Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • TRUSTS VS LLC, S-CORP, C-CORP A trust requires someone trustworthy to manage it:

    TRUSTS VS LLC, S-CORP, C-CORP
    A trust requires someone trustworthy to manage it: a trustee. This is the only ‘risk’.
    If a trustee steals from a trust it is a crime and prosecutable.
    A trust may operate for financial gain.
    A trust main hold a corporation as an asset.
    A trust is taxed like an individual taxpayer.
    A group of people or families can essentially contribute assets to a trust to protect them.
    If assets are placed in an irrevocable trust before marriage, then they are insulated from spousal seizure during divorce proceedings – if specified in the trust. (Some people might want those assets to go to a spouse at death for example.)
    Beneficiaries can leverage assets in trust for the purpose of credit.
    Even Houses can be placed into trust.
    If a trust does not distribute income, it pays tax at the rate of the total income from the trust. A trust can distribute income and individuals pay tax according to the tax rate of the individual parties, and as such not force all parties to pay the tax rate of the aggregate income of the trust.

    Basic Benefits:
    1) asset protection.
    2) probate evasion and intergenerational transfer.

    Limits Too Benefits:
    1) If a beneficiary has too much control over the trust (such as a self-settled trust where the grantor is also a beneficiary), creditors may argue that the assets should be available to satisfy the beneficiary’s debts.
    2) Alimony and Child Support: Courts may order distributions from a trust to satisfy alimony, child support, or other family law obligations, particularly if the trust was funded by the grantor.
    3) Piercing the Trust Veil: In some cases, courts may “pierce the trust veil” if they determine that the trust is essentially a sham or an alter ego of the grantor, meaning it is not being used for legitimate asset protection or estate planning purposes.

    So, effectively, joining a large scale trust is equivalent to joining a medieval monastery. Which is fascinating. 😉

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina @FestivusQueen @verymoisturized

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-20 00:07:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1814452122689077248

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1814444900777160846

  • THE CAUSE AND SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF ALIENATION AS MANKIND EVOLVES I think I

    THE CAUSE AND SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF ALIENATION AS MANKIND EVOLVES
    I think I might help you with a bit of history and understanding of the problem that man encounters when producing prosperity – and subsequently choice:
    1. the early agrarian civilizations produced sedentary life and reduced dependence upon one another that had been necessary as hunter gatherers.
    2. The bronze age civilizations that first formed cities produced divisions of labor, class hierarchies, elites, and authoritarianism for the first time 3. Those caused the need for religious order to create standards by which people cooperated.
    4. Those early civs rose and fell a wave after wave of barbarians tried to conquer those cities and civilizations to capture control of the government because the government controlled the means of production. The bonze age collapse was the result of one of those sets of barbarians (europeans).
    5. When trade was reestablished after the bronze age collapse, and the greeks established their empire to insure that trade, they invented money. Money further eradicated interpersonal dependency, interpersonal relationships.
    6. In response we found the age of gransformation, meaning the age of new religions creating a standard of behavior for cooperation between many divergent groups, so that the scale of our prosperity from trade, and the accumulated alienation of 1-5, could be moderated. This is why most of those religions are a form of sedation against alienation (they create mindfulness).
    7. While we should have hit the industrial revolution about the year 300 to 600, the great migrations and the cancer of the abrahamic religions, by suppression of alienation, in turn, suppressed the spread of reason, empiricism, technology, and political order, creating a dark age.
    8. Once again, it was europeans who caused the reformation, when they recovered classical knowledge and gradually created the empirical, commercial, financial, trade, scientific, and finally industrial revolutions. Yet this resulted in another episode of alienation. And yet again the marxist attempt to modernize the abrahamic religions from supernatural into pseudoscientific form nearly created another dark age, that thankfully europeans and sciences have begun to resist despite it’s popularity with women, immigrants, lower classes, and the academic cum political priesthoods.
    9. Immigration immigration and diversity cause increases in frication and cost necessary for the formation of the high trust necessary to produce mindfulness in a population. It is the absolutely worst strategy possible.

    EXPLANATION
    The Lesson: the problem we face in our evolutionary process is creating deliberate institutions of cultural formation to train ourselves into adapting to every increase in the scale of energy capture and conversion.

    Thus it is a problem of institutions and knowledge and not a problem of institutions and anti-knowledge. So innovation and creativity in institutional development are the solution to the problem of ever expanding alienation. We must move from natural forces causing us to work together in bands and tribes, to deliberate engineering our incentives to work together in the absence of those natural incentives. Simple folk try regression. Not so simple folk try innovation. Because the result of regression. whether supernatural religion, pseudoscientific economics and politics, the result is the same: dark ages of ignorance, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, and early death.

    There have been only a few great periods in human history and they are the Pax Romana, The Pax Britannia, and the Pax Americana. That’s the lesson we must learn from history.

    End the left’s lies forever whether sophistic, pseudoscientific, or supernatural, BUT heavily invest in mindfulness, fitness, education, and socialization in order to make each leap in our standard of living possible.

    The uncomfortable lesson is that of the Greeks’ and Taleb’s: you teach people to harden, not to soften. In other words supportive competition is the means of mindfulness – it is not withdrawal, escapism, and illusion.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    cc: @whatifalthist. Pls comment if useful.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-19 01:24:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1814108972548280320

  • FOR THOSE QUESTIONING HAIDT’S MORAL FOUNDATIONS (@JonHaidt) Unfortunately life’s

    FOR THOSE QUESTIONING HAIDT’S MORAL FOUNDATIONS (@JonHaidt)
    Unfortunately life’s experience, the study of philosophy and history – as well as the questionable social sciences, are insufficient to understand Haidt is correct. We need genetics, neuroscience, cognitive science, behavioral economics, and evolutionary development.
    🙁 And thats a lot of ‘need’, at too high a cost, for most people to satisfy.

    Sex differences are unfortunately one of the specializations I’ve had to develop in my research on the institutionalization of lying and group differences in their strategies of ‘lying’. And sex differences in lying is a terrifying nietzchean void that exposes too much of human nature for most of us to willingly tolerate.

    Explanation
    Here is the outline of the relationship between genetics, moral bias, and resulting political bias.

    1) The sex differences are:
    – Feminine vs Masculine
    – Lateral (more) vs longitudinal Brain Organization (fast)
    – In Time (now) vs Over Time (then)
    – Direct (perceptible) vs Abstract (predicted) Causality
    – Empathizing vs Systematizing
    – Experience vs Consequence
    – HyperConsuming vs Capitalizing
    – Devotion in time vs Loyalty over time
    – Special Pleading/asymmetry vs Consistency/symmetry Status by Consumption w/o responsibility vs Status by Capitalizing with responsibility for capital
    – Irresponsibility vs Responsibility for Commons
    – One/Few vs Populations/Many Small
    – Scale vs Large Scale
    – Prey(Submission) vs Preditor(Dominance)
    – Herd vs Packs Global vs National
    – Dysgenic vs Eugenic
    – Devolutionary vs Evolutionary
    See: https://t.co/YkDHuL6Pgt

    2) Moral Foundations As Sex Differences in Resource Dependence (Capital): The moral foundations explain the capital that the sexes evolved to guarantee status and reproduction given the asymmetry of the sexes.
    See: https://t.co/1vHb48UoNs

    3) Political Bias is the Result of those same differnces: The left is biased to the feminine cognitive emotional bias and the right to the masculine cognitive emotional bias.
    See: https://t.co/BmCeTKZjTd

    4) Sex Differences We Observe in Demonstrated Behavior In Moral and Political Bias:
    – The feminine left seeks as the feminine does to maximize consumption especially of attention and signalling as a reproductive and consumption maximization strategy by parasitically extracting surpluses they cannot produce, from males who can, without exchange, or exchange at the lowest cost, with the most devotion in time, with the least ingroup loyalty over time, reflecting the female reproductive and evolutionary strategy.
    – The masculine right seeks as the masculine does to accumulate capital for the purpose of attracting the feminine at the least cost, the most loyalty AND the most ingroup loyalty over time, reflecting the male reproductive and evolutionary strategy.

    Its Universal
    This is precisely what we see. Everywhere. Throughout all of time. Across all civilizations.

    Even if, as in a popular topic of the current year, because of fragility of sexual development, whether in-utero, early development, later trauma, or dysphoria, when we test those whose sexual preference reverses from their genetic sex, their brain is visibly operating (fMRI) in the mode of their genetic sex, and so is their cognition even though their valence and expression varies to suit their preference.

    Closing
    Now that does NOT mean that haidt fully explains such matters as I have outlined here. He doesn’t. And it doesn’t mean he doesn’t instead communicate a normal bias. But it means not only isn’t he wrong, but it’s effectively that he CAN’T be wrong.

    My suspicion is that it’s common to interpret his work as if the BIASES are absolutes rather than bias in distribution between the feminine(progressive), ascendant male (libertarian), and dominant male (conservative)

    Feel free to ask any questions.
    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 00:10:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813365536010448898

  • THE NEAR UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE OF THE EMPIRICAL BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM Why Don’

    THE NEAR UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE OF THE EMPIRICAL BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
    Why Don’t You Know About Commonality and Concurrency – and Why Don’t Our Lawyers, Legislators, and Judges?

    Law Is Taught As Carpentry Not Architecture
    Legal education often focuses on specific doctrines, case law, and statutory interpretation rather than overarching philosophical concepts unless in a constitutional law, jurisprudence or decidability. Worse most have no understanding of behavioral economics, macroeconomics, or political economy.

    Studying the Trees And Ignoring the Forest
    The concepts of “commonality” and” concurrency” are embedded in legal principles but not explicitly labeled as such. Terms like “precedent,” “equal protection,” “due process”, and “bicameralism”, are more commonly used.

    Basic Principles Missing In Legal Education
    In the law, particularly American law, if less so British, we require Concurrency of populations (house), states (senate), legislatures (electoral college) in voting and legislation (positiva) AND Commonality of decisions across classes and regions in dispute resolution in court (negativa) to produce legitimacy of the construction of law, AND Settled Law in the population – thus ending conflicts.

    It’s Just Science
    These are both empirical processes insure both sovereignty of the people by consent of the regions and classes in voting and legislation, and commonality in the resolution of disputes, which together protect the interests of the minority against the majority and where both are required under the common law, where the people are sovereign, because there is no alternative to that empiricism.

    The Opposite of Majority Democracy
    We do NOT live in a democracy. We live under the Natural Law of Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Duty, codified in a Constitution, forming a Republic, prohibiting violations of sovereignty reciprocity and duty, and by use of concurrent voting, across classes and regions, thus protecting the minority from the majority by insuring people agree (consent) to a statute, even if by proxy through elected representatives, before the enactment of legislation and regulation (statute law) where conflicts are resolved in the Court, by findings of the Court (‘judge discovered law, but not judge made law’), by adversarial competition before a judge and jury of their sovereign peers.

    Accumulated Ignorance Because of Lack of Recording in the Constitution
    In other words, we have lost the understanding of the fact that the constitution produced an empirical (scientific) method of governance. And it is the only one extant, despite the efforts of such petty theorists as Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, Rawls and so many others so less competent and knowledgable than their ancestors.

    The Solution
    Of course, my life’s work seeks to correct this problem with a formal science of decidability applied to law, policy, and economy. But if it was easy someone would have done it before me – instead of inventing sophistry by which to empower elites to circumvent the people, even if the people are so frustrated by the process that they might wish it – at their peril.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 23:42:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812996191304503296

  • NEAR UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM Why Don’t You Kno

    NEAR UNIVERSAL IGNORANCE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM
    Why Don’t You Know About Commonality and Concurrency – and Why Don’t Our Lawyers, Legislators, and Judges?

    Law Is Taught As Carpentry Not Architecture
    Legal education often focuses on specific doctrines, case law, and statutory interpretation rather than overarching philosophical concepts unless in a constitutional law, jurisprudence or decidability. Worse most have no understanding of behavioral economics, macroeconomics, or political economy.

    Studying the Trees And Ignoring the Forest
    The concepts of “commonality” and” concurrency” are embedded in legal principles but not explicitly labeled as such. Terms like “precedent,” “equal protection,” “due process”, and “bicameralism”, are more commonly used.

    Basic Principles Missing In Legal Education
    In the law, particularly American law, if less so British, we require Concurrency of populations (house), states (senate), legislatures (electoral college) in voting and legislation (positiva) AND Commonality of decisions across classes and regions in dispute resolution in court (negativa) to produce legitimacy of the construction of law, AND Settled Law in the population – thus ending conflicts.

    It’s Just Science
    These are both empirical processes insure both sovereignty of the people by consent of the regions and classes in voting and legislation, and commonality in the resolution of disputes, which together protect the interests of the minority against the majority and where both are required under the common law, where the people are sovereign, because there is no alternative to that empiricism.

    The Opposite of Majority Democracy
    We do NOT live in a democracy. We live under the Natural Law of Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Duty, codified in a Constitution, forming a Republic, prohibiting violations of sovereignty reciprocity and duty, and by use of concurrent voting, across classes and regions, thus protecting the minority from the majority by insuring people agree (consent) to a statute, even if by proxy through elected representatives, before the enactment of legislation and regulation (statute law) where conflicts are resolved in the Court, by findings of the Court (‘judge discovered law, but not judge made law’), by adversarial competition before a judge and jury of their sovereign peers.

    Accumulated Ignorance Because of Lack of Recording in the Constitution
    In other words, we have lost the understanding of the fact that the constitution produced an empirical (scientific) method of governance. And it is the only one extant, despite the efforts of such petty theorists as Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin, Rawls and so many others so less competent and knowledgable than their ancestors.

    The Solution
    Of course, my life’s work seeks to correct this problem with a formal science of decidability applied to law, policy, and economy. But if it was easy someone would have done it before me – instead of inventing sophistry by which to empower elites to circumvent the people, even if the people are so frustrated by the process that they might wish it – at their peril.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 23:42:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812995875469189120

  • Even germany, that, in the postwar, legislated the size of urban residences to a

    Even germany, that, in the postwar, legislated the size of urban residences to allow for children instead of individuals without, failed.

    As far as I know the only solution is
    – ending the multiplicity of female-doiminated pseudoscience, propaganda, and gut courses that cause debt.
    – ending anti-male employment and contract bias.
    – taxing singles to pay for married’s children because singles are not contributing to long term tax production.
    – accounting for costs by individual citizen to show their debt vs contribution in taxes or children or military service.
    – making it less desirable to hire women by making businesses and governments pay for women’s childbearing and time off.
    – reforming education to include the family and reproduction not just labor in the economy
    – requiring marriage and replacement children to vote (if voting even means anything any longer. it seems we would be better with courts than democracy)
    – constitutional amendment that the family is the subject of investment policy not the individual’s ability for consumption.

    In other words, it will take a lot of incentives combined to restore the priority of the family.

    Reply addressees: @RussellJohnston

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 19:43:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812936063305822208

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812931352422965291

  • THE COURTS ARE A MARKET FOR GRADUAL PRODUCTION OF SETTLED LAW BY FILTERING UNSET

    THE COURTS ARE A MARKET FOR GRADUAL PRODUCTION OF SETTLED LAW BY FILTERING UNSETTLED AND UNSETTLEABLE LAW
    The court will, if possible, allow the public and the legislature to work through these issues, and then the courts themselves will conduct debates if necessary. The reason being that the court was not mandated to, and wishes not to, be used to bypass the people and the legislature and therefore bypass tests of ‘concurrency’ that will result in ‘settled law’, and instead prefers to only clarify any dissonance or confusion between the BODY of law and the individual CASE or class of cases before the court.

    This is what’s called ‘common law’ or ‘the empirical method of legal discovery’ – in other words, we use science: adversarial competition using evidence and reason to create a market for the discovery of ‘settled law’ within the limits of ‘natural law’ which is the basis of our constitution.

    Reply addressees: @angelbeech59 @tribelaw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:12:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812882828754894848

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812878786930905402

  • REGARDING THE CANNON DECISION ON THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUM

    REGARDING THE CANNON DECISION ON THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE
    The Court seeks to produce narrow rulings and technical rulings wherever possible, in the context of the extant corpus of law, continuing their mission to prohibit bypassing the people and the legislatures through legal activism (“Lawfare”).

    Judge Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in a separate case that raised questions about the constitutionality of special counsels like Jack Smith. This opinion apparently gave Judge Cannon guidance on how to approach the Trump documents case. And Judge Thomas wrote a concurring opinion on Cannon’s ruling as well.

    The ruling by Judge Cannon on Special Prosecutor’s case against Trump over Documents is a narrow technical ruling directed to the appointment of a special prosecutor for the purpose of lawfare without constitutional authority to do so. It compounds the previous ruling on immunity of presidents for actions in office.

    Both rulings seek to preserve the established and long standing precedent that we must not cause presidents fear of doing what is necessary, nor demand that presidents be superhuman and infallible.

    I concur since (and this is part of my job) the Court would prefer to accelerate the process rather than require the time and expenditure of resolving all these cases that are categorically ‘Lawfare’ and all of which violate the prohibition on prosecution of presidents by other than impeachment by the senate. I further expect the NY case that contrives a misdemeanor with no victim rarely prosecuted and if so with a fine of less than one hundred dollars, into a pretense of a felony. At that point I expect the court will see it’s duty to suppress the lawfare related to trump fulfilled, by means of technical rulings that avoid the necessity of legislation from the bench.

    Unfortunately, public intellectuals, but a tiny minority of members of the legal profession (unfortunately), the commentariat, politicians, and the common people are rather uninformed and unskilled in constitutional law and the tremendous burden the court bears in preserving our rule of law by the natural law of individual sovereignty and responsibility, by tests of commonality in judgement, and concurrency in voting whether for representatives or by representatives.

    The Court is attempting to reverse the abuse of the constitution, the law, and our institutions, by the postwar leftist activists use of ‘Lawfare’ – which has resulted in political division, class sex and race conflict, and what the court considers the worst of all, the combination of ‘unsettled law’ and ‘delegitimization of the branches of government’ made possible by circumvention of the demand for concurrency among the people, the states, and the legislatures.

    If you do not grasp the terms ‘sovereignty of the people, not the government’, and ‘the demand for concurrency among classes and regions’, and ‘the natural law of individual sovereignty in one’s demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, and duty to commons before self’ then you do not understand the meaning of Rule of Law, Republic, or Democratic Voting within a republic, as defense of minority interests from the masses, and NOT majority rule.

    Intellectually Honest Questions are Welcome.

    Affections.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @rpwpb @tribelaw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:04:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812880906513780736

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812867890015556065

  • POLITICAL BIAS IS REDUCIBLE TO RESPONSIBILITY BIAS. By Noah Revoy (@NoahRevoy),

    POLITICAL BIAS IS REDUCIBLE TO RESPONSIBILITY BIAS.
    By Noah Revoy (@NoahRevoy), NLI Sr Fellow

    Everyone likes to take on responsibilities that are immediately profitable to them, but not the ones that require longer-term investments to get a payoff.

    The Left seeks to avoid all responsibility. They are functionally just children.

    Libertarians seek responsibility for personal economic decisions but seek to avoid responsibility for the commons. They behave like late teenagers or early adults.

    Conservatives seek to take on responsibility for personal economic decisions and some parts of their local commons, but they also seek to escape the moral responsibility to rule the nation and use pro-social violence to maintain order and seek power. They behave like idealistic young adults.

    Aristocratic Bias: To maintain a western level of social order and economic comfort, we, the sane, mature adults of society, must go beyond the conservatives and take on responsibility for everything, then seek out the power to discharge our responsibility fully.

    -NR

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 15:24:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812870913869725696

  • Deceptions: Involuntary Compliance by Extractive Signaling By @LukeWeinhagen, Sr

    Deceptions: Involuntary Compliance by Extractive Signaling

    By
    @LukeWeinhagen
    , Sr Fellow, The Natural Law Institute Innovation Signaling is no different from any other form of extractive signaling. It’s an attempt to capture the benefits of inclusion in a category without meeting the burden of meeting the standards for inclusion in the category. Signaling vs Demonstrating
    We keep trying to push back against a signal and it doesn’t work to stop the spread of degradation and degeneracy, because the signal is a trick.
    • Virtue Signal vs Demonstrated Virtue
    • Competence Signal vs Demonstrated Competence
    • Investment Signal vs Demonstrated Investment
    • Ownership Signaling vs Demonstrated Ownership
    • Power Signal vs Demonstrated Power
    All of these tricks depend on, and literally can not exist without, leveraging the demonstrated behavior of the signal’s recipient for the benefit of the signaler. The signal does not produce the effect. Instead, the signal triggers the demonstrator’s compliance to produce the effect.
    Put another way – the signals are only effective to the degree the signaled population complies with the signal.
    We’re conflating compliance with cooperation.
    Because the institutions of the West are institutions of cooperation, our conflation of compliance as cooperation in the West provides all of these signals their strength.
    Not recognizing the distinction between compliance and cooperation makes the choke point strategy effective.
    Because “Plan. Organize. Fight. Win.” are all expressions of cooperation in the conflict of culture, and we believe we are already cooperating (when instead we’re complying), these coordinated actions will suffer until we can clearly recognize compliance and cooperation.
    Category Theft & Linguistic Parasitism via Extractive Signaling Detach the label used to identify a category then abuse the common understanding and/or misunderstanding of the label to strip-mine any benefit of inclusion with the category without the burden of meeting the standards or measures that define the category.
    Clarifying cooperation is essential to disrupting signal compliance. We do the science of cooperation at the
    @NatLawInstitute
    -Luke Weinhagen

    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 00:50:37 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1812650944523637008