Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • ORIGINALISM AND TEXTUALISM Originalism requires that the legislature alter the l

    ORIGINALISM AND TEXTUALISM

    Originalism requires that the legislature alter the law and that the court not alter the law, only reject bad law.

    The constitution was an attempt to codify natural law (reciprocity).

    Our law is natural law and has been for 3500 years.

    The weakness in our system of government is:

    1) There is no requirement that a law pass the court before it’s enacted.

    2) There is no way for the court to compel the state to repair a law other than to invalidate a provision or all of it.

    3) Statement of natural law of reciprocity, Originalism, Textualism, and Strict Construction from natural law of reciprocity were not stated as part of the document.

    Law can and must be algorithmic.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 15:53:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE ORIGINS OF PATERNALISM: WAR I have a terr

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE ORIGINS OF PATERNALISM: WAR

    I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies.

    Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it.

    And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative.

    This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war.

    And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame.

    I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce.

    In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic).

    International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity.

    For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 13:51:41 UTC

  • The Origins of Paternalism: War

    I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies. Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it. And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative. This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war. And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame. I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce. In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic). International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity. For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.

  • The Origins of Paternalism: War

    I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies. Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it. And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative. This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war. And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame. I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce. In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic). International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity. For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.

  • MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES ALL AROUND Yes, I work from the Mis

    MONEY AND MONETARY AGGREGATES: MALINCENTIVES ALL AROUND

    Yes, I work from the Misesian premise of full accounting when referring to money and its substitutes, and the totality of monetary aggregates.

    However, the problem with the Austrian model is (as has always been stated) it’s overly respectful of lenders (asset holders) without accounting for the moral hazard most money lenders profit from.

    This is ‘unsaid’ in the literature of both sides. It’s this competition between the moral premises of consumer vs lenders vs the judiciary (state) that over the priority to which we must grant the malincientives of either party and therefore the rewards of either party.

    I tend to err on the side of lender beware almost always, and the lender and borrower beware of the state at all possible times.

    All parties: state, lender, and borrower have malincentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 12:09:00 UTC

  • GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS (repost by request) Given a six sided di

    GENERAL IDEAS: A “FIELD” IN MATHEMATICS

    (repost by request)

    Given a six sided die, and the single operation “roll the die”, we can produce a noisy distribution of :

    1(x1), 2(x1), 3(x1), 4(x1), 5(x1), 6(x1).

    Given two six sided dice, and the single operation “roll the dice and sum the results”, we can produce a noisy distribution of:

    2(x1), 3(x2), 4(x3), 5(x4), 6(x5), 7(x6), 8(x5), 9(x4),

    10(x3), 11(x2), 12(x1).

    The difference between the one-die and two-die distributions is that while the results of rolling one die are equidistributed between 1 and 6, with two dice the results of rolling can produce more combinations that sum to 7 than there are that sum to 2 and 12, and therefor the results are normally distributed: in a bell curve.

    We can produce the same results with logic instead of numbers: For example, we can take the two words “Even” and “Odd”, and define two operations: “addition” and “multiplication”. Then apply the operations to all pairs:

    Even + Even = Even,

    Even + Odd = Odd + Even = Odd,

    Odd + Odd = Even,

    Even x Even = Even x Odd = Odd x Even = Even,

    Odd x Odd = Odd.

    And we can produce the same set of results with *any grammatically correct operations on a set, given the operations possible on the set*; including the set of Ordinary Language using Ordinary Language grammar. Although, unlike our simple examples using dice, the set of combinations of ordinary language is not closed, and so the number of combinations is infinite.

    So any grammar allows us to produce a distribution of results, and a density (frequency) of result.

    In mathematics this result set is called a ‘field’. A field consists of all the possible results of a set of operations on a set’s members, that are selected from the range of possible operations on those set members.

    So in any set of results there will be a range of very dense, less dense, sparse, and empty spaces in the set’s distribution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:22:00 UTC

  • WISDOM VS TRUTH There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom L

    WISDOM VS TRUTH

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia.

    I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule).

    It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:10:00 UTC

  • There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Beca

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia.

    I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule).

    It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:06:00 UTC

  • THE ORIGINS OF PATERNALISM: WAR I have a terrible habit, developed over many yea

    THE ORIGINS OF PATERNALISM: WAR

    I have a terrible habit, developed over many years, from defending myself, my management and staff, and my companies, and out of pure necessity, of changing from argument to defense against litigation. In other words, from working with friends, allies, and customers, to fighting against enemies.

    Any politician, negotiator, or litigator develops this talent (and must), and many if not all lawyers must develop a lighter version of it.

    And that is to create a defensive frame (narrative) and speak and act within the defensive frame, such that all evidence that you leave behind in word and deed corresponds to the narrative.

    This is not truthful. It’s lying. But it’s lying in the context of war. Once you have decided you are no longer cooperating, nor no longer negotiation, but actively engaged in self defense by a hostile party with malincentives, there is no question of crime, ethics, morality or evil with one’s opponents. We are just at war.

    And courts are quite stupid really, and they follow the evidence (results of framing) and develop their frame (network of decidability) from that evidence. So in almost all cases politicians, negotiators, and litigators develop and leave evidence correspondent and consistent with the frame.

    I view this behavior on my part as (a) a result of my rather difficult childhood as defending myself from an abusive alcoholic father, (b) my obsessive study of weapons, warfare, and history from the second grade onward, (d) my early career work almost exclusively with a (((certain))) demographic (e) my membership in the “Wall Street” generation of Yuppies, and the litigation that resulted from my risk taking, and (f) My prosecution of members of said (((demographic))) by the Justice Department, (g) the later career constant defense of the company from frivolous lawsuits with progressive origins (h) self defense in divorce.

    In this sense I have a very martial (international) bias to my ethics and morality (pessimistic). Whereas the average person as a more familial and civic ethics and morality (optimistic).

    International law, and in particular, war, has no test other than reciprocity. It’s the family (female) and male (civic) ethics and morality of those who have had few resources, few responsibilities, and few risks of devastating outcome or exceptional reward that can afford to mistakenly extend the economics ethics and morality of the family and community of competition to the international arena of conflict, where the difference is not simply one of lost or gained opportunity, but one of lost or gained severity.

    For this reason, paternalism is necessary until such a point that all, or at least most men, are one again trained in the art of war, so that they understand the difference between the economics, ethics and morality of the family, the polity, and those against whom we war.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 09:51:00 UTC

  • Wisdom vs Truth

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia. I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule). It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.