Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR LIBERTY 1) A Militia, trained but unregulated. 2) Contract

    MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR LIBERTY

    1) A Militia, trained but unregulated.

    2) Contract for Private Property (constitution in propertarian language)

    3) Independent, Private, Judiciary under Common Law, ratifications proposed once every three years, requiring supermajority, and expiring with the death of the recommending judges.

    4) Inbred outbreeding – prohibition on cousin marriage.

    5) The right of exclusion (ostracization).

    Rothbard was wrong. The market and ‘belief’ are not enough. It’s the militia, and the universal ‘ownership’ of government that are the ONLY demonstrable source of liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-25 04:23:00 UTC

  • IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW? Well, that trigger point is empir

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667WHAT IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW?

    Well, that trigger point is empirically possible to determine, but it is not rationally possible to determine.

    Our argument is that these matters of regulation are only determinable by the willingness of an insurer to insure against the action. If it is unprofitable to insure against the action, then it is likely something we should just prohibit. If it is easy to insure against, then it is something we should leave alone.

    There is no alternative ratio-empirical means by which a monopoly can make such a determination. We have a very, very bad record of deciding what should and should not be ‘permitted’.

    Secondly, the high trust society is predicated on NOT defining laws that limit behavior, in the french and german style (napoleonic law), and instead, in anglo-scandinavian style, anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted (the common law).

    These are not philosophical questions. They are empirical questions. And the empirical means of measuring behavior is the willingness and ability to insure against it.

    That is, after all, what a government does: it functions as an insurer of last resort. But that the insurer should be the last resort, is very different from whether that insurer of last resort should be a monopoly.

    your question, as it is stated, implies that the state, and reason, and monopoly, are superior to private agency, empirical measurement, and demonstrated evidence. Including demonstrated willingness to risk, as demonstrated evidence of the truth of one’s statements.

    This is both rationally and empirically a damning criticism of law, state, and and moral philosophy as anti-scientific.

    But you know, i’ve been working on this problem for something like forty years and I am not terribly optimistic about convincing a lot of people – especially given the academic preference for anti-rational, anti-scientific. postmodern mysticism. 🙂

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667#comment-308273

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 09:30:00 UTC

  • helplessness. Reap dependence.” – Roman Skaskiw

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/legal-concealed-carry-permit-protects-two-college-students-from-six-time-felon-now-they-face-expulsion/”Sow helplessness. Reap dependence.” – Roman Skaskiw

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-10 10:52:00 UTC

  • YEARS WITHOUT THE STATE: THE BRETON LAW (Next time someone uses Somalia, bring u

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8oJsoliw02000 YEARS WITHOUT THE STATE: THE BRETON LAW

    (Next time someone uses Somalia, bring up Ireland, not Iceland .)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 13:02:00 UTC

  • shall pass no law to which it is not subject, and all congress shall be subject

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/10/rand-paul-wants-john-roberts-sign-obamacare/70770/”Congress shall pass no law to which it is not subject, and all congress shall be subject to all laws passed by congress”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-21 18:26:00 UTC

  • YOU’RE STILL LEGALLY DEAD You cannot make this stuff up. Really. So lets return

    http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2013/Oct/08/ar_news_100813_story2.asp?d=100813_story2,2013,Oct,08&c=nDAVE, YOU’RE STILL LEGALLY DEAD

    You cannot make this stuff up. Really. So lets return to juries and the common law. OK?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 19:25:00 UTC

  • Judges aren’t moral. They are part of the problem. But juries are still moral hu

    Judges aren’t moral. They are part of the problem. But juries are still moral human beings. If you hold the moral high ground, get to the jury and tell the story.

    I love a moral fight.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 17:05:00 UTC

  • Last week, one of our lawyers, spent thirty minutes telling us how we could obey

    Last week, one of our lawyers, spent thirty minutes telling us how we could obey the law and screw our shareholders. Our legal system has lost all concept of property rights and involuntary transfer. Its time to blow it up and start all over. I don’t want to know what’s legal. I want to know what is right and just, as well as legal.

    WTF is wrong with people. F–K.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 16:36:00 UTC

  • THE VIRTUE OF JURIES. Judges may not be very bright. And the law may be impossib

    THE VIRTUE OF JURIES.

    Judges may not be very bright. And the law may be impossibly complex. But jurors are still moral animals. And if you can construct a moral narrative. They will buy it.

    Adams was right.

    Get a jury. Ask them to do the right thing. They will more often than not, oblige you.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 06:16:00 UTC

  • RAISING POLICE QUALIFICATIONS Officer in the military in a combat capacity with

    RAISING POLICE QUALIFICATIONS

    Officer in the military in a combat capacity with a college education. ( Pretty soon, given the number of lawyers we’re producing, we can hire lawyers for our police ranks. )

    You don’t think that putting upper proletarians in charge of law enforcement is going to lead to people respecting legal rights do you? I mean, just TRY to find a policeman that actually knows the law, rather than what they can get away with in court. They know the latter. They practice the latter.

    We have a lot of highly paid upper proletarians on power tips running around doing what should be the work of elected and insured private individuals (sheriffs). These people are predators at the service of the state.

    They are constantly confused by rules versus harm. If there is no harm, there is no application of the rule.

    Why would you forbid someone access to a state park?

    NO HARM NO FOUL

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 10:33:00 UTC