RT @NSDarkHorse: @truckdriverpleb Canadians need a robust US style Constitution, not the watered down “bill of rights” that can be easily t…
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 19:54:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877081421891682665
RT @truckdriverpleb: Reasons why becoming an American would be advantageous to me
– 60% reduction in taxes
– gun ownership
– free speech p…
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 19:53:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877081267155456506
ADVICE FOR CANADA:
Our organization suggests the following.
1) The Canadian constitution made the parliament not the people sovereign – the same mistake made in the rest of the anglosphere. The American constitutions makes the people sovereign over the parliament. This simple failure to preserve the sovereignty of the people is the origin of the undermining of Canadian people.
2) The people and the parliament are limited by three properties rarely understood, and almost never understood in the States: That the constitution is EMPIRICAL:
(a) Natural Law (Citizenship as mutual guarantee of Self determination by self determined means, sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed: tort) as the basis and enumerated rights as enforcement of natural law,
(b) Concurrency across regions and classes – not majority – in voting and Legislation.
(c) Common Law: commonality in findings of the court, under natural law and concurrent legislation, producing a government that does not rule, but that serves as a market for the production of commons between states(provinces) and classes.
If you do not have both popular sovereignty, natural law, concurrency and commonality the people are subjects not sovereigns. They are RULED. Not Governed.
3) In an information age, there is no value to representatives – they merely create a vehicle for ideology, conspiracy against the people, purchase by special interests, a race to the bottom (tyranny), and corruption. Direct democracy eliminates this vulnerability. Yet direct democracy still requires houses for the classes (Senate(provinces), Upper House (contributors), and a lower house (dependents).)
4) Please do not give up the Monarchy. Despite centuries of propaganda the solution to government is expansion of the division of labor of governing, not replacement of it. The British Crown requires reinforcement not debasement or elimination. “The purpose of monarchy is to function as a judge of last resort, and above parliament (houses) and legislation in restoration of constitution, natural law, concurrency, and commonality. Our monarchies are constitutionally too weak to protect us from the failings of democratic and government and it’s capture by ideology and credentialism and corruption. And as we have seen overwhelmingly, democratic institutions always fail at the margins. Canada is an example. The USA is an example. Every postwar government outside of liechtenstein and switzerland has been an example.
5) As many participants in today’s X Space have stated, you must fully integrate and conform and demonstrate loyalty to that culture (informal institutions) and its formal institutions. Or they must exit. As such skepticism to immigrants and skepticism to seditionists (take Quebec for example) must be defended against through education, formal, and informal institutions.
Affections
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @JohnnyNash77
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 22:25:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876394573687300096
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876365732109312017
Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”–
Houses of government formed under western individual (or at least familial) sovereignty and subsequent limits on authority for the purpose of developing concurrency between the classes as a means of creating a market for the production of commons between the classes without violating that sovereignty those limits.
Women are not a mindless mob – they have priorities counter to the purpose of government which is the production of the capital of the commons which produces reduction in costs for all.
Your argument is that women cannot be educated, courts established, legislation imposed, laws discoverted to limit the female as much as we have the male instincts and intuitions that are counter to the production of commons.
Women are environmentally susceptible more so than men, But it’s quite clear that we can create environments. ANd women are more adaptive to such things than men.
The net is whether we want to pay the cost of domesticating women as thoroughly as we have men, so that their political participation is possible. That cost depends upon the personality and IQ distribution of women in the polity and therefore their adaptability. If IQ declines further the possibility becomes irrelevant. If IQ returned to 115 (pre-industrial revolution) then I think such a thing is possible. In the meantime we merely have to make the choice. I would prefer institutionally domesticating women and limiting political participation to those demonstrating responsibility for the commons and its ever expanding capitalization.
But it would require an experiment. The reason being that the value of femininity is very high and is a capital we fail to account for like much of social capital. And if we were to lose femininity in exchange for their domestication and integration into politics (which appears to be the case)then personally I would say the trade off doesn’t appear a worthy one.
I work on solving problems, not admitting defeat just because those who came before me were defeated. 😉
Cheers
Reply addressees: @RichardArion1
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:54:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876371668819652608
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876367042606928214
Q: Curt: –“Are you favorable to repealing the 19th?”– @RichardArion1
Great question.
There are my opinions, my insights given the evidence, and the institute position. Those things are not always the same. I have a classical liberal and libertarian optimism of the anglos and founders that the rest of the institute does not share.
The institute’s position is that we explain the problem of the innate irresponsibility of women for capital and their innate demand for destructive hyperconsumption of it through their irresponsibility. Not that the problem is exclusively female, but that the sexes heavily bias to their natural instincts in the distribution of the voting pool.
So given those innate differences that are inviolable, we provide a spectrum of solutions from revocation, to heavy investment in education and training, to adding requirements, to adding separate house for women, and we leave the solution up to the population.
The simple version is revocation.
The hard version is a combination of heavy investment, adding requirements for demonstrated responsibility for the commons, and separate houses.
So, If you ask my opinion, I’m simply not sure, and I’m not sure because I am part of the Jones Generation between the boomers and gen x, and I am not certain I can separate my intuitions, lived experience, and understanding from influencing my choice.
So if I must answer, my personal opinion is that we would all be better off if we let women be women instead of trying to make them men. And we take a more aggressive role in constitutionally addressing the sex differences in responsibilities and inalienations to codify our observations and expectations.
Women are no demonstrably happier than in the past – much less so – and the polity is more fragile because of them. They are just very easy to sedate and influence with increases in consumption and attention and escape from responsibility for defense of the capital of the commons upon which their luxury of hyperconsumption depends.
That’s what the science says. So that’s where I stand and the institute stands.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @RichardArion1
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:25:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876364369212387329
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876360867497034200
—Curt: Accusation:”1) You seem pretty confused. 2) Government stopping leftists from supporting whatever would violate the 1st amendment. 3) that has nothing to do with using the government & taxpayer money to interfere in a foreign country’s domestic politics. Tax and spend imperialism.”— @findfredhampton
Well, of course, I agree with the second statement.
Although, regarding the first, I am very likely one of the least confused people living at the moment – something I can say with reluctant confidence, and a great deal of sorrow and frustration.
But your third statement is false. Musk doesn’t use government and taxpayer money. He doesn’t have to. He’s the richest private citizen in the world (despite lagging far behind Putin.) He only uses his own money, and even then it’s not money he uses so much as his intelligence, credibility, and his platform.
Just like every other person in the media, every other public intellectual, every other private citizen some percentage of the population looks to for understanding and advocacy.
Given it’s part of my job, I write criticisms of the UK government and population and certainly public intellectuals with some regularity. Just like many other countries. And, despite reaching millions in the past, only reach tens of thousands today. And much of my work is dense if not incomprehensible to many.
Instead, Musk is very good at saying the obvious – what many others are thinking – with clarity and parsimony. In doing so he gives legitimacy to those many people who think the same thing but are uncertain of the commonality of their thoughts.
Cheers,
CD
Reply addressees: @findfredhampton @eyeslasho
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 19:46:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876354644584390656
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876348473915871431
RT @elonmusk: That is why the founders of America made freedom of speech and the right to bear arms the first two amendments
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 18:33:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876336287336251803
RT @feeonline: “The lust for power outside the law is a recurring danger, and it is confined neither to monarchies nor to the past.”
– Phi…
Source date (UTC): 2025-01-05 21:43:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876021812360065496
I have purchased a company in quebec and lived in ontario just south of ottawa for a long time. I understand. But the process of union would allow for constitutional reform that would ameliorate some of these differences. The strategic and economic value of unification for both populations is very difficult to argue with. Either way the USA is not going to let any country not the least canada continue the ‘free ride’. So the past will not be the future either way.
Reply addressees: @BrandonEtown @Bret_Sears
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-28 08:17:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872919722507059200
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872918382733131859
The union would allow for certain reforms as part of the package that would limit the ‘liberal’ abuses of the constitution. America is reversing some of our ‘debt’ expansion. That alone would prevent it. Our constitution is sovereign not congress, so if we put it in there, we are…
Source date (UTC): 2024-12-28 08:05:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872916803284045846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1872765913910694374