein “redress of grievance,” by the body of people is rejected as “not having standing,” and where the judiciary remains unconvinced (biased) that harm has been imposed upon an individual – when in actuality, injury by (previous) government action was imposed upon all.”— William L. Benge

    (edited for clarity)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 18:21:00 UTC

  • IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW. Given that there is only one law – the

    IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW.

    Given that there is only one law – the prevention of free riding; and one means of suppressing it – the law. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation to escape the limitations of competitors – market competition. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation in the means of escaping the limits of that law. And as such, preservation of that market, by that law, requires that we match innovation in the law, so that the difference between market innovation to escape competition, free riding to take advantage of new opportunities for free riding, and the legal means of suppressing free riding, preserve confidence in taking risks, and preserve the velocity of the market, and preserve the accumulation of wealth. Then the question remains why we would need competing legal systems any more than we would need competing systems of mathematics. If we separate judiciary from government, meaning that we separate the resolution of disputes and innovation in the law, from the production of commons via a contract, then we may need different governments for the different allocations of control over our individual property rights, in order to produce the commons that are desirable by our individual group members, but I can understand no conditions under which we require competing systems of law, other than to allow different ranges of morality in the creative application of free riding. We may require organic and distributed evolution of the law, much like we use in science today – moving from hypothesis on a law, to theory on a law, to ‘law’ proper by the accumulation of judicial consent. But if these laws diverge, then something is wrong. The reason being that all legal disputes are decidable, and if they are not then they are not matters of property open to decision making.

    As far as I know this is a box and the theory of a market for law is done.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 02:07:00 UTC