Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:01 AM

    —“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot

    You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements. Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population. Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man). You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.

  • That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:01 AM

    —“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot

    You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements. Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population. Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man). You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/three-questions-on-rule-of-law-and-governing/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:38:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265034578319806470

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:06 PM by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —” Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful. 3 clarifications – if you have the time. 1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better? 2. If the former, how is it unnecessary? 3. If the latter, where can it be improved? 3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion. “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority. AS FAR AS I KNOW: The organs of the state are limited to: 1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military) 2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts) 3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury). 4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State) 5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government) 6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy). This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee. There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it. Cheers

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:06 PM by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —” Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful. 3 clarifications – if you have the time. 1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better? 2. If the former, how is it unnecessary? 3. If the latter, where can it be improved? 3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion. “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority. AS FAR AS I KNOW: The organs of the state are limited to: 1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military) 2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts) 3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury). 4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State) 5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government) 6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy). This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee. There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it. Cheers

  • Testimony

    Jan 23, 2020, 8:56 AM

    —“P-method disambiguates legal language by providing a single hermeneutic for interpretation; and rejecting all others.”–Andrew M Gilmour

  • Testimony

    Jan 23, 2020, 8:56 AM

    —“P-method disambiguates legal language by providing a single hermeneutic for interpretation; and rejecting all others.”–Andrew M Gilmour

  • “A Well Regulated Militia”

    “A Well Regulated Militia” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/a-well-regulated-militia/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:45:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264990893024649216

  • “A Well Regulated Militia”

    Jan 24, 2020, 10:32 AM Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did). The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them. (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.) The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.

  • “A Well Regulated Militia”

    Jan 24, 2020, 10:32 AM Well regulated meant ‘trained where that training is paid for by the state’. The discussion at the time was that given the vastness of the territory, the sparsity of the population, and the limited funds, that they could not at the time afford to pay for it, and that men might not show up given the cost of travel to staging areas, and that they would need to wait until such training was affordable, and therefore they must trust that the men will do it themselves (which they largely did). The english did this with the longbow in that every sunday after church boys were required (and did) spend three hours shooting the bow. This what (like the Russians are doing) we need to restore again – schools or churches or town halls where men practice regularly at the local level. By the regimental period the regiments were paid for and self sustaining in England. And this is my suggestion going forward – restoration of the regiments and the fraternal order that comes from them. (My suspicion is that we can reform religion and civil society by working through the regiments as much as through school systems.) The purpose of a trained militia is to (a) prevent the need of a standing army because (b) standing armies had been used to oppress the people. So, in keeping with european tradition a small number of professional warriors (the aristocracy) would command a large number of unprofessional riflemen (soldiers, footsoldiers). Which would balance the power between the people and the state ensuring that the state didn’t get out of hand, and insuring that the men were invested in the sense of control of their government.