Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:01 AM

    —“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot

    You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements. Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population. Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man). You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.

  • That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:01 AM

    —“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot

    You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements. Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population. Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man). You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.

  • Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —Ja

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM

    “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —James Dmitro Makienko

  • Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —Ja

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM

    “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —James Dmitro Makienko

  • The Ten Commandments vs European Traditional Law Demonstrate the Abrahamic Method of Deceit.

    Jan 17, 2020, 10:25 AM Notice that the ten commandments say one may not steal. It does not say one may not free-ride, externalize costs, or steal. But european traditional law is complete not ‘convenient’: it says one may not free ride, externalize, or steal. Notice that the ten commandments say one may not bear false witness. They do not say one may not lie. But European traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one may not lie – period. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about withholding or obscuring information, about “cheating”, about “baiting into hazard”. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one must warranty one’s words and deeds against withholding or obscuring information, “cheating”, and “baiting into hazard”. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about preventing others from free riding, externalizing, fraud, lying, thieving, harm. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’. It requires we insure by defense, of both the private and common, or we are equally to blame. Notice that Jewish law says one must treat jews reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. Notice that islamic law says one may only treat muslims reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. But european traditional law is complete – it grants everyone the same sovereignty. It grants local control to locals. And It prevents externalizing of costs. Non-itegration is a cost. Evangelism and conversion is a crime. Practice that externalizes no costs is no one’s business. So, this is how the Abrahamic method of deceit operates on high trust european minds, by stating very clear half truths that prohibit the obvious and trivial, but by doing so license the subtle, and egregious – it’s moral hand-waving to distract you. The Abrahamic technique of false promise, hiding behind moral pretense, under cover of plausible deniability, defended by sophistry is as ADVANCED a method of DECEPTION against high trust european people, as REASON, EMPIRICISM, and SCIENCE are a method of falsification of the ignorance, error, bias, and deceits of low trust non-european people Once you see it you can’t unsee it. You see it everywhere. In ever sentence. Everything the enemy says is that sounds anything like truth is always and everywhere a half truth obscuring a lie – or it wouldn’t be said. The only problem we face is our own religion is still infected with pilpul and dogma when imitating Jesus’ love and presuming god’s love is all that is necessary. There is nothing else to be said. Christianity asks us to create a universal family by extending familial love to all that we can possibly do so in good conscience. In doing so, we create the optimum extended high trust, and trustworthy family. This is the common person’s version of Hellenic, Italic, Germanic civilization’s political strategy in the language of the weak, women and children.

  • The Ten Commandments vs European Traditional Law Demonstrate the Abrahamic Method of Deceit.

    Jan 17, 2020, 10:25 AM Notice that the ten commandments say one may not steal. It does not say one may not free-ride, externalize costs, or steal. But european traditional law is complete not ‘convenient’: it says one may not free ride, externalize, or steal. Notice that the ten commandments say one may not bear false witness. They do not say one may not lie. But European traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one may not lie – period. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about withholding or obscuring information, about “cheating”, about “baiting into hazard”. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’: it says one must warranty one’s words and deeds against withholding or obscuring information, “cheating”, and “baiting into hazard”. Notice that the ten commandments say nothing about preventing others from free riding, externalizing, fraud, lying, thieving, harm. But european traditional law is complete, not ‘convenient’. It requires we insure by defense, of both the private and common, or we are equally to blame. Notice that Jewish law says one must treat jews reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. Notice that islamic law says one may only treat muslims reciprocally but may treat non-jews ir-reciprocally. But european traditional law is complete – it grants everyone the same sovereignty. It grants local control to locals. And It prevents externalizing of costs. Non-itegration is a cost. Evangelism and conversion is a crime. Practice that externalizes no costs is no one’s business. So, this is how the Abrahamic method of deceit operates on high trust european minds, by stating very clear half truths that prohibit the obvious and trivial, but by doing so license the subtle, and egregious – it’s moral hand-waving to distract you. The Abrahamic technique of false promise, hiding behind moral pretense, under cover of plausible deniability, defended by sophistry is as ADVANCED a method of DECEPTION against high trust european people, as REASON, EMPIRICISM, and SCIENCE are a method of falsification of the ignorance, error, bias, and deceits of low trust non-european people Once you see it you can’t unsee it. You see it everywhere. In ever sentence. Everything the enemy says is that sounds anything like truth is always and everywhere a half truth obscuring a lie – or it wouldn’t be said. The only problem we face is our own religion is still infected with pilpul and dogma when imitating Jesus’ love and presuming god’s love is all that is necessary. There is nothing else to be said. Christianity asks us to create a universal family by extending familial love to all that we can possibly do so in good conscience. In doing so, we create the optimum extended high trust, and trustworthy family. This is the common person’s version of Hellenic, Italic, Germanic civilization’s political strategy in the language of the weak, women and children.

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:06 PM by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —” Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful. 3 clarifications – if you have the time. 1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better? 2. If the former, how is it unnecessary? 3. If the latter, where can it be improved? 3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion. “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority. AS FAR AS I KNOW: The organs of the state are limited to: 1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military) 2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts) 3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury). 4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State) 5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government) 6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy). This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee. There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it. Cheers

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:06 PM by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —” Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful. 3 clarifications – if you have the time. 1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better? 2. If the former, how is it unnecessary? 3. If the latter, where can it be improved? 3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion. “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority. AS FAR AS I KNOW: The organs of the state are limited to: 1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military) 2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts) 3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury). 4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State) 5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government) 6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy). This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee. There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it. Cheers

  • MEN…

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:07 PM Don’t be the idiot in the meeting ‘reminding’ others of the obvious risks – it means you’re a coward and think in cowardly terms, and offer advice as pretense of courage. Instead, be the person looking for, seizing, and assisting on the seizure of opportunities to exploit. We need brave men, not cowardly women. You demonstrate what you are by what you say.

  • MEN…

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:07 PM Don’t be the idiot in the meeting ‘reminding’ others of the obvious risks – it means you’re a coward and think in cowardly terms, and offer advice as pretense of courage. Instead, be the person looking for, seizing, and assisting on the seizure of opportunities to exploit. We need brave men, not cowardly women. You demonstrate what you are by what you say.