Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:17 PM by Skye Steward and Thomas Jefferson Imperialists hate secession. Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years 🤔: —“What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” —-Letter to William Stephens Smith. Paris Nov. 13. 1787

  • Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:17 PM by Skye Steward and Thomas Jefferson Imperialists hate secession. Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years 🤔: —“What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” —-Letter to William Stephens Smith. Paris Nov. 13. 1787

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Should a Monarch Be Above the Law? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/should-a-monarch-be-above-the-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264450605235359746

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-question-whether-one-generation-of-men-has-a-right-to-bind-another/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:57:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264450403300769794

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The 20th Experiment in Cosmopolitanism Failed

    The 20th Experiment in Cosmopolitanism Failed https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-20th-experiment-in-cosmopolitanism-failed/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:52:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264449241193250817

  • The 20th Experiment in Cosmopolitanism Failed

    Feb 3, 2020, 10:02 PM The constitution failed when men failed: they denied southerners sovereignty – the premise upon which the constitution is founded. And it failed for no other reason than to prevent the agrarian south from control of the continent isolating the puritan industrial north from control over western expansion. The only reason Lincoln didn’t continue the existing repatriation of slaves to africa was the cost. yet what was the cost of 500,000 lives, our constitution, and our sovereignty? Why? Because white men – Pres. Lincoln in this case – granted black leaders at the time their sovereignty by asking it of them. To lead it. Rather than for americans to force it. Why do we make the same mistake today with all other aliens? If you seek to take our sovereignty, then by reciprocity we shall seek to take yours. If you cannot or will not integrate then we have no choice but to separate.