Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Reduce Resistance. We Don’t Need Numbers

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:11 AM

    —“Talking to the Left is a waste of time. Talking to grassroots civnats/normiecons often is worth it though.”— John Mark —“I honestly don’t think civnats are much better in most respects.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg 😉

    CD: Our goal is not to make the majority agree, it is to get enough of us of like mind to act if we need to, that the civnats and normiecons know what we’re trying to accomplish. Awareness reduces resistance. Large armies are hard to move and feed. Light, fast, infantry.

  • Example of How Legal Education Fails

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM

    —“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

    Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

    —“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

    That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

    —-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

    1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

    —“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

    Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

    —“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

    So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.

  • Example of How Legal Education Fails

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:36 AM

    —“The Libertarian Case for Rejecting Meat Consumption” If George Orwell were alive today, he would troll vegetarians. In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), Orwell described with exasperation how mere mention of the words “Socialism” or “Communism” seemed to…”—

    Yeah. File this under “stupid libertarian games by the application of stupid Pilpul games from Abrahamic theology”. You can’t have a contract with someone or something that can’t empathize and sympathize, cooperate, negotiate terms, or hold to a contract.

    —“As a matter of law, your last sentence is incorrect. Most contracts are made with fictitious entities (corps, LLCs, etc.) that don’t feel anything. Most contracts are form contracts that can’t be negotiated. And many contracts (e.g., terms of service) are offered by a computer.”– Well Meaning Fool —“But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.”—

    That’s a sophistry Corwin. There is always and everywhere an owner of an entity. And a corporate entity exists solely as a means of limiting the liability of its members, in order to encourage investment, the result of which is taxes, for the gov’t as insurer of last resort. The fact that we create asset holding vehicles to insulate them from liability cascades, does not mean that in order to act, someone or some group doesn’t act on behalf of the members of that asset store.

    —-“That’s a bad response. First, you completely ignored everything other than the fictitious entity aspect of my post. Why? (Hint: I’m right and you know it.) Second, identifying humans *somewhere* doesn’t establish sympathy or anything close to it.”—

    1) I don’t make errors. Especially in jurisprudence. Even more so in operational construction – but you don’t know that. 2) Please: how any such entity can come into existence without an human being able to enter into a contract. 3) Contract requires consent. What can consent? 4) What faculties are necessary for consent? (Sympathy: Thought, Empathy: feelings, and Cognitive

    —“That’s all horseshit. The entity isn’t merely a transmission of its human parts. Those parts may disagree, not pay attention, delegate decisions to automatic processes, and so on. Furthermore, it says a lot that you ignored my comment on standardized contracts.”—

    Someone eventually acts. Sorry. A horse, pony, cow, sheep, dog can’t act. They can’t enter into contract. They cant sympathize (mental) or empathize (emotional) or even comprehend contract. At best they can only learn to trust you and your behavior or not by repetitive experience. Chimps can pass the mirror test. Gorillas only sometimes, and dogs not at all. We cannot have a contract for cooperation with non-rational species (series: sentience > awareness > consciousness > reason > calculation > computation )

    —“Indeed, you (and fictitious entites) can accept contracts without ever reading them — or even looking at them — much less engaging in any thought process of any kind. It happens all the time with EULAs, TOSes, various click wraps, parking agreements, and so on.”—-

    So people acted, just as I said. And standardized contracts serve as standards of weights and measures. Their context conveys their content. If it doesn’t then the court doesn’t uphold it. Standardized contracts do nothing more than explain the existing law on the subject so that individuals know the limit of their rights. People are still accountable for their actions because they CAN have read, understood and agreed to thoughtless acceptance of rules. Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people. Boards, Executives, Shareholders, Employees, have limited liability for the Ward (corporation). That’s the purpose of corporations. I am kind of surprised that Platonism, against which legal education should protect, is something you cannot seem to avoid – or even comprehend. I also find it somewhat humorous when people in the profession – the equivalent of craftsmen – debate me on matters of truth, constitution, and jurisprudence. Debate me on procedure and legislative and regulatory matters (local custom) sure. These are pragmatisms not truths. There are a not insignificant number of lifetime lawyers that have said “I never understood the logic of the law until you taught it.” I do natural law (law), testimony, evidence, jurisprudence, and decidability, under strict construction from reciprocity. Law is science not custom.Custom is falsified by the science.

  • (placeholder) ( … undone … )

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:05 AM (discuss incentives that produce conspiracies of common interest – and managed decline/equilibrium)(real conspiracy is ‘all’ rather than each nation competing an the market driving all upward) TRILATERAL COMMISSION WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – DAVOS BILDERBERG GROUP CONFERNECE MOUNT PELERIN SOCIETY WORLD BANK G7, WTO – World Trade Organization, IMF – International Monetary Fund, THE UNITED NATIONS “Davos Man” “Davos Man” is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely “international”. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase “Davos Man”,[88] they are people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite’s global operations”. In his 2004 article “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite”, Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[89] Davos men supposedly see their identity as a matter of personal choice, not an accident of birth. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has suggested that the transnational ideology of Davos Man represents a major challenge to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that liberal democracy represents the fulfillment of The End of History and the Last Man. Hernando de Soto Polar said that although internationally connected, each country’s elite lives in a bell jar in the sense of being out of touch with its own populace. Their isolation fosters a tendency to be oblivious to the fate of their fellow citizens. Lawrence Summers refers to this concept as the “stateless elites”, tied more to the success of the global economy than to any nation, and views it as eroding support for continuing globalization

  • (placeholder) ( … undone … )

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:05 AM (discuss incentives that produce conspiracies of common interest – and managed decline/equilibrium)(real conspiracy is ‘all’ rather than each nation competing an the market driving all upward) TRILATERAL COMMISSION WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – DAVOS BILDERBERG GROUP CONFERNECE MOUNT PELERIN SOCIETY WORLD BANK G7, WTO – World Trade Organization, IMF – International Monetary Fund, THE UNITED NATIONS “Davos Man” “Davos Man” is a neologism referring to the global elite of wealthy (predominantly) men, whose members view themselves as completely “international”. According to political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, who is credited with inventing the phrase “Davos Man”,[88] they are people who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite’s global operations”. In his 2004 article “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite”, Huntington argues that this international perspective is a minority elitist position not shared by the nationalist majority of the people.[89] Davos men supposedly see their identity as a matter of personal choice, not an accident of birth. John Fonte of the Hudson Institute has suggested that the transnational ideology of Davos Man represents a major challenge to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion that liberal democracy represents the fulfillment of The End of History and the Last Man. Hernando de Soto Polar said that although internationally connected, each country’s elite lives in a bell jar in the sense of being out of touch with its own populace. Their isolation fosters a tendency to be oblivious to the fate of their fellow citizens. Lawrence Summers refers to this concept as the “stateless elites”, tied more to the success of the global economy than to any nation, and views it as eroding support for continuing globalization

  • Where Can I Learn Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:13 AM

    —“Where may I learn the Rudiments of Propertarian Ideology?Close to half of Native America is tired of the Left Wing dropping Crumbs from Their table to starve Us into submission and then use Us as pawns in Their Self hating,racist political games,We are getting tired of Them turning Us into Victims so that They can come running to the rescue and play Hero at Our expense.We need something better than Their left wing, paternalistic Racism.”—

    A little context first. It’s a methodology. we use that methodology to create a universally commensurable, value neutral, language across all disciplines. This unites the physical and human sciences. We use that language to make it very hard to lie, cheat, fraud, or bait into hazard. We take that language and method and write law. That law is strictly constructed and closed to interpretation by courts. We wrote a constitution using that law that reflects the western civilizational strategy and tradition. This restores the constitutions original intent as a document of natural law that persists the western group strategy. We then write the western group strategy in those value neutral universally commensurable terms, so that our people finally know what makes them unique and special, and what made us successful. The only ‘ideology’ is whether you want to persist the western tradition of evolutionary excellence or not. On propertarianism dot com there is a link in the middle of the main menu. You can work your way through reading that. It is a lot of content. It touches every single discipline. It will overwhelm you. The constitution is also there in its current public and incomplete form. You can read a bit of all that, follow us here and learn by asking questions or just following along. (Although you have to tolerate many points of view) If you’re able you can join the SN (sheepdog nomocracy group) that is a sort of working classroom. Or you can take the foundations course at the institute and wait while I slowly release content. Those are the options.

  • Where Can I Learn Propertarianism (natural Law)

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:13 AM

    —“Where may I learn the Rudiments of Propertarian Ideology?Close to half of Native America is tired of the Left Wing dropping Crumbs from Their table to starve Us into submission and then use Us as pawns in Their Self hating,racist political games,We are getting tired of Them turning Us into Victims so that They can come running to the rescue and play Hero at Our expense.We need something better than Their left wing, paternalistic Racism.”—

    A little context first. It’s a methodology. we use that methodology to create a universally commensurable, value neutral, language across all disciplines. This unites the physical and human sciences. We use that language to make it very hard to lie, cheat, fraud, or bait into hazard. We take that language and method and write law. That law is strictly constructed and closed to interpretation by courts. We wrote a constitution using that law that reflects the western civilizational strategy and tradition. This restores the constitutions original intent as a document of natural law that persists the western group strategy. We then write the western group strategy in those value neutral universally commensurable terms, so that our people finally know what makes them unique and special, and what made us successful. The only ‘ideology’ is whether you want to persist the western tradition of evolutionary excellence or not. On propertarianism dot com there is a link in the middle of the main menu. You can work your way through reading that. It is a lot of content. It touches every single discipline. It will overwhelm you. The constitution is also there in its current public and incomplete form. You can read a bit of all that, follow us here and learn by asking questions or just following along. (Although you have to tolerate many points of view) If you’re able you can join the SN (sheepdog nomocracy group) that is a sort of working classroom. Or you can take the foundations course at the institute and wait while I slowly release content. Those are the options.

  • Ideological Motivations, Options and Outcomes

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.

  • Ideological Motivations, Options and Outcomes

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.

  • We Are Filtering – Not Converting

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:26 AM

    —“We are filtering, not converting.”—Luke Weinhagen

    Solutions produce leaders, leaders produce followers, followers produce wins. Majoritarianism is never useful. It just increases the logistical problem.