Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Tendency for People to Genetically Associate

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

  • Satellites

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:58 PM 12182 pieces of orbital debris. 2161 spent rocket stages in orbit, 4790 satellites, 25 objects in orbit not yet assigned, Less than 2000 satellite are alive 261 are Communications 178 are Military 98 are GPS This is not a subject I have knowlege of. I don’t know the rest, and even these numbers are only rough. Yes, there are databases. Multiple. They’re detailed. —GPS— 74 Global Positioning System navigation satellites have been launched, 31 of which are operational, 9 in reserve, 2 being tested, 30 have been retired and 2 were lost at launch. There are currently 5 Positioning and Navigation satellite systems. 1) GPS (USA) 2) GLONASS (Russia) 3) Galileo (European Union) 4) BeiDou (China) 5) NAVIC (India) GPS has 31 satellites in orbit. GLONASS has 24 satellites in orbit. Galileo has 14 satellites in orbit. BeiDou has 22 satellites in orbit. NAVIC has 7 satellites in orbit.

  • Satellites

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:58 PM 12182 pieces of orbital debris. 2161 spent rocket stages in orbit, 4790 satellites, 25 objects in orbit not yet assigned, Less than 2000 satellite are alive 261 are Communications 178 are Military 98 are GPS This is not a subject I have knowlege of. I don’t know the rest, and even these numbers are only rough. Yes, there are databases. Multiple. They’re detailed. —GPS— 74 Global Positioning System navigation satellites have been launched, 31 of which are operational, 9 in reserve, 2 being tested, 30 have been retired and 2 were lost at launch. There are currently 5 Positioning and Navigation satellite systems. 1) GPS (USA) 2) GLONASS (Russia) 3) Galileo (European Union) 4) BeiDou (China) 5) NAVIC (India) GPS has 31 satellites in orbit. GLONASS has 24 satellites in orbit. Galileo has 14 satellites in orbit. BeiDou has 22 satellites in orbit. NAVIC has 7 satellites in orbit.

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • Q: “How Is P-Law Different from Any Other?”

    (important) (core)

    —“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty

    GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.

  • Q: “How Is P-Law Different from Any Other?”

    (important) (core)

    —“How is P law different than any other law? We have laws now that some people follow and some don’t Any and every law creates division because once laws are made someone has to enforce them. And as long as there are humans involved there will be corruption you cant stop that. There is no perfect system . The best we could hope for is a simple 2 law system, 1) mind your own business and 2) leave everyone else alone. Do whatever you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else.”— John Lafferty

    GREAT QUESTION Aside from the absolute lack of evidence that the left wants to eave you (your property) alone, and that they instead demand rights to consume your property, and the commons, let’s look at the question of what differs in western law, anglo saxon, english, british, american, and P-law. First, we have laws that exist without a market for enforcement of them. Chief among those limits on us, is the requirement for ‘standing’ before the court in matters of the commons, and the incremental grant of privilege to state officials of insulation from prosecution for their acts. Next, Laws only work the way we wish if (a) there is a market incentive to profit from the prosecution of those who violate it, (b) if they apply to everyone equally, (c) the law is technical and scientific, (d) if the judiciary is an empirical, difficult to enter TECHNICAL professional ‘priesthood’ (high status, high income, low corruption), (e) the military will, in the end, enforce the rulings of the judiciary if it must. P attempts – I think more successfully than in all of history – to both state these factors openly, and produce a constitution that produces each of the requirements above. Among the most important weaknesses of our constitution is that much of the english common law upon which it rests is not stated (Sovereignty). Or for example, why the west uses three priesthoods (juridical negativa, scientific ‘practical’, and priestly positiva) in competition with one another. Yet it is this market vs everyone else’s monopoly that provides not only a division of labor but our unique adaptability. There is evidence throughout history that technical bureaucracies work. The problem with systems of thought is transforming them from customs, to philosophies, to sciences, to formal logics. And that is what P-law does. As for “best we can hope for” – that doesn’t work because humans operate at the minimum morality that they can get away with. Our customary law is extremely ‘complete’ in this regard only because it is predicated on sovereignty of the individual, (every man and his manor is his own country). So quite the opposite. The best we can do doesn’t require ‘hoping’ for anything – it requires we simply create a market for incentives to prosecute those who would violate that sovereignty, law, constitution, and it’s articles, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court. That said, it is a militia of men of shared oath to one another that is the only defense against usurpers. I will give that oath to you if you will give it to me. And that is all that is required.

  • The Origin of Moral Foundations

    by Bill Joslin The first question of ethics and politics is: “Why shouldn’t I kill you and take your stuff?” The answer to which gives birth to moral foundations. Of course, “Because I’m too costly to kill when weighed against the benefit of my stuff” represents one of the answers. The other answer being this: “Because, if we cooperate, I’m worth way more alive than the limited benefits of the stuff I have now.” To wit – any and all qualities that we consider “virtuous” can be measured. Virtue exists as the signaling and behaviour that demonstrates your ability to be trusted when one is vulnerable to you (i.e. answers the question of “why would I drop my defenses against you in order to cooperate). …now here the rub. Our current culture hasn’t solved for this contingent question: “Why shouldn’t I just lie to you and take your stuff, only the amount of stuff you don’t notice I took?” Me’thinks this question will be answered soon.