Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • If I Were Paine, I’d Be Happy History Blamed Jefferson

    Regarding the debate as to whether Jefferson or Paine wrote the original draft of the Declaration of Independence. I don’t care whether Paine or Jefferson authored the constitution one way or the other. I don’t think it’s material. I am fairly sure at this point that we would have been better off in the end if Washington had been made King, as Adams desired. Much better off. Democracy, especially since the Senate has been directly elected is simply the slow road to totalitarianism. A government consisting of a King for affairs of state and justice, plus a Senate for affairs of money and commerce, plus a House of Commons for affairs of redistribution and charity, mirrors the class structure of society. Democracy perpetuates the myth of equality – the classes are not equal in ability, skill, knowledge or wisdom. They are instead, forms of specialization. The American revolution simply encouraged the turnover of the great monarchies, and the destruction of western civilization that restulted from it. We had it right. The old english system was right. Adams was right, and Paine got it wrong. If I were Paine, I’d be happy that history has blamed it all on Jefferson.

  • Rereading The Constitution Of Liberty Leads To A Few New Insights On Freedom

    I’ve read Hayek’s The Constitution Of Liberty twice again lately while editing it so that I could convert the text to spoken audio. The resulting audio is imperfect — because my editing of the multitude of optically recognized characters is imperfect — but for personal consumption it’s works just fine. But editing a text forces you to read it more carefully than casual reading does. The first time I read it I did not really appreciate the book’s depth of reasoning. I don’t even remember when I did read it the first time. I was probably in my early thirties? But it’s more than that. Because one needs considerable knowledge of the field, it is not apparent to the casual reader that he is making logically NECESSARY arguments – especially given Hayek’s gentle, advisory, tone. Hayek felt that the writer should show sympathy for his opponents. A technique which is very useful in engaging the reader, but a tone that is also prone to misinterpretation of the underlying purpose of his arguments. I have, and so have others, said, that Hayek’s great failing was in failing to defeat Keynes. He left that task for history because he thought it so obvious. But he did not understand the attractiveness of the positivist methodology when opposed only by the conservative libertarian framework that solves for freedom as an absolute good.

    [callout]Freedom is intuitive as an experience, but counter-intuitive as a process.[/callout]

    FREEDOM IS INTUITIVE AS AN EXPERIENCE, BUT COUNTER-INTUITIVE AS A PROCESS Besides being both an [glossary:appropriated term], and an [glossary:expanded term], Freedom is a proscription against the political input of actions for the purpose of obtaining unspecified (and promissory) output actions. And as such Freedom is logically inconsistent to the human mind, whose action orientation finds such systemic solutions all but impossible to believe, and in retrospect finds the relations between cause and effect, deterministic or accidental, rather than the result of a policy of restraint – “not acting”. While the cause of our tradition of freedom is to be found in the military tactics of western chieftains and their retinue, and their distrust of the concentration of power, and the social status accorded those who rose as leaders by merit in commerce and war, it bears noting that the rarity of Freedom as a sentiment is in no small part due, to the fact that the very idea of unorganized action is illogical to the human mind. HAYEK SOLVES FOR FREEDOM Hayek is ‘solving’ for freedom and western civilization. I think the assumption is that by solving for these things, we create great wealth. But human beings do not solve for freedom, they solve for gaining experience and certainty of gaining them at the lowest cost and risk. While different social classes solve for different TIME frames in which they gain those experience, and how they perceive risk, we all solve for experiences. We call this acquisitiveness, which is a vulgar commercial way of expressing the same series of concepts. Solving for that which is incomprehensible as an input, and which cannot logically be connected with outputs assumes that the reader agrees with the proposition that freedom is a ‘good’ in the first place. SOLVING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT They Keynesian prescription is to solve for unemployment and use monetary policy, despite the fact that doing so exaggerates booms and busts. They Hayekian prescription is to solve for productivity and prices, and then unemployment will maintain natural levels. The social democratic prescription (which is the only option available to smaller states) is to solve for high taxation and high redistribution that pays the unemployed to stay home. The Poor Totalitarian prescription (in china) is to employ everyone in some productive capacity and redistribute via state control of capital. The Poorer Socialist prescription (India) is to pay the private sector to accomplish what the state lacks the resources to do. (Which I’m a fan of.) The worst solution is solving for unemployment because it distorts the economy. NOTE: While I use the term Freedom here, I use the term “Sovereignty” in my work because Freedom is an appropriated and expanded term that has lost meaning. Liberty likewise, holds a similar problem. These terms too often describe experiences rather than necessary causes. Sovereignty means that you have a monopoly over yourself and your property. Freedom means the absence of coercion. And that is too loose a definition. Monopoly over one’s self and property is much clearer. It means that the individual is the only state.

  • The Common Law vs Fiat Law – Definitions and Expositions

    Today, someone, in an obscure little news group, expressed his libertarian sentiments by saying:

    “Common law is good enough for all: You must not cause harm, damage or loss, infringe on the rights of others or use mischief in business. To be accused you must have a flesh and blood accuser who can provide proof of claim against you.A jury of 12 decide your fate.”

    Which is true, albeit insufficient. And that insufficiency warrants a little scrutiny. Starting with the fact that the other distinguishing factor of common law is that judges ‘discover’ new properties of dispute resolution as need arises. Men do not make laws. They discover them in the habits and conventions used by real people in the process of developing written and unwritten contracts with one another. But more importantly, the common law, because it is reactive, and evolutionary, and organic, rather than intentional and proscriptive prevents “legal plunder”: the use of the violence of POSITIVE LAW (law enacted versus discovered) to plunder the population. In other words, our freedom depends upon the common law, and our prosperity depends upon our freedom. But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. THE WEAKNESS OF COMMON LAW The weakness in common law is this: When the rate of expansion of an economy results in new entrants into the middle class, new forms of business, new forms of contract, and new technologies, then the evolutionary process of adaptation embodied in the common law comes under duress, since patterns of similarity are difficult for judges to identify. This judicial epistemic delay and lack of coordination can result in return to the perceptoin of ‘arbitrariness’ on behalf of the population which in turn can lead to ‘regime uncertainty’ (fear of trade and exchange due to fear of legal action) which decreases the volume of economic activity and subjects the population to economic vulnerability from external competition. Furthermore, ‘regime uncertainty’ may drive entrepreneurs to seek jurisdictions more favorable to business, which results in capital flight, and a loss of jobs. LAW AND THE COMPLEXITY OF MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS Law becomes cumbersome and incalculable when the competing interests of:

          compete with the organically driven properties of:

                These two sets create no less than is six dimensions of complexity. Unfortunately, human beings are almost never capable of making more than a single-axis comparison. Property rights are the only clear epistemological device for creating a legal system that is calculable. Every other layer of dimensional complexity will lead to (the opposite) Instead of “regime uncertainty”. TERMINOLOGY IN CONTEXT – AND NEW TERMS TO REPLACE THE OLD When our English ancestors, and our Founders, fought for ‘their rights as englishmen’, they fought for common law, and the personal sovereignty over their property that must accompany the common law in order for the common law to have coordinated purpose, rather than chaotic result. Only property rights allow rational adjudication of differences between men. All else is chaos. For these reasons you should never surrender your sovereignty to the state. That we need a government in order to resolve differences among us is one thing. That we should surrender our nobility (rights to allocate our own property) to others is not only illogical, it is impoverishing. We generally use the terms ‘Freedom’ and ‘Property Rights’. But Freedom has become an ‘appropriated term’ and Property ‘rights’ has become a ‘laundered term’. The more precise and utilitarian terms, that preserve rational debate are:

                  **[glossary:Sovereignty]**

                    2) **[glossary:Calculability]** for the purpose of cooperation and coordination instead of ‘rights’. (Rights are now an abused appropriated term. Something can only be a ‘right’ if it can be given by each individual to each other individual equally. Therefore, we can only NOT do things, not DO things, in order to grant one another ‘rights’. There can be no ‘positive’ rights without fiat law.) 3) **[glossary:Property]** (or several property) instead of property rights. 4) **[glossary:Foregone Opportunity Costs]** instead of duties or obligations. 5) **[glossary:Portfolio of Forgone Opportunity Costs]*** instead of cultural values Since these terms, Self-Sovereignity, Calculatibity, and Several-Property are NECESSARY properties of human cooperation, rather than indistinct, appropriated, logically inconsistent or emotionally loaded terms, (n-dimensional terms: those that contain unarticulated dimensions for the purpose of distorting causality –ie: fraud — and most commonly for the purpose of mixing emotional reaction, which is a property of the past, with epistemic necessity, which is a property of the future). USEFUL DEFINITIONS: 0) LAWS

                        1) COMMON LAWS:

                                2) FIAT LAWS:

                                          Manners, Ethics, Morals and the Common Law are a “self evolving, organic system” of rules for coordinating the actions of people in large numbers. As long as judges are allowed to use manners, ethics and morals in concert with the common law, in adjudicating differences. THE RESULT OF MULTICULTURALISM For this reason alone – ‘common law competition’, multiculturalism is an extremely high burden on an economy when combined with Fiat laws. Political Multiculturalism causes competition between common law systems, that may only be resolved through fiat law. Multiculturalism is then, “The Other Road To Serfdom”.

                                        • What does free speech have to do with copyright law?

                                          An interesting question from Mises.org:

                                          ” What does free speech have to do with copyright law?”

                                          It’s fascinating how this fairly simple set of ideas can exist in the public discourse without understanding the rational foundation upon which the concepts of free speech and copyright are based. a) Books, magazines, movies, plays, music (at least, in theory, music with lyrics), advertising, speeches, lectures, photographs, works of art, are products that market ideas (largely narratives.) Copyright law attempts to protect narratives from theft just as patents protect manufactured goods, from profiteering by copying and redistributing other people’s inventions. b) Any of these ‘narrative product’ may contain political speech.(content) c) Determination of political content is extremely difficult. Harmful or beneficial political content is hard to judge (pornography for example), and therefore the law (as a profession) seeks to avoid having to make those decisions. d) Free speech as a practical constitutional concept rests on two assumptions: d.i – that the admitted harm that comes to society from free speech is offset by the protections we obtain from free speech. d.ii — And to narrow these protections to just those that are overtly political is extremely difficult to the point of practical impossibility. e) Some products are political by definition, and copyright can be used to deny political works to the market, and especially intellectual products that are purely social and political in nature. f) copyrights (like patents) should not allow a product to be held from the market, for the purpose of increasing it’s price. (Granted a monopoly.) So, speech and copyright law are effectively tied-concepts because they are mutually dependent. One cannot have copyright without speech, because all copyright is dependent upon speech. We would have far less speech (content) and experimentation (innovation) without copyrights. The scope of speech that needs protection is untestable, and perhaps unknowable, and it is therefore impossible to regulate by content. The argument from the Anarchist position is that copyrights AS THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED create a host of reasons for abusive government, regardless of the attempts of the creators of copyright law to prevent just such abuses. But the practical, measurable empirical evidence is that copyrights do improve innovation, wihc in turn, improves competitiveness, which in turn, reduces prices. The Hoppian/Rothbardian solution, even if they would not advocate it, would be to privatize copyright protections, so that we are not burdened by abusive government, or the costs of administering other people’s works. Again, the fundamental problem here is that it is very difficult to develop criteria by which one thing is equal to another thing, for the purposes of copyright. It is very difficult and expensive to regulate and jury. THe other is that artificially increasing prices of easily reproduced goods is counter to the premise on which the market is based. I think that the solution, as others have said above, is that reproduction for commercial or self use is different from reproduction for the purpose of distribution and sale. I think personal reproduction, even if it deprives the author of profits is within the speech and copyright objectives. I do not see that there is an argument wherein the authors have the right to prevent you from doing whatever it is once you’ve purchased a commercial product from within the market. I do see that someone concentrating capital for the purpose of profiteering from activity in the market, based upon the innovations of others, without paying a commission for doing so, is simply theft, and is not beneficial. The market political theory requires us to innovate, even if innovation is simply opening up new markets.. I do not see the value in copying. That’s just parasitism. Markets exist and function because of enfranchisement, not parasitism. I do not think that the market philosophy (even in libertarianism) supports parasitism. I know libertarians do not support rent seeking (parasitism) by the use of organs of the state. Why should we tolerate parasitism in absence of the state? Or is it that we care more about the state than we do about the very market society which we hope to entrust with our social order? That is the incongruity in Anarchist thought. Government exists to improve the competitiveness of the market for the purposes of decreasing prices and increasing choices. Without a market, there can be no government. There can be slavery, but no government. We pay for the market by forgone opportunities for violence, for theft. Violence and theft are epistemologically simple tasks. However, markets invite fraud BECAUSE they prohibit violence (retribution for theft). And as far as I can tell, copyright law is simply fraud protection. Others are welcome to debate me on this. But I doubt efforts will result in success.

                                        • Save Bradley? Maybe.

                                          Save Bradley. The soldier who leaked the video to Wikileaks? Sorry. No dice. People die in war: People kill intentionally in war. All sorts of people die by accident in war. Guilty people die by accident. Innocent people die by accident. Innocent people die because of bad information. Innocent people may die simply because someone used poor judgement. War is dangerous, messy, confusing, frightening, and largely conducted by people who are dehydrated, frightened, under extreme stress, operating largely by instinct and without the time to think, and who are physically and mentally exhausted. Only very silly people think that war is surgical, or manageable, or nice or neat or safe — for anyone at all. And some people are foolish enough to think that soldiers have time to make good judgements. War is scary, dangerous and risky. Thats why people are very cautious of it. And besides that, it’s dangerous for soldiers to behave as if everyone isn’t out to kill them.

                                          [callout]As a soldier, you are a voluntary, paid, and willing participant in killing, breaking, destroying life and property. And if you don’t believe in it, then you better not join. Because when you join, you give up your right to have an opinion.[/callout]

                                          As a soldier, you are a voluntary, paid, and willing participant in killing, breaking, destroying life and property. And if you don’t believe in it, then you better not join. Because when you join, you give up your right to have an opinion. That’s how it works. And you’re just trying to steal a paycheck and benefits, or operate as a saboteur if you enter the military without understanding that this is the very purpose and nature of war. We grant soldiers certain special rights when the enter the military. In particular, we allow them to kill people and destroy property. We allow them to do what we allow no others to do. And in exchange for that special right, they lose the right to have an opinion. Just orders are easy to understand. Unjust orders are not. The problem isn’t just or unjust orders. It’s the very fact that there is nothing just or good about war. It’s just war.

                                          [callout]Immoral orders are one thing. Your choice is not to obey them, resign (accept court martial) and let the military court accept it. That’s the method the military has had for centuries. Accidents, bad judgement, stupidity are part and parcel of war. There isn’t any crime in error, any more than war itself is simply terrible[/callout]

                                          Immoral orders are one thing. Your choice is not to obey them, resign (accept court martial) and let the military court accept it. That’s the method the military has had for centuries. Accidents, bad judgement, stupidity are part and parcel of war. There isn’t any crime in error, any more than war itself is simply terrible. If you want to leak something, become a journalist. We grant journalists very special rights that we would not grant others. Journalists are more often wrong than write, and create as much bad as good. We simply think the good is worth the bad. If you want to be a journalist, then be one. A journalist’s job is to have a point of view. A soldier’s job is to break stuff and kill people until the other side gives up. Period.

                                          [callout]If you want to be a journalist, then be one. A journalist’s job is to have a point of view. A soldier’s job is to break stuff and kill people until the other side gives up. Period.[/callout]

                                          Besides. Telling us that people died by accident, or because someone made an error, or even lost their judgement during a military exercise, is simply stating the obvious. That’s what happens in war. And so the only reason to leak it is to create propaganda for the enemy, and undermine the will of the citizens to support their military. Supporting the military may be a grand game. No one wants to see sausage made. But when you sign up, that’s what you sing up for. And if you break that confidence, those rules, from the inside, then you’re just thief and a criminal, and you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent possible. Now assuming that he leaked it because he’s a young, stupid kid who had not motivations other than to show his friends something cool, is very different from having some cause or purpose. One is bad judgement, one is treason. That’s for the military courts to decide.

                                        • Response to The Washington Post’s ‘Constitution in decline’ : Actionable Plans vs Sentiments

                                          Joseph Postell of the Heritage Foundation, whom I admire, posts an article in today’s Washington Times entitled Constitutional Decline. Keeping the tradition of picking on your friends, because it’s simply an easier way to make a point than systematic refutation of your enemies, I respond in this posting with a sketch of a more appropriately rational solution, and a more causally descriptive one, than Joseph’s comforting but in-actionable sentiments. His proposition is:

                                          If we are seeking the most effective means of defending – and restoring – the Constitution, we must pay attention to the rise of the administrative state and the decline of constitutional government in the United States. … The Founders confronted a basic problem: How to vest government with sufficient power to get things done without giving it the instruments to exercise tyrannical control? To protect individual liberty and rights, they established (among others) two basic principles at the center of our constitutional order: representation and the separation of powers. To assure that government operated by consent, they provided that those responsible for making laws would be held accountable through elections. Moreover, legislative, executive and judicial power would be separated so those who made the laws were not in charge of executing and applying them. …

                                          [callout]… our problem is that we have outgrown, … the civic republican model that is based upon a separation of powers and the … process of rational debate, because our legislators are not free of the limits that socialists fell prey to: the limits of legislative incentives and the limited information necessary for economic consideration, calculation and forecasting. … Our government literally consists of a technological strategy insufficiently informed to make the decisions with which we have empowered it. [/callout]

                                          Joseph blames the problem rightly on the corrupt bureaucracy. But does not know how to solve the problem: our model of debate is insufficient for our complexity of civilization. We have abandoned communism and socialism because of the problem of incentives and economic calculation in favor of redistributive democratic secular humanism, without understanding that conservative values and classical liberal procedural limits on power or not, our problem is that we have outgrown, by the division of labor and knowledge, and the increase in technological velocity, the civic republican model that is based upon a separation of powers and the calculative process of rational debate, because our legislators are not free of the limits that socialists fell prey to: the limits of legislative incentives and the limited information necessary for economic consideration, calculation and forecasting. Our government literally consists of a technological strategy insufficiently informed to make the decisions with which we have empowered it. Therefore it is open to abuse – not simply because of intention, but because of folly and a lack of means by which to conduct a rational argument. We must divide up the problem of governance differently – while adding computational capability and adding incentives for responsible actions to an increasing number of people – the vast majority of them citizens who are members of the private sector. In other words, the problem is one of calculation: we lack the data to make rational judgements and therefore rely on sentiments. We lack the incentives and therefore fall prey to the bureaucracy. Joseph, Your argument and your sentiments are admirable. But the institutional problem is well understood. It lies in describing the additions to the constitution such that we create alternative institutions free from bureaucratic corruption, yet which are practically implementable, and which would not require violent revolution, nor extraordinary suffering to implement. As well as a plan of implementation and schedule. Sentiments are easy. Sentiments are wishes in the wind. They are the dreams and fantasies of well intentioned men capable of nothing but exposition. They are the masculine version of a romance novel – experientially pleasant but materially vapid.

                                          [callout]Sentiments are wishes in the wind. They are the dreams and fantasies of well intentioned men capable of nothing but exposition. They are the masculine version of a romance novel – experientially pleasant but materially vapid.[/callout]

                                          Plans are tangible things open to action, improvement and criticism. And since Mises, Hayek, Popper, Parsons and Rothbard failed to define a rational model for the post-agrarian world, there is no institutional model by which to deliver us from evil so to speak. Our problems are non-trivial, and vastly more complex than reverting to the debate structure of the framers, wherein a small number of men simply exaggerated the city-state model of the greeks, relying upon the wisdom of platonic pseudo-philosohpher kings to make good judgment despite their representation of craftsman, merchant and farmer alike. This is too simple a form of government for a nation of hundreds of millions producing tens of millions of products and services, and a worldwide empire of trade, trade routes, and a world monetary system we treat as third party, but which, like international policing and trade routes, is the primary source of our empire’s power. Our government has expanded and corrupted into exactly what was predicted by the Iron Law of Oligarchy: We have added judicial review – legislation from the bench. We have added a state sponsored religion: democratic secular humanism. And ostracized the church. We have allowed a bureaucracy to develop that cannot be shut down. We have become an empire over distinctly different cultures with distinctly different economic interests. We have become externally dependent upon our most competitive resource – energy. We have transferred the culture from saving while productive to lend while in retirement, to inter-temporal redistribution from the productive to the unproductive. We have converted government from it’s objective of increasing productivity for the purpose of international competition to the effort of redistributing hypothetical gains at the expense of international competition – we have created the predatory state instead of the productive state. [Callout]We have converted government from it’s objective of increasing productivity for the purpose of international competition to the effort of redistributing hypothetical gains at the expense of international competition – we have created the predatory state instead of the productive state.[/callout] We have converted from a culture of integration whose problem was to enfranchise farmers for the purpose of securing our interior from external conquest, to a culture of disintegration that actively undermines integration. We have all but dissolved the states and oppress the country’s center at the bequest of the coasts. We have destroyed our currency, overextended our empire, exhausted our cultural habits of saving and the ‘Protestant ethic’. And turned our cultural majority into a cultural minority open to conquest by tribal primitivism on a scale and at a speed which would have horrified and panicked Roman citizenry. We have instituted ponzi-insurance schemes under the premise of reducing risk for the few, but in doing so created a redistributive scheme of permanent debt, and insurmountable risk for the many.

                                          [callout ]We have instituted ponzi-insurance schemes under the premise of reducing risk for the few, but in doing so created a redistributive scheme of permanent debt, and insurmountable risk for the many.[/callout]

                                          We have squandered a century of post-european manufacturing advantage, not to improve our competitiveness, but to export our jobs in the silly believe that the price reductions would be worth the competitive loss of jobs, as if all men in america could be rocket scientists and engineers. We have immigrated cheap labor without understanding the cost of delaying our children’s entry into the work force. We have demasculineized our military without understanding that the secret to western individualism is in the fraternal order of self-sacrificing soldiers, who by their risk gain earned enfranchisement and after such risk would not become obedient to authority. We have allowed our military to become an administrative machine, and police force only able to operate hierarchically rather than a collection of warriors capable of post-industrial defense and conquest from multiple independent angles. We have adopted silly pseudo-libertarian monetary policy and exposed our lower classes to terrific long term risk, and privatized great wealth at the expense of our working classes. We have trained two generations of children to be lifestyle pets rather than productive and competitive citizens. We have demasculinated men and made vast numbers of them abandon society for the comfort of video games or sports, and allowed feminists to take our their wrath on men rather than on the church, the state, and ignorance itself. And forced men into aged poverty in order to secure a consistent standard of living for children who have yet to become productive. We are a debt society with a predatory redistributive kleptocratic state bent on accomplishing through debt slavery and constitutional circumvention what cannot be accomplished through the proscribed constitutional rules and voluntary democratic process. But worse of all, we have vastly increased the division of knowledge and labor and become a society managed by credit rather than law or religion, but we have not updated our government to consist of institutions that act as a bank, when the credit function is primary lever of our post-religion, post-law government. We must amend our constitution for this reality. Our government must act as a bank whose duty is to issue loans and cooperate with the private sector, and socialize the profits of competitive advantage. for redistribution to the common people. It must take only calculated insurance schemes that are the product of gains in productivity earned by borrowing on the promise of the common people. This institutional change will have behavioral consequences that will remake our state as one that is competitive, and resurrect us from the simpleton idiocy of the redistributive and irresponsible state whose actions are not measured, not earned, and only stopped by near revolt at the ballot box, but inescapable once implemented as law. We must relieve the house of commons from the act of taxation ,and allow it only investment and redistribution of the profits. We must close the department of education and institute a voucher scheme. We must privatize all functions of the state and open them to competition. We must vote directly with dollars against competing published contractual budgets, rather than competing individuals whose promises are immaterial. We must restore the senate to election by the state legislatures, and limit both the volume of taxation and origin to the senate.

                                          [callout]We must reform our lending system so that loans are not escapable by the originator, and vastly increase the number of bankers, and their quality, so that they are at the level of our lawyers, rather than at the level of our book keepers.[/callout]

                                          We must reform our lending system so that loans are not escapable by the originator, and vastly increase the number of bankers, and their quality, so that they are at the level of our lawyers, rather than at the level of our book keepers. We must restore local banking and personal advocacy of individuals by bankers, so that we do not devolve into an class of the enslaved, as ignorant of compound interest and risk as we are of laws and due process. We must sunset all laws so that they die along with the poor fools who write them. Laws too often institutionalize silly ideas that would be destroyed by the market of daily experience. We must disallow the development of regulations outside of the legal process, and destroy the power of the bureaucracy permanently. We must separate property definitions, and abstract property definitions (like CDO’s, patents, copyrights, stocks) from the legislative process by creating registries for all legally reconcilable traded property types, and remove the ability for patents to prevent products from seeing the market. Put to practice is insufficient a test for protection: put to market is the only protection we should offer. We must change corporate law to provide the same freedom to sole proprietors and partnerships and LLC’s and SC’s and Corps so that we only have one body of law for each, and one method of taxation for all. We must change taxes such that they do not distort human cooperation, require little or no overhead, and are all based upon both income and balance sheet, so that we encourage men to become independent, but protect the people from the political class of financial predators who circumvent the market purely by the application of capital. We can have redistribution. People under fiat money are DUE redistribution, because it is they who are borrowed against and whom take the risk.

                                          [callout]We can have redistribution. People under fiat money are DUE redistribution, because it is they who are borrowed against and whom take the risk.[/callout]

                                          We can maintain our empire, our freedom, our way of life. But it must be calculable to be responsible and accountable. Right now it is unregulated chaos of extreme borrowing using snake oil formulae peddled by charlatan economists, snake oil mathematicians and other hucksters who are no better than entrail-readers, oracles and bone-augers and less accurate it turns out at inter-temporal prediction than the average man on the street. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FACING US IS THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEBATE MODEL OF GOVERNMENT IN THE FACE OF THE CALCULATIVE COMPLEXITY OF OUR CIVILIZATION. OUR MODEL IS JUST TOO WEAK. The problem of socialist calculation is still evident in the debate model of government. OUr problem is sufficient information to make decisions, and limiting decisions to where we have sufficient information, and avoiding legislation that uses quantitative, methodological and ideological charlatainism. Some of us who spend time on these theories are diligently working in back rooms, offices, academic institutions, think tanks, cars and showers to solve this problem. But it is not a problem of sentiments. It is a problem of execution.

                                          [callout ]Institutionalizing this degree of change will not come without violence or trauma. It never has. It never will. [/callout]

                                          Institutionalizing this degree of change will not come without violence or trauma. It never has. It never will. There are too many with vested interests feeding off the predatory state. But some of us are now more willing to take that risk than we were over the past decades. And it takes only about five percent of a population to force such a change, if that group is willing enough to act to enforce the change.

                                        • Time For Violence: Judicial Activism And The New Supreme Court Nominee

                                          The difference between conservatives and socialists, is that conservatives believe that the government was constructed so that the legislature makes laws, and the court overturns those that are unconstitutional. That is the purpose of the court: to guarantee that the laws that are made adhere to the constitution, and to guarantee that the adjudication of conflict is according both to the laws and to the constitution. But the constitution can be changed. There are methods of change in our constitution. These methods are the right to call a constitutional convention, which requires a majority, and legislation, which requires a majority. There are no methods of change that require a minority. That is not democracy. That is the abuse of our system, circumvention of the constitution. There are no methods of change that do not require legislative change. And legislative change must be obtained by the consent of the majority. Judicial activism on the other hand, is circumvention of our democracy. And judicial activism has been the means by which most of our constitution has been abridged. The general approach has been to tolerate judicial activism because a constitutional convention would expose the nation to too much risk. However, it does not state that judicial activism poses the nation to the risk of civil war, rather than constitutional convention. A constitutional convention would, almost certainly, return rights to the states and to individuals. The constitution is the set of rules that limits what a government can do. They are not the rules by which liberals agree to play. The county is, and always has been, center-right. The left does not want this constitution to prevail. It wants no limits on government. It wants to have an upheaval, a constitutional convention held by fiat – against the very document that gives them political power: the constitution. It wants to change the public hearts and minds to favor ‘compassion’ and democracy over the rules by which the nation was established. The constitution is the rules by which conservatives agree to play. By allowing the left to change the dialog to one of injustice rather than rules, we do not force them to use the rules by which our democracy operates. if however, the rules of the interchange are ‘whatever we can get away with’, or the rules are whetever rules one side chooses to adhere to, then we are not playing by the rules. if we don’t play by the rules then there are no rules, there is no constitution, and there is no need to refrain from violence, because the very premise of our non-violence is the principle of peaceful competition according to those rules. Since the constitution is being circumvented by the left, and by conspiring with an activist judiciary that acknowledges that the constitution is now unworthy of respect,and must be circumvented, then we cannot hope to call a constitutional convention. Since the left ignores the constitution, and the right respects it, we are no longer agreeing to play by the rules that we agreed to. We are simply fools clinging to a fantasy while our opposition abuses the document and processes by which we constrain ourselves to peaceful democratic politics.. We cannot restore our civilization. We can enumerate the changes we wish to make to our country, or we can break it into pieces. Given the size of our country, and the vast different cultures that inhabit the new england, the south, Texarcana, the great lakes, the River and Plains, the pacific northwest the mexican southwest, it may be best to come up with a new federal government in each of those different cultures, and substantially weaken the federal government so that it cannot oppress us. It may instead be better to simply update the constitution with greater protections. It may be better to simply return all power to the states. But this trend toward totalitarianism cannot continue. Freedom is the restraint of individual violence in return for property rights. There is no other form of democracy that is not Bonepartism. (Bonepartism means that the masses elect a totalitarian and are volunatarily made unfree.) I am advocating violence. I am going to continue to advocate violence. At first it must be civil disobedience. But it must grow to upheaval. Because if we do not play by the rules, then I no longer need to restrain my violence. Conservatives no longer need to constrain their violence. It is time for violence. Some men are capable of petty interpersonal physical violence. Some are capable of rabblery and protest. Some of us are capable of revolution and civil war. We are threatened by the myth of the general strike. We are threatened by the idea of revolution by the left, we are threatened with personal violence in order to institute change, by the left. We believe that these malcontents will simply learn. They will conform. That we are safe in our patience. We tolerate this abuse because we are confident in our system. But that system has failed. We must understand that we cannot hold onto pacifism and restraint. And that if we do we are not acting on conviction but convenience. We don’t need half the population to create change. We don’t need a quarter of it. We don’t need a tenth of it. We need one man in one thousand to be willing to take action in an organized manner, and we can restore our freedom. Under the rules of the civic republican tradition, a tradition you may not even be able to articulate, or even understand, except as habits and emotions, you agreed to restrain your violence as men, for the common good, in an effort to create a meritocratic society, as long as the rules were adhered to by everyone. Instead you find that you are sacrificing, that you may have to live in poverty in old age, that your civilization will become another Bonapartist state, so that the left can immigrate us out of power under the rubric of compassion and democracy. So stop confusing your complacency with conviction. You pay for government by forgoing opportunity to use your violence. YOu could, if you wanted, use that violence, use fraud, use deception, break the rules, for your own benefit. Each time you dont you pay the cost of building a society. You pay for whatever society you get. So you are paying for this one. EAch deposit you make pays for this society. Each time you forgo and opportunity. Each tax you pay. Each abuse of your freedoms you tolerate, pays for this society. Prepare to withdraw your deposit. You have been saving violence into a bank for most of your life. It’s time to withdraw it. To spend it. It’s a hefty sum. And with that violence you can buy your civilization back.

                                        • The first problem with laws is that they do not die with the fools who wrote the

                                          The first problem with laws is that they do not die with the fools who wrote them.

                                          Source date (UTC): 2010-03-20 00:28:24 UTC

                                          Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/10748682890

                                        • is writing on “nobility and the private production of defense”, and sleeping, so

                                          is writing on “nobility and the private production of defense”, and sleeping, so I can walk in the land of the living tomorrow.

                                          Source date (UTC): 2009-01-25 18:21:00 UTC