Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts

    Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/masons-citation-of-ancient-law-of-facts/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:25:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264985947046678528

  • Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts

    1. That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause & nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers and Witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted Counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his Vicinage, without whose unanimous Consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the Land and Naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself.

    2. That no Freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or desseized of his Freehold, Liberties, privileges or Franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his Life, Liberty or Property, but by the Law of the Land.

    3. That every Freeman restrained of his Liberty is entitled to a remedy, to enquire into the Lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such Remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.

    4. That in Controversies respecting Property, and in Suits between Man and man, the ancient Trial by Jury of Facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest Securities to the Rights of a Free people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

    5. That every Freeman ought to find a certain Remedy, by recourse to the Laws, for all Injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or Character: He ought to obtain Right and Justice freely, without sale, compleatly and without Denial, promptly and without Delay; and that all Establishments or regulations contravening these Rights are oppressive and unjust.

    6. That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted.

    7. That every Freeman has a Right to be secure from all unreasonable Searches and Seizures of his Person, his papers, and his property; all Warrants therefore to search suspected places, or to seize any Freeman, his Papers or property, without Information upon Oath (or Affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an Oath) of legal and sufficient Cause, are grievous and Oppressive; and all General Warrants to search suspected Places, or to apprehend any suspected Person, without specially naming or describing the Place or Person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

    “17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.” In other words, a militia takes precedence in preservation of liberty over the standing military.

  • Mason’s Citation of Ancient Law of Facts

    1. That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause & nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with the Accusers and Witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted Counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his Vicinage, without whose unanimous Consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the Land and Naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself.

    2. That no Freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or desseized of his Freehold, Liberties, privileges or Franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his Life, Liberty or Property, but by the Law of the Land.

    3. That every Freeman restrained of his Liberty is entitled to a remedy, to enquire into the Lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such Remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.

    4. That in Controversies respecting Property, and in Suits between Man and man, the ancient Trial by Jury of Facts, where they arise, is one of the greatest Securities to the Rights of a Free people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

    5. That every Freeman ought to find a certain Remedy, by recourse to the Laws, for all Injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or Character: He ought to obtain Right and Justice freely, without sale, compleatly and without Denial, promptly and without Delay; and that all Establishments or regulations contravening these Rights are oppressive and unjust.

    6. That excessive Bail ought not to be required, nor excessive Fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Punishments inflicted.

    7. That every Freeman has a Right to be secure from all unreasonable Searches and Seizures of his Person, his papers, and his property; all Warrants therefore to search suspected places, or to seize any Freeman, his Papers or property, without Information upon Oath (or Affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an Oath) of legal and sufficient Cause, are grievous and Oppressive; and all General Warrants to search suspected Places, or to apprehend any suspected Person, without specially naming or describing the Place or Person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

    “17. That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.” In other words, a militia takes precedence in preservation of liberty over the standing military.

  • Fixing Court and State

    Fixing Court and State https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/fixing-court-and-state/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:02:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264980209566134275

  • Fixing Court and State

    Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM (important)

    –“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy

    This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare. HOW DO YOU FIX IT? You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it. And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system. In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.

    1. Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
    2. Our supreme court is a far better solution.
    3. Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.

    4. A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.

    5. A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.

    6. A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.

    7. The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense

    8. My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.

    9. There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.

    10. However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
      a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
      b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
      c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
      d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
      e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.

    That should provide you with a bit of understanding.

  • Fixing Court and State

    Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM (important)

    –“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy

    This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare. HOW DO YOU FIX IT? You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it. And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system. In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.

    1. Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
    2. Our supreme court is a far better solution.
    3. Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.

    4. A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.

    5. A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.

    6. A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.

    7. The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense

    8. My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.

    9. There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.

    10. However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
      a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
      b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
      c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
      d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
      e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.

    That should provide you with a bit of understanding.

  • The Conflict That’s Impossible to Resolve.

    Jan 29, 2020, 10:43 AM CONFLICT: IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO RESOLVE. EUGENIC MERITOCRATIC AND ADAPTIVE VS DYSGENIC EQUALITARIAN AND STATIC For my followers: The P-constitution provides MATERIAL REWARDS at the cost of the media, financial, and political (unaccountable) sectors that have industrialized rent-seeking and baiting-into-hazard in the 20th century. It ALSO provides status – what Reactionaries really desire. Propaganda, pseudoscience, philo-sophism, and religion can all make people aware of opportunity for gain and provide(moral) justification for seizing it. But people seek to acquire: experience, consumption, capital, associations, status – and so political action requires rewards. Our difference: the Right seeks to produce goods, services, information, behavior, human capital, and commons in a majority middle class meritocracy (aristocracy), while the left seeks to extract from the middle to empower the top to redistribute to the bottom (priesthood). What is the unspoken Truth that is the purpose of the entire anti-western postwar movement, as well as the jewish pseudoscientific prewar movement (marx, freud, boas, cantor-bohr, trotsky)? That he right is eugenic and left dysgenic and that democracy is incompatible both. All right left conflict is reducible to group strategy of eugenic families in meritocratic market aristocracy under rule of law of heroism, and dysgenic individuals in equalitarian ant-market pseudoscientific and sophomoric priesthood and discretionary rule of victimhood. The end of the agrarian period also is an end to the agrarian economic, social, political, and military order. The europeans re-united the world and (unfortunately) the races and civilizations while still under the agrarian order. And we no longer have common interests we had under agrarianism. And everything is up for grabs. So we see market demand for re-speciation. And the only way to solve it is to once again, separate and continue to speciate – reversing the promise of the one world order the female, semitic, authoritarian mind seems to desire.

  • The Conflict That’s Impossible to Resolve.

    Jan 29, 2020, 10:43 AM CONFLICT: IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO RESOLVE. EUGENIC MERITOCRATIC AND ADAPTIVE VS DYSGENIC EQUALITARIAN AND STATIC For my followers: The P-constitution provides MATERIAL REWARDS at the cost of the media, financial, and political (unaccountable) sectors that have industrialized rent-seeking and baiting-into-hazard in the 20th century. It ALSO provides status – what Reactionaries really desire. Propaganda, pseudoscience, philo-sophism, and religion can all make people aware of opportunity for gain and provide(moral) justification for seizing it. But people seek to acquire: experience, consumption, capital, associations, status – and so political action requires rewards. Our difference: the Right seeks to produce goods, services, information, behavior, human capital, and commons in a majority middle class meritocracy (aristocracy), while the left seeks to extract from the middle to empower the top to redistribute to the bottom (priesthood). What is the unspoken Truth that is the purpose of the entire anti-western postwar movement, as well as the jewish pseudoscientific prewar movement (marx, freud, boas, cantor-bohr, trotsky)? That he right is eugenic and left dysgenic and that democracy is incompatible both. All right left conflict is reducible to group strategy of eugenic families in meritocratic market aristocracy under rule of law of heroism, and dysgenic individuals in equalitarian ant-market pseudoscientific and sophomoric priesthood and discretionary rule of victimhood. The end of the agrarian period also is an end to the agrarian economic, social, political, and military order. The europeans re-united the world and (unfortunately) the races and civilizations while still under the agrarian order. And we no longer have common interests we had under agrarianism. And everything is up for grabs. So we see market demand for re-speciation. And the only way to solve it is to once again, separate and continue to speciate – reversing the promise of the one world order the female, semitic, authoritarian mind seems to desire.

  • Zero Tolerance

    Jan 29, 2020, 11:01 AM The constitution includes a reference to the law of the european peoples just like the current constitution depends upon the declaration of independence. This european law is designed to offer an equally intolerant version of law as put forth by the muslims, that is equally as aggressive against the ‘cancer of deceit’ invented by the abrahamic method. The Law of the European Peoples is a zero tolerance law.

  • Zero Tolerance

    Jan 29, 2020, 11:01 AM The constitution includes a reference to the law of the european peoples just like the current constitution depends upon the declaration of independence. This european law is designed to offer an equally intolerant version of law as put forth by the muslims, that is equally as aggressive against the ‘cancer of deceit’ invented by the abrahamic method. The Law of the European Peoples is a zero tolerance law.