Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • In the process I ‘collect’ the high-IQ people with extraordinary interest in pol

    In the process I ‘collect’ the high-IQ people with extraordinary interest in political theory, and train them in the methodology of strictly constructed law, and year by year we grow in number.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 11:55:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267786928750985216

    Reply addressees: @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267786555701280768

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump This has helped me understand all ‘factions’ and to produce a set of constitutional amendments that make possible the satisfaction of different moral intuitions (political biases), so that we can devolve the federal govt (as intended) and customize regional policy and norms.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1267786555701280768

  • In the process I ‘collect’ the high-IQ people with extraordinary interest in pol

    In the process I ‘collect’ the high-IQ people with extraordinary interest in political theory, and train them in the methodology of strictly constructed law, and year by year we grow in number.

    Reply addressees: @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

  • This has helped me understand all ‘factions’ and to produce a set of constitutio

    This has helped me understand all ‘factions’ and to produce a set of constitutional amendments that make possible the satisfaction of different moral intuitions (political biases), so that we can devolve the federal govt (as intended) and customize regional policy and norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 11:54:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267786555701280768

    Reply addressees: @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267786039655051264

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump Through iterations of experiments, discover a framework for conveying ideas that circumvents their cognitive biases, even if it is only through suggestion. This effectively plants seeds. Once the message (positioning) is discovered, generate controversy in order to repeat it.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1267786039655051264

  • This has helped me understand all ‘factions’ and to produce a set of constitutio

    This has helped me understand all ‘factions’ and to produce a set of constitutional amendments that make possible the satisfaction of different moral intuitions (political biases), so that we can devolve the federal govt (as intended) and customize regional policy and norms.

    Reply addressees: @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

  • Findings of the Law

    99% of law is not in fact ‘law’ but findings and application of the law. And because these findings and applications of law have no means of expiry they don’t vaporize.

    1. The law can’t change. There is only one: reciprocity.
    2. A constitution’s articles provide organizations and processes for administering that law.

    3. A constitutional Amendments include rights constructed under the law under the constitution.

    4. legislation can only exist of contract between members of the polity to produce a commons, and all contracts must expire either in time or when the objective is concluded.

    5. Regulation is dependent upon the legislation it seeks to enforce by prior or post constraint.

    6. Findings of the court are dependent upon regulation, legislation, rights, and of course, the law itself.

    In other words, there must be a surviving chain of relations for findings, regulation, legislation, rights, constitution, and the law.

  • Findings of the Law

    99% of law is not in fact ‘law’ but findings and application of the law. And because these findings and applications of law have no means of expiry they don’t vaporize.

    1. The law can’t change. There is only one: reciprocity.
    2. A constitution’s articles provide organizations and processes for administering that law.

    3. A constitutional Amendments include rights constructed under the law under the constitution.

    4. legislation can only exist of contract between members of the polity to produce a commons, and all contracts must expire either in time or when the objective is concluded.

    5. Regulation is dependent upon the legislation it seeks to enforce by prior or post constraint.

    6. Findings of the court are dependent upon regulation, legislation, rights, and of course, the law itself.

    In other words, there must be a surviving chain of relations for findings, regulation, legislation, rights, constitution, and the law.

  • –“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    –“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”— Monarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory goverment altogether – as predicted.

  • –“What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

    –“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”— Monarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory goverment altogether – as predicted.

  • Sovereigntarianism

    SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Capitalism creates an economic market producing a war of all against all. Socialism creates a political market producing a war of all against all. Rule of law by Reciprocity, Reciprocal insurance of Sovereignty, and paying the high cost of Heroism and Excellence, Truth and Duty, and Paternalism and Charity, create the optimum polity without the extremes of capitalism or socialism at the cost of total suppression of the irreciprocal and false, under that rule of law by reciprocity and reciprocal insurance. Reciprocal insurance of Sovereignty Rule of Law by Reciprocity Heroism and Excellence (Beauty) Truth and Duty Paternalism and Charity We create commons, accumulate capital, and its multipliers. The enemy consumes like locusts and creates only temporary economic velocity. These are very expensive commons because they require we trust one another to invest in a commons that will not be consumed – because every man is a father, sheriff, warrior, and if necessary, judge of the commons and will defend it. We must separate and return to speciation, or the consumption of accumulated material, institutional, informational, genetic, and planetary capital will be consumed by the enemy.

  • The Outstanding Issue of The Second American Constitution

    The Outstanding Issue of The Second American Constitution https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-outstanding-issue-of-the-second-american-constitution-2/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 23:56:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267605966482276352