Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • A Social Reason Why We Need to Restore the Militia

    Mar 5, 2020, 10:37 PM by Alex Hill

    —“Many of the guys I served with immediately did security contracting after we got out. I’d much rather have the National Guard disbanded, and a local militia structure for veterans returning home fall into leadership positions, should they chose, for volunteer service at home. I think a lot of veteran dysfunction is from a loss of purpose. When you’re on your own and no longer just a wolf in the pack so to speak, it’s aggravating. That, and the disillusionment when you realize all that toil and suffering was for nothing were the worst parts for me anyway.”—

    The other reason is so that we can mobilize en mass in the face of disaster – which we obviously can’t in response to (a) natural disasters, (b) this current epidemic – things which are organizational problems that are best solved through command and control. Markets discover. Command is necessary when we are reacting not discovering. Edit

  • P in context of Schumer’s Speech. Excellent

    Mar 8, 2020, 9:28 PM (P in context. Excellent) “Schumer says justices will “pay the price” (politically) and that Chief Justice deliberately misinterpreted something he said (aka accused the head of the Supreme Court of lying). Schumer uses the technique of undermining by critique (power seeking). “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price … you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” – Schumer “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” -Roberts said in the statement. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” -Roberts What is Schumer guilty of? He lies by omission of the fact that he means politically facing a price (false promise). He baits the Chief Justice into hazard by lying. He advocates threat by suggestion (pilpul). He threatens and defends by critique (critical theory) when he said “you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”. He escapes liability and warranty as categorizing his dangerous lie as a deliberate misinterpretation. He accused the Chief Justice of lying based on his pretense of plausible deniability. He deliberately avoids due diligence (failed to mention it is only a “political price”, obscuring the ability to disambiguate his meaning). Deliberately doubles down and doubles down for “Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict ” (and retaliation cycles) “, Generating Demand for Authority” and demand for a state with even greater monopolistic authoritarian discretionary power rather than power from rule of law for protecting trust and markets. He’s a public figure lying to the public, in matters public, which results in real world damage to capital and property. It will not be allowed under a propertarian constitution. You can sue these people, take them to court and get rewarded restitution in court against these a-holes once in for all. It applies to both sides, though. No more lies! This….only this. End this. “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” ~ Adam Jacob Robert Walker

  • P in context of Schumer’s Speech. Excellent

    Mar 8, 2020, 9:28 PM (P in context. Excellent) “Schumer says justices will “pay the price” (politically) and that Chief Justice deliberately misinterpreted something he said (aka accused the head of the Supreme Court of lying). Schumer uses the technique of undermining by critique (power seeking). “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price … you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” – Schumer “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” -Roberts said in the statement. “All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” -Roberts What is Schumer guilty of? He lies by omission of the fact that he means politically facing a price (false promise). He baits the Chief Justice into hazard by lying. He advocates threat by suggestion (pilpul). He threatens and defends by critique (critical theory) when he said “you won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”. He escapes liability and warranty as categorizing his dangerous lie as a deliberate misinterpretation. He accused the Chief Justice of lying based on his pretense of plausible deniability. He deliberately avoids due diligence (failed to mention it is only a “political price”, obscuring the ability to disambiguate his meaning). Deliberately doubles down and doubles down for “Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict ” (and retaliation cycles) “, Generating Demand for Authority” and demand for a state with even greater monopolistic authoritarian discretionary power rather than power from rule of law for protecting trust and markets. He’s a public figure lying to the public, in matters public, which results in real world damage to capital and property. It will not be allowed under a propertarian constitution. You can sue these people, take them to court and get rewarded restitution in court against these a-holes once in for all. It applies to both sides, though. No more lies! This….only this. End this. “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence (power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” ~ Adam Jacob Robert Walker

  • Two Topics. Constitutionality, Taxation Methods

    Two Topics. Constitutionality, Taxation Methods https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/two-topics-constitutionality-taxation-methods/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 01:12:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266175440215068672

  • Two Topics. Constitutionality, Taxation Methods

    —“Is not the graduated income tax (communist manifesto) that is dysgenic? Also worth noting: the Supreme Court in Pollack v. Farmers Loan Trust Co. in 1895 ruled the income tax unconstitutional.”—Scott De Warren

    I. Constitutionality of the Income tax. … 1. the court did its job by correctly ruling that according to the constitution, the federal government could not enact any tax that was not apportioned to the states by population (a flat tax). … 2. The constitution did it’s job correctly by forcing the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment permitting the income tax. … 3. The legislature did its job correctly by passing a constitutional amendment through the amendment process. … 4. The states did their jobs by passing the constitutional amendment through the amendment process. I do not see the problem with the income tax per se, but with the amount of it, and the uses that it was put to. So the income tax is a slippery slope. The answer to the slippery slope is quite simple – if it redistributes reproduction downward it’s bad. If it constrains reproduction its bad. But that was exactly what the communists wanted – underclass paradise parasitic extraction from the meritocratic classes thereby reversing the benefits of thousands of years of eugenic practices by our ancestors. II. Taxes … 1. a graduated income tax is fine if it’s outside the reproductive cost curve. In other words, if it doesn’t affect reproduction. … 2. A flat tax regulates taxation best by keeping it low … 3. Fees rather than taxes eliminate discretion. … 4. Direct economic voting controls the misuse of fees. … 5. This combination of taxes forces the construction of voluntary commons (civil society). a. Commons are by nature always redistributive (flat fees). b. Income Taxes are by nature redistributive of benefits. c. Flat taxes by their nature redistribute burden. d. Fees by nature meritocratic. The answer is fees. Keeping an account of all inputs and outputs per person would provide evidence necessary for policy. Having each generation pay for the rearing of their children, and children paying for the retirement and care of their parents creates eugenic incentives. Ending false-education and credit-financialization so you (a) pay for children when young, (b) save when mature, (c) are independent when aged, and (d) insured by your children, (e) passed on your inheritance to them in toto as compensation, would restore the intergenerational system of building healthy families of sufficient size and restoring long term thinking to the polity, rather than all this short term consumer consumptionism. There is a reason that the left suppresses data collection that would show white men > 35 and < 65 support the entirety of the population, and that women consume 70% of resources, and spend 70% of income such that this is an incredibly unequal system of benefits in favor of women. The P-Constitution does all this.

  • Two Topics. Constitutionality, Taxation Methods

    —“Is not the graduated income tax (communist manifesto) that is dysgenic? Also worth noting: the Supreme Court in Pollack v. Farmers Loan Trust Co. in 1895 ruled the income tax unconstitutional.”—Scott De Warren

    I. Constitutionality of the Income tax. … 1. the court did its job by correctly ruling that according to the constitution, the federal government could not enact any tax that was not apportioned to the states by population (a flat tax). … 2. The constitution did it’s job correctly by forcing the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment permitting the income tax. … 3. The legislature did its job correctly by passing a constitutional amendment through the amendment process. … 4. The states did their jobs by passing the constitutional amendment through the amendment process. I do not see the problem with the income tax per se, but with the amount of it, and the uses that it was put to. So the income tax is a slippery slope. The answer to the slippery slope is quite simple – if it redistributes reproduction downward it’s bad. If it constrains reproduction its bad. But that was exactly what the communists wanted – underclass paradise parasitic extraction from the meritocratic classes thereby reversing the benefits of thousands of years of eugenic practices by our ancestors. II. Taxes … 1. a graduated income tax is fine if it’s outside the reproductive cost curve. In other words, if it doesn’t affect reproduction. … 2. A flat tax regulates taxation best by keeping it low … 3. Fees rather than taxes eliminate discretion. … 4. Direct economic voting controls the misuse of fees. … 5. This combination of taxes forces the construction of voluntary commons (civil society). a. Commons are by nature always redistributive (flat fees). b. Income Taxes are by nature redistributive of benefits. c. Flat taxes by their nature redistribute burden. d. Fees by nature meritocratic. The answer is fees. Keeping an account of all inputs and outputs per person would provide evidence necessary for policy. Having each generation pay for the rearing of their children, and children paying for the retirement and care of their parents creates eugenic incentives. Ending false-education and credit-financialization so you (a) pay for children when young, (b) save when mature, (c) are independent when aged, and (d) insured by your children, (e) passed on your inheritance to them in toto as compensation, would restore the intergenerational system of building healthy families of sufficient size and restoring long term thinking to the polity, rather than all this short term consumer consumptionism. There is a reason that the left suppresses data collection that would show white men > 35 and < 65 support the entirety of the population, and that women consume 70% of resources, and spend 70% of income such that this is an incredibly unequal system of benefits in favor of women. The P-Constitution does all this.

  • Rights don’t exist without numbers.

    Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.

    —“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob

    You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.

  • Rights don’t exist without numbers.

    Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.

    —“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob

    You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.

  • Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence

    Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/constitution-as-a-religious-quasi-christian-document-delivered-by-providence/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:39:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266106853718712320

  • Constitution as A Religious Quasi-Christian Document Delivered by Providence

    Mar 21, 2020, 5:01 PM

    —“Most American constitutionalists look at the US Constitution as a religious quasi-Christian document delivered by providence. If they could understand strict constitutional construction as the “holy” method of our people that would be a step in the right direction until they could grasp the science of it from a P-Law perspective.”–Heimdallr Aldafaðir

    OK. I CAN WORK WITH THAT