Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • FAILURE OF YET ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE PSEUDOSCIENCE: “INTERNATIONAL LAW” —“What t

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/08/opinion/miller-five-myths-about-ukraine-crisis/index.htmlTHE FAILURE OF YET ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE PSEUDOSCIENCE: “INTERNATIONAL LAW”

    —“What the Ukraine episode demonstrates very clearly is that the post-WW II effort to substitute law for interest has failed. In regard to Russia, China, Brazil, Israel, Europe, and Iran, the issue is what the major powers will agree to–same as it ever was.”—

    There are no international laws, because they are not possible.

    1) Interests

    2) Force

    3) Agreement

    The Pax Ango-Americana is unnatural.

    And it’s ending along with the Postmodern project.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 13:14:00 UTC

  • All Law Is Theoretical, And All Laws Merely Theories

    [W]hat we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory. Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory. Those two rules are: — a) Calculability and; — b) Operational language. In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances. For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.

  • All Law Is Theoretical, And All Laws Merely Theories

    [W]hat we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory. Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory. Those two rules are: — a) Calculability and; — b) Operational language. In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances. For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.

  • **ALL LAW IS “THEORY” AND IS BOUND BY REQUIREMENTS OF THEORY** The Economist fin

    http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21596796-democracy-was-most-successful-political-idea-20th-century-why-has-it-run-trouble-and-what-can-be-doPROPERTARIANISM: **ALL LAW IS “THEORY” AND IS BOUND BY REQUIREMENTS OF THEORY**

    The Economist finally gets on board and criticizes democracy. TWENTY-TWO YEARS after most of us. It was pretty clear by 1992 that democracy was a failed experiment. It is pretty clear to those of us who specialize in political economy, that FEDERALISM is also a failure.

    REASONS WHY THE ECONOMIST ARTICLE IS MERELY “OK”

    Because, while the author does raise awareness of the failure of democracy, he does not address the reason’s for that failure:

    1) RENT SEEKING AND BUREAUCRACY: Succeeds in identifying rent-seeking and bureaucracy as the structural problem that democracy cannot correct. But does not address that privatization and competition solve that problem.

    2) RULE OF LAW AND CALCULABILITY : Fails to identify the difference between majoritarianism (bad) and rule of law (good). And therefore fails to Hayek’s argument requiring the CALCULABILITY of the rule of law and legal processes requires to change law under rule of law.

    3) REPRESENTATION vs LOTTOCRACY: Fails to identify that the problem with republican democracy is that we have chosen the worst of all worlds: elected representatives. When we could also choose between direct democracy, economic democracy, lottocracy, lottocratic citizen juries, and flexibility to add additional houses to represent each class’s interests. All of these solutions solve the problem of interests, and return us to the original purpose of democracy: lottocracy. (The common law is lottocratic which is why it’s so successful.)

    4) THE TRADEOFF OF SCALE: Fails to identify the reason micro-nationalism succeeds and macro-nationalism fails: That is because there is a trade off between the trade and insurance benefits of scale on the one hand, and the similarity of interests on another.

    5) THE PROBLEM OF MORAL DIVERSITY: Fails to identify the problem of moral diversity in different family structures, and the impossibility of reconciling competing moral codes except by degrading the higher moral code. **All moral compromises are devolutionary.** Truth is not a matter for compromise. The greater the suppression of free riding, the more moral the rule. Differences then, are not matters for compromise. They are matters for evolution or devolution.

    ALL LAW IS THEORETICAL, AND ALL LAWS, THEORIES

    What we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory.

    Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory.

    Those two rules are:

    — a) Calculability and;

    — b) Operational language.

    In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances.

    For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.

    (continued)

    PART II. See my next post: The Canons Of Theory (which is the philosophical basis of Propertarianism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:28:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF “PARLIAMENTARY COMMON LAW” It’s not a practical time for bi

    ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF “PARLIAMENTARY COMMON LAW”

    It’s not a practical time for big political ideas, but in a country like Ukraine, that probably DOES need a parliament, it would be very helpful to use lottocracy to elect ‘citizen judges’, selected by lot, from each district, to approve any law voted on by the parliament. Say, 12 citizen jurors for each representative. This essentially places common law requirements on the legislature. Use standard jury selection processes. As a citizen judge you must only vote in favor of a law if you understand it, it does not violate the constitution and it is good for your country.

    That is the best protection OTHER than NO GOVERNMENT that we can come up with, Direct democracy is a good idea but it is also terribly open to corruption, whereas juries whose actions are taken in public are not as easily corrupted as you think.

    This makes each citizen have a personal stake in the law.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-23 09:45:00 UTC

  • Oborne: “…the House of Commons cannot be relied on to defend traditional Engli

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10191978/These-hereditary-peers-put-our-MPs-to-shame.html?fbPeter Oborne: “…the House of Commons cannot be relied on to defend traditional English liberties or the British way of life. Again and again, the nation has found itself relying on the good sense and sound instincts of the House of Lords, in particular the hereditary element. “

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-23 09:10:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE : THE REASON THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS If this happened in the states,

    UKRAINE : THE REASON THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS

    If this happened in the states, we would overwhelm the police and military in hours.

    The source of freedom is the force of arms.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-20 07:28:00 UTC

  • SECESSION Your rhetorical framework for both parts 1 and 2, is critical, and acc

    http://nomocracyinpolitics.com/2014/02/07/secession-and-messianic-statism-evaluating-the-current-union-of-the-states-part-1-by-allen-mendenhall/ON SECESSION

    Your rhetorical framework for both parts 1 and 2, is critical, and accurate, but it does not take into account that decentralization would distribute all the wealth, status, and trade negotiating power currently in washington to the regions, and reduce the transaction cost of conducting economic policy.

    The arguments for secession are (a) normative (b) institutional (c) economic (d) artistic and cultural, and (d) personal – given that status would be redistributed to individuals in the regions.

    The arguments against secession are that the value of the dollar, the value of the military, and the value of insurance against catastrophe by all other regions. But it’s possible (and simple) to preserve those properties, and secede at the same time.

    (BTW: When defining the state as a territorial monopoly, it’s Weber that Rothbard is quoting.)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-17 03:57:00 UTC

  • “…The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment d

    “…The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn’t say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a ‘compelling interest’ in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.”

    — Harry Browne, 1996 USA presidential candidate,

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 03:44:00 UTC

  • (Serious question, not criticism) So, in the states, the complaint is, that we n

    (Serious question, not criticism)

    So, in the states, the complaint is, that we no longer own land, because the state progressively taxes our land on its value.

    This means that we are permanent renters, and that you move into the city for low opportunity costs, and out of the city for low cost of living.

    The appreciation in value of the property goes to both the city that levies the taxes, and to the homeowner or business owner as incentive to maintain and improve the property.

    The title registries and private administration of the land merely distribute the cost of administration to private individuals internal to the transactions. Which is one of the reasons anglo countries have lower corruption than public administered land.

    So is the argument that we don’t tax ENOUGH? because as far as I can tell, we already accomplish this project with progressive taxation.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-08 05:36:00 UTC