Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle shared a profile. THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING TH

    Curt Doolittle shared a profile.

    THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING THE WRITINGS OF JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ

    As far as i know this problem – these problems – arose over two centuries as the federal government – all post-napoleonic governments – increasingly took on the role of “insurer of last resort”.

    In other words, the presumption of the utility risk mitigation provided by fiat money, federal credit, and income taxes was valued over the sovereignty both individual, local and federal of our assets. And the empirical evidence is that this strategy was not only competitively necessary, but resulted in vast increases in our standards of living.

    I am just working through Anna’s writings now and I’ve noticed a few things that I want to explore:

    CONSTRUCTIVIST
    I am having a bit of trouble decomposing the logical (legal) dependencies of Anna’s arguments, but I think they are to natural law (individual sovereignty).

    Sovereignty, which requires reciprocity, which requires truth(testimony), which is itself a duty(cost), and which together leave us no other means of cooperating other than markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, and the production of commons, adjudicated by the common law of tort (property).

    This (markets in everything) is the secret to the west’s success, because both in the ancient and modern world, this system of self government adapts to changes (socks, windfalls) faster than all other known (or possible) systems of government. It makes the optimum use of human incentives. But we must understand it is an *economic* system of government: it forces continuous innovation which constantly reduces prices and increases choices.

    ECONOMIC
    1 – After the civil war, and up through the creation of the federal reserve we converted from a government concerned with sovereignty of property of individuals and states under rule of law (the gold standard system of government) justified by either natural law or common traditional law, to government concerned with the economic condition of individuals and states under discretionary rule (legislative law). Making this change was not without voluminous debate and significant conflict.

    2 – My opinion is that the court lacked sufficient economic knowledge (and under FDR sufficient sovereignty) to reform the law (demand legislation) so that rule of law was preserved AND insurer of last resort functions of the federal or state governments could be created. One of the failings of our common law system is that judges do not specialize outside of family, civil, and criminal as they do in the continental (napoleonic) system. (there are good reasons for and agains). But the court has a myopic view of history as a legal without grasping that our legal systems have poorly adopted to a world consisting almost entirely out of interests in property (distributed possession), rather than possession of property (monopoly possession). I have come to see this as the fundamental problem of adapting our ancient legal systems to the information era (post 1911).

    3 – Fiat currency is functionally nothing more than shares in the federal treasury, which in turn is merely an asset of the federal corporation, which in turn is merely a construct of the federal constitution. The problem is that (as Anna illustrates), we have opened up a host of opportunities for predation upon our individual sovereignty, and our personal property, and even our community property, thereby transforming all assets to the state, and only making use of them by license. In effect we have restored feudalism (serfdom) – just serfdom that is comfortable. And the frightening fact is that comfortable serfdom is in demand, and contrary to historical propaganda was in demand in the past also – as was voluntary slavery. Many people are happy to enter into contemporary serfdom and slavery if they have some protection of law. Yet our system no longer distinguishes between the sovereign, the serf, and the slave – thereby ignoring the differences in risk we wish (or can) bear, because of our abilities, our skills, our assets, our families, and our associations. We are taxed by income but not by risk. We are governed by serfdom not by sovereignty. And this is because the law has not kept pace with the economic structure of polities. And to a large degree I blame the Judicial community for failing to grasp the relationship between the demands upon law, and the economic “technology” that we live under.

    CLOSING
    The mistake I see in Anna’s writings is the same mistake I see in ‘gold bugs’ or other people that want to return to hard money. Hard money is a terrible limitation upon the people for no reason – resulting in hard and fast shocks that cannot be insured against (the jury is in on cyclicality of corrections but it is hard to take the position of allowing shorter devastating depressions rather than longer softer recessions) That said, we no longer make use of money as other than debt instruments (all money is merely a token without any backing other than fiat demand for it).

    The question isn’t return to gold standard, or return to fully private property (which merely weakens us from producing the higher returns of the commons). The question is how to restore sovereignty and markets in everything by rule of law given that we have a new monetary technology available to us that is no longer physical – how can we restore the state to its only necessarily useful function: as the insurer of last resort both economic(positive) and judicial (negative).

    And we must recognize that the enlightenment experiment with equality has been a failure and that the upper classes will always seek rents, the financial classes (distributors of liquidity) are now entirely unnecessary (really), and are by their very existence parasitic, and the underclasses, grown more numerous while the middle shrinks – have only serfdom as their desired order.

    There are only two social sciences: the law of tort (property), and its facility and measurement economics. The problem is macro economics seeks to circumvent the law, and the law is ignorant of macro economics.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 11:50:58 UTC

  • AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE (INSUFFICIENT DEMAND) The problem is (a) delayed entry i

    AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE (INSUFFICIENT DEMAND)

    The problem is (a) delayed entry into the workforce by unnecessary education, excessive educational debt, and immigrant labor filling entry level jobs, (b) immigration of cheap labor favoring upper middle and upper classes at the expense of the working and under classes (c) common property, no fault divorce, alimony and child support guaranteeing elder male poverty and alienation, (d) the replacement of the ‘easy jobs’ with females at the expense of replacement rates of reproduction, and the displacement of males who are less able to self-modify to suit heavily female environments into only the dangerous, physically degenerative, and dirty jobs – or out of the workplace altogether. Business satisfy demand, but government creates demand by immigration, taxation, and family policy. Fools talk about what is good directly (oughts), and adults talk about incentives that produce goods (is’s). Unfortunately due to Dunning Kruger education effects popularized by the island 120 median, the fools do not know they are such.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 10:40:00 UTC

  • HOW DO WE EVOLVE (GENETICALLY) AND WHY? (groups and genetics) 1 – We can evolve

    HOW DO WE EVOLVE (GENETICALLY) AND WHY?

    (groups and genetics)

    1 – We can evolve (a) through normal mutation (b) through selection by intergenerational expression (c) class (quality) sortition, rates of reproduction, and rotation, (d) through selection by group strategy and reorganization resulting in asymmetric rates, , (e) through technological innovation. Although “d” is misunderstood.

    2 – Of these five methods of evolution it appears c,d,e are faster and more influential than a,b. And that in general we are selecting between low dimorphism and increased rates of maturity (male) in hotter climates, higher populations, and greater disease gradients, versus higher dimorphism and decrease rates of maturity (female) in cooler climates, lower populations, and weaker disease gradients.

    3 – The primary axis of difference between the races and sub races, if not tribes, consists in (a) the distribution of dimorphism (balance of male and female traits between the genders), (b) degree of neoteny (balance of rates of maturity or delayed maturity), and (c) success at culling the underclasses (defectives).

    4 – We do not face this reality yet in the postwar era due to (((suppression))) of scientific truths, but some races and sub races are more evolved than others and we can test this because rates of maturity (neoteny), degrees of dimorphism (cognitive structure, and endocrine responses), and IQ distribution (degree of suppression of the underclasses). In this sense races and sub races are vastly unequal.

    5 – But this only means that in large part some groups express different excellences in their middle, upper middle and upper classes, and that some groups have been more successful at culling the lower classes due to climate and available means of production.

    6 – In other words, we can continue to speciate by our various group excellences if and only if homogenous nation states that practice economic eugenics (reproductive limitations).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 09:54:00 UTC

  • THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING THE WRITINGS OF JUDGE ANNA VON REIT

    THE FALL OF AMERICAN LAW: NOTES FROM READING THE WRITINGS OF JUDGE ANNA VON REITZ

    As far as i know this problem – these problems – arose over two centuries as the federal government – all post-napoleonic governments – increasingly took on the role of “insurer of last resort”.

    In other words, the presumption of the utility risk mitigation provided by fiat money, federal credit, and income taxes was valued over the sovereignty both individual, local and federal of our assets. And the empirical evidence is that this strategy was not only competitively necessary, but resulted in vast increases in our standards of living.

    I am just working through Anna’s writings now and I’ve noticed a few things that I want to explore:

    CONSTRUCTIVIST

    I am having a bit of trouble decomposing the logical (legal) dependencies of Anna’s arguments, but I think they are to natural law (individual sovereignty).

    Sovereignty, which requires reciprocity, which requires truth(testimony), which is itself a duty(cost), and which together leave us no other means of cooperating other than markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, and the production of commons, adjudicated by the common law of tort (property).

    This (markets in everything) is the secret to the west’s success, because both in the ancient and modern world, this system of self government adapts to changes (socks, windfalls) faster than all other known (or possible) systems of government. It makes the optimum use of human incentives. But we must understand it is an *economic* system of government: it forces continuous innovation which constantly reduces prices and increases choices.

    ECONOMIC

    1 – After the civil war, and up through the creation of the federal reserve we converted from a government concerned with sovereignty of property of individuals and states under rule of law (the gold standard system of government) justified by either natural law or common traditional law, to government concerned with the economic condition of individuals and states under discretionary rule (legislative law). Making this change was not without voluminous debate and significant conflict.

    2 – My opinion is that the court lacked sufficient economic knowledge (and under FDR sufficient sovereignty) to reform the law (demand legislation) so that rule of law was preserved AND insurer of last resort functions of the federal or state governments could be created. One of the failings of our common law system is that judges do not specialize outside of family, civil, and criminal as they do in the continental (napoleonic) system. (there are good reasons for and agains). But the court has a myopic view of history as a legal without grasping that our legal systems have poorly adopted to a world consisting almost entirely out of interests in property (distributed possession), rather than possession of property (monopoly possession). I have come to see this as the fundamental problem of adapting our ancient legal systems to the information era (post 1911).

    3 – Fiat currency is functionally nothing more than shares in the federal treasury, which in turn is merely an asset of the federal corporation, which in turn is merely a construct of the federal constitution. The problem is that (as Anna illustrates), we have opened up a host of opportunities for predation upon our individual sovereignty, and our personal property, and even our community property, thereby transforming all assets to the state, and only making use of them by license. In effect we have restored feudalism (serfdom) – just serfdom that is comfortable. And the frightening fact is that comfortable serfdom is in demand, and contrary to historical propaganda was in demand in the past also – as was voluntary slavery. Many people are happy to enter into contemporary serfdom and slavery if they have some protection of law. Yet our system no longer distinguishes between the sovereign, the serf, and the slave – thereby ignoring the differences in risk we wish (or can) bear, because of our abilities, our skills, our assets, our families, and our associations. We are taxed by income but not by risk. We are governed by serfdom not by sovereignty. And this is because the law has not kept pace with the economic structure of polities. And to a large degree I blame the Judicial community for failing to grasp the relationship between the demands upon law, and the economic “technology” that we live under.

    CLOSING

    The mistake I see in Anna’s writings is the same mistake I see in ‘gold bugs’ or other people that want to return to hard money. Hard money is a terrible limitation upon the people for no reason – resulting in hard and fast shocks that cannot be insured against (the jury is in on cyclicality of corrections but it is hard to take the position of allowing shorter devastating depressions rather than longer softer recessions) That said, we no longer make use of money as other than debt instruments (all money is merely a token without any backing other than fiat demand for it).

    The question isn’t return to gold standard, or return to fully private property (which merely weakens us from producing the higher returns of the commons). The question is how to restore sovereignty and markets in everything by rule of law given that we have a new monetary technology available to us that is no longer physical – how can we restore the state to its only necessarily useful function: as the insurer of last resort both economic(positive) and judicial (negative).

    And we must recognize that the enlightenment experiment with equality has been a failure and that the upper classes will always seek rents, the financial classes (distributors of liquidity) are now entirely unnecessary (really), and are by their very existence parasitic, and the underclasses, grown more numerous while the middle shrinks – have only serfdom as their desired order.

    There are only two social sciences: the law of tort (property), and its facility and measurement economics. The problem is macro economics seeks to circumvent the law, and the law is ignorant of macro economics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    https://www.facebook.com/avonreitz

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 07:50:00 UTC

  • Tournament Species vs Pair Bonding Species

    by Candice Mary Human beings have been shown to use both of these strategies, and studying different cultures, tribes and societies reveals that some use either one or the other consistently and others use both within the society, others lean towards one way or to the other, depending on the socioeconomic strata of the individuals involved. TOURNAMENT SPECIES -Males have distinct and exaggerated physical characteristics that differ from Females -Males are larger than Females -Males highly aggressive and compete with one another for dominance -Females attracted to signs of health and strength. largest male in group, for protection. -higher testosterone, -males have decreased life span vs women -Males have numerous sexual partners -Females most often the only involved parent -male abandons females and offspring -very rarely produce twins -distribution of offspring focused on fewer males of the group, but highest reproductive rate per male. -Gene selection is via the dominant male combat first before mating then winner mates with ALL females PAIR BONDING SPECIES -male and female more equivalent in size (Think of animals that you cant tell gender vs the ones you can tell with a naked eye) -women attracted to mates who are more like themselves, than their opposites -females look for traits in males better suited for equal roles equal parenting unit -females delay mating, first expect to be “courted”, to assess potential mate to prove he is dedicated, consistent, and will be a provider for offspring. (Female Birds act helpless to see how a mate reacts, if he’ll hunt for and feed her worms like a baby. Testing paternal instincts) -less testosterone among males -Often females are a bit larger in size -twins much more common -equal distribution of males having offspring -females may get bored and sometimes abandon mate and offspring to find another partner to reproduce. (Women lose interest)

  • Tournament Species vs Pair Bonding Species

    by Candice Mary Human beings have been shown to use both of these strategies, and studying different cultures, tribes and societies reveals that some use either one or the other consistently and others use both within the society, others lean towards one way or to the other, depending on the socioeconomic strata of the individuals involved. TOURNAMENT SPECIES -Males have distinct and exaggerated physical characteristics that differ from Females -Males are larger than Females -Males highly aggressive and compete with one another for dominance -Females attracted to signs of health and strength. largest male in group, for protection. -higher testosterone, -males have decreased life span vs women -Males have numerous sexual partners -Females most often the only involved parent -male abandons females and offspring -very rarely produce twins -distribution of offspring focused on fewer males of the group, but highest reproductive rate per male. -Gene selection is via the dominant male combat first before mating then winner mates with ALL females PAIR BONDING SPECIES -male and female more equivalent in size (Think of animals that you cant tell gender vs the ones you can tell with a naked eye) -women attracted to mates who are more like themselves, than their opposites -females look for traits in males better suited for equal roles equal parenting unit -females delay mating, first expect to be “courted”, to assess potential mate to prove he is dedicated, consistent, and will be a provider for offspring. (Female Birds act helpless to see how a mate reacts, if he’ll hunt for and feed her worms like a baby. Testing paternal instincts) -less testosterone among males -Often females are a bit larger in size -twins much more common -equal distribution of males having offspring -females may get bored and sometimes abandon mate and offspring to find another partner to reproduce. (Women lose interest)

  • The West’s Incredibly Optimistic Response to Suffering

    by Tim Spillane (Note: the trials of achilles) I came across a discussion by Joseph Campbell on the differences between the Western and Levantine interpretations of suffering- it’s a bit long but worth posting: —“[In the Hellenic world] God is immanent throughout nature… science, therefore, deals with the material body of which God is the living spirit… God, the informing spirit of the world, is rational and absolutely good. Nothing, therefore, can occur that is not- in the frame of the totality- absolutely good. The doctrine… was reaffirmed by Nietzsche… where the word ‘good’ is read not as ‘comfortable’ but as ‘excellent,’ and a call is issued to each to love his fate: ‘amor fati’. Spengler also represents this view in his motto, adopted from Seneca… ‘The fates guide him who will, him who won’t they drag.’ It is a view derived rather from courage and joy than from rational demonstration: from a life of zeal and affirmation, beyond any kind of calculation. It leaves the Buddhist sentiment of compassion far behind; for compassion contemplates suffering. And Job’s problem also is left behind; for that too rests upon the recognition of suffering. In Seneca’s words: ‘Not what you bear but how you bear it is what counts.’ And again: ‘Within the world there can be no exile, for nothing within the world is alien to man.’ “’Great is God,’ declared the lame slave Epictetus: ‘This is the rod of Hermes: touch what you will with it… and it becomes gold. Nay, but bring what you will and I will transmute it to Good. Bring sickness, bring death, bring poverty and reproach, bring trial for life- all these things through the rod of Hermes shall be turned to profit… Thus should we ever have sung: yea and this, the grandest and divinest hymn of all- Great is God, for that he has given us a mind to apprehend these things, and duly to use them!’” This is the incredibly optimistic response to suffering developed natively in the West, and it couldn’t be further from developments among the Abrahamics. Campbell goes on, “The ideal of indifference to pain and pleasure, gain and loss, in the performance of one’s life task, which is of the essence of this stoic order, suggests the Indian ideal of Karma Yoga described in the Bhagavad Gita… However, the Indian life task is imposed upon each by his class statues, whereas the Greco-Roman task is that recognized and imposed on each by his own reason: for God here is Intelligence, Knowledge, and Right Reason. Furthermore, the condition of ‘nirvana,’ disengagement in trance rapture, which is the ultimate goal of Indian yoga, is entirely different from the Greek ideal of ‘ataraxia,’ the rational mind undisturbed by pleasure and pain. Yet, between the two views there is much to be compared, and particularly their grounding in… ‘pantheism,’ which is fundamental… to India… and to the Classical world: against which the biblical view, whether in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic thought, stands in unrelenting, even belligerent, argument. “Within a world that is itself divine… there is an epiphany of divinity in all sight, all thought, and all deeds, which- for those who recognize it- is a beginning and end in itself… Whereas within a world that is not itself divine, but whose creator is apart [as in the Abrahamic faiths]… one lives not simply to play the part well that is in itself the end, like the grapevine producing grapes, but, as Christ has said, ‘so that the Father may reward.’ The goal is not here and now, but somewhere else.” ––Occidental Mythology

  • The West’s Incredibly Optimistic Response to Suffering

    by Tim Spillane (Note: the trials of achilles) I came across a discussion by Joseph Campbell on the differences between the Western and Levantine interpretations of suffering- it’s a bit long but worth posting: —“[In the Hellenic world] God is immanent throughout nature… science, therefore, deals with the material body of which God is the living spirit… God, the informing spirit of the world, is rational and absolutely good. Nothing, therefore, can occur that is not- in the frame of the totality- absolutely good. The doctrine… was reaffirmed by Nietzsche… where the word ‘good’ is read not as ‘comfortable’ but as ‘excellent,’ and a call is issued to each to love his fate: ‘amor fati’. Spengler also represents this view in his motto, adopted from Seneca… ‘The fates guide him who will, him who won’t they drag.’ It is a view derived rather from courage and joy than from rational demonstration: from a life of zeal and affirmation, beyond any kind of calculation. It leaves the Buddhist sentiment of compassion far behind; for compassion contemplates suffering. And Job’s problem also is left behind; for that too rests upon the recognition of suffering. In Seneca’s words: ‘Not what you bear but how you bear it is what counts.’ And again: ‘Within the world there can be no exile, for nothing within the world is alien to man.’ “’Great is God,’ declared the lame slave Epictetus: ‘This is the rod of Hermes: touch what you will with it… and it becomes gold. Nay, but bring what you will and I will transmute it to Good. Bring sickness, bring death, bring poverty and reproach, bring trial for life- all these things through the rod of Hermes shall be turned to profit… Thus should we ever have sung: yea and this, the grandest and divinest hymn of all- Great is God, for that he has given us a mind to apprehend these things, and duly to use them!’” This is the incredibly optimistic response to suffering developed natively in the West, and it couldn’t be further from developments among the Abrahamics. Campbell goes on, “The ideal of indifference to pain and pleasure, gain and loss, in the performance of one’s life task, which is of the essence of this stoic order, suggests the Indian ideal of Karma Yoga described in the Bhagavad Gita… However, the Indian life task is imposed upon each by his class statues, whereas the Greco-Roman task is that recognized and imposed on each by his own reason: for God here is Intelligence, Knowledge, and Right Reason. Furthermore, the condition of ‘nirvana,’ disengagement in trance rapture, which is the ultimate goal of Indian yoga, is entirely different from the Greek ideal of ‘ataraxia,’ the rational mind undisturbed by pleasure and pain. Yet, between the two views there is much to be compared, and particularly their grounding in… ‘pantheism,’ which is fundamental… to India… and to the Classical world: against which the biblical view, whether in Jewish, Christian, or Islamic thought, stands in unrelenting, even belligerent, argument. “Within a world that is itself divine… there is an epiphany of divinity in all sight, all thought, and all deeds, which- for those who recognize it- is a beginning and end in itself… Whereas within a world that is not itself divine, but whose creator is apart [as in the Abrahamic faiths]… one lives not simply to play the part well that is in itself the end, like the grapevine producing grapes, but, as Christ has said, ‘so that the Father may reward.’ The goal is not here and now, but somewhere else.” ––Occidental Mythology

  • Disinformation

    by Radu M Oleniuc So now I am a disinformation agent. I think those 150 bn (billion) dollars (Iran) do not belong to a terrorist state and were rightfully confiscated. Obama considered them as “seized”, and returned those to a terrorist state massively funding propaganda through various proxies (NGOs, newspapers, corrupt journalists and officials), yet I am spreading disinformation by calling this appeasement simply as it is: treason to our values and civilization by helping an adversary trying to destroy the west. Not only that we as the western world should have not gave “their money back”, we should have bombed their oil fields to pieces and send the bill for the rest. Because those 150 billions are just a small fraction of what we spend on our defense. Not fair? Well, the next time when an Iranian ideologue trains a bunch of suicidal zealots or wants to bribe a journalist using US dollars obtained from oil and gas, he would think twice, because he would know that his oil refinery will be leveled the next day. With his GSM tower antenna as well, because his ideology belongs to the Middle Ages when electricity was not yet invented. He could start planning his attacks with goats, but without any kind of help from mobile phones or GPS. Or SWIFT system, dollars or banks. He could use rupees, rials, renminbi or whatever he wants, but if he uses dollars, then he should know that there is always this risk. Vladimir Ilich Lenin tactic where ‘The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them” has to stop.

  • CIVIL WAR’S INCENTIVE IS LOOTING Everyone virtue signals, but the truth is that

    CIVIL WAR’S INCENTIVE IS LOOTING

    Everyone virtue signals, but the truth is that the principle motivation for participation in war is looting. Loot is an incredibly exciting incentive for the disenfranchised male. So political objectives can most often be accomplished not thru demonstrations of force before the government, marching in the street before the citizenry, or fighting in the streets against opponents, but instead by the systematic looting and burning of homes and businesses, of opponents, whether private, commercial, or public. Looting is necessary for the continuous supply and survival of a group of any size. From food, ammunition, and fuel, to cash, to valuables, to toys. The more looting the more burning the less order the faster the demands are met. Especially when those demands are military coup.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-28 18:27:00 UTC