Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548989747 Timestamp) “One Law to Rule Them All One Law to Bind Them One Law to Conquer Them All And in the Truth Bind Them….”

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549303424 Timestamp) Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law, principally by philosophers but, from the twentieth century, also by social scientists. Scholars of jurisprudence, (jurists or legal theorists), seek to obtain a deeper understanding of legal reasoning, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society. ROMAN LAW ORIGIN Jurisprudence in Ancient Rome had its origins with the (periti)—experts in the jus mos maiorum (traditional law), a body of oral laws and customs. DEVELOPMENT he sentences of the iudex were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but—apart from considering what traditional customs applied in each case—soon developed a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to newer social exigencies. The law was then adjusted with evolving institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional mode. Praetors were replaced in the 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. Admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience. FORMALIZATION Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and practice of the law became more academic. From the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant body of literature was produced by groups of scholars, including the Proculians and Sabinians. The scientific nature of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times. INSTITUTIONALIZATION After the 3rd century, juris prudentia became a more bureaucratic activity, with few notable authors. It was during the Eastern Roman Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis was born. EUROPEAN LAW : ORIGIN: NATURAL LAW Begins with Aristotle In its general sense, natural law may be compared to both state-of-nature law and analogous to the laws of physical science. natural-law jurisprudence generally asserts that human law must be in response to compelling reasons for action. There are two readings of the natural-law jurisprudential stance. The Strong Natural Law Thesis holds that if a human law fails to be in response to compelling reasons, then it is not properly a “law” at all. This is captured, imperfectly, in the famous maxim: lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law at all). WEAK LAW (DEVELOPMENT) The Weak Natural Law Thesis holds that if a human law fails to be in response to compelling reasons, then it can still be called a “law”, but it must be recognised as a defective law. POSITIVE LAW (FORMALIZATION) Natural law is often contrasted to positive law which asserts law as the product of human activity and human volition. Positive law is not law per se, but regulation, contract, or command. LEGAL REALISM (INSTITUTIONALIZATION) Legal realism was a view popular with some Scandinavian and American writers. Skeptical in tone, it held that the law should be understood as, and would be determined by, the actual practices of courts, law offices, and police stations, rather than as the rules and doctrines set forth in statutes or learned treatises. The essential tenet of legal realism is that all law is made by human beings and, thus, is subject to human foibles, frailties, and imperfections. CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND THE LAW (REFORMATION) Karl Popper originated the theory of critical rationalism. According to Reinhold Zippelius many advances in law and jurisprudence take place by operations of critical rationalism. He writes, “daß die Suche nach dem Begriff des Rechts, nach seinen Bezügen zur Wirklichkeit und nach der Gerechtigkeit experimentierend voranschreitet, indem wir Problemlösungen versuchsweise entwerfen, überprüfen und verbessern” (that we empirically search for solutions to problems, which harmonise fairly with reality, by projecting, testing and improving the solutions). LEGAL INTERPRETIVISM (“RELATIVISM”) (DECLINE) Contemporary philosopher of law Ronald Dworkin has advocated a more constructivist theory of jurisprudence that can be characterized as a middle path between natural law theories and positivist theories of general jurisprudence.[37] In his book Law’s Empire,[38] Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. He argued that law is an “interpretive” concept that requires barristers to find the best-fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions. According to him, law is not entirely based on social facts, but includes the best moral justification for the institutional facts and practices that we intuitively regard as legal. It follows from Dworkin’s view that one cannot know whether a society has a legal system in force, or what any of its laws are, until one knows some truths about the moral justifications of the social and political practices of that society. It is consistent with Dworkin’s view—in contrast with the views of legal positivists or legal realists—that no-one in a society may know what its laws are, because no-one may know the best moral justification for its practices.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549303424 Timestamp) Jurisprudence or legal theory is the theoretical study of law, principally by philosophers but, from the twentieth century, also by social scientists. Scholars of jurisprudence, (jurists or legal theorists), seek to obtain a deeper understanding of legal reasoning, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society. ROMAN LAW ORIGIN Jurisprudence in Ancient Rome had its origins with the (periti)—experts in the jus mos maiorum (traditional law), a body of oral laws and customs. DEVELOPMENT he sentences of the iudex were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but—apart from considering what traditional customs applied in each case—soon developed a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to newer social exigencies. The law was then adjusted with evolving institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional mode. Praetors were replaced in the 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. Admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience. FORMALIZATION Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and practice of the law became more academic. From the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant body of literature was produced by groups of scholars, including the Proculians and Sabinians. The scientific nature of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times. INSTITUTIONALIZATION After the 3rd century, juris prudentia became a more bureaucratic activity, with few notable authors. It was during the Eastern Roman Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis was born. EUROPEAN LAW : ORIGIN: NATURAL LAW Begins with Aristotle In its general sense, natural law may be compared to both state-of-nature law and analogous to the laws of physical science. natural-law jurisprudence generally asserts that human law must be in response to compelling reasons for action. There are two readings of the natural-law jurisprudential stance. The Strong Natural Law Thesis holds that if a human law fails to be in response to compelling reasons, then it is not properly a “law” at all. This is captured, imperfectly, in the famous maxim: lex iniusta non est lex (an unjust law is no law at all). WEAK LAW (DEVELOPMENT) The Weak Natural Law Thesis holds that if a human law fails to be in response to compelling reasons, then it can still be called a “law”, but it must be recognised as a defective law. POSITIVE LAW (FORMALIZATION) Natural law is often contrasted to positive law which asserts law as the product of human activity and human volition. Positive law is not law per se, but regulation, contract, or command. LEGAL REALISM (INSTITUTIONALIZATION) Legal realism was a view popular with some Scandinavian and American writers. Skeptical in tone, it held that the law should be understood as, and would be determined by, the actual practices of courts, law offices, and police stations, rather than as the rules and doctrines set forth in statutes or learned treatises. The essential tenet of legal realism is that all law is made by human beings and, thus, is subject to human foibles, frailties, and imperfections. CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND THE LAW (REFORMATION) Karl Popper originated the theory of critical rationalism. According to Reinhold Zippelius many advances in law and jurisprudence take place by operations of critical rationalism. He writes, “daß die Suche nach dem Begriff des Rechts, nach seinen Bezügen zur Wirklichkeit und nach der Gerechtigkeit experimentierend voranschreitet, indem wir Problemlösungen versuchsweise entwerfen, überprüfen und verbessern” (that we empirically search for solutions to problems, which harmonise fairly with reality, by projecting, testing and improving the solutions). LEGAL INTERPRETIVISM (“RELATIVISM”) (DECLINE) Contemporary philosopher of law Ronald Dworkin has advocated a more constructivist theory of jurisprudence that can be characterized as a middle path between natural law theories and positivist theories of general jurisprudence.[37] In his book Law’s Empire,[38] Dworkin attacked Hart and the positivists for their refusal to treat law as a moral issue. He argued that law is an “interpretive” concept that requires barristers to find the best-fitting and most just solution to a legal dispute, given their constitutional traditions. According to him, law is not entirely based on social facts, but includes the best moral justification for the institutional facts and practices that we intuitively regard as legal. It follows from Dworkin’s view that one cannot know whether a society has a legal system in force, or what any of its laws are, until one knows some truths about the moral justifications of the social and political practices of that society. It is consistent with Dworkin’s view—in contrast with the views of legal positivists or legal realists—that no-one in a society may know what its laws are, because no-one may know the best moral justification for its practices.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549687771 Timestamp) By: Bill Joslin (via Brandon Hayes ) There are missing distinctions in the criticisms of democracy. 1) democracy in the anglo-sphere but not America, was a last resort offered to the polis before rebellion – a.proxy for violence. This decision being made during the restoration after the glorious rebellion etc (I’m sure you know this). It’s not, nor has it ever has been “the will of the people”. Data on voting intentions (the wishes of voter when voting) and the resulting legislation has never had an impact more than about 30% and only in the negative (about 30% of the time a legislation the voters do not want will be blocked, but in terms of policies they do want – the vote has no impact) – this compared to lobbying groups where up to 70% of the time they get what they seek in negative and about 30% in the positive. This means the social changes we are concerned about are not a result of the wishes of the voting public. 2) there are many means in the American and British system from primaries to electoral vote which address the criticisms launched today at democracy – the “dumb voters trope” is false and based on strawmans. The failure of our systems isn’t due to democracy it’s due to the conflation not legislation with weight of law which creates a product which politicians sell to special interests – a market for parasitism. Democracy acts as the currency for those transactions. If we weren’t under democracy, this dynamic would persist with a different currency (this issue is law making not democracy). 3) Daniel Roland Anderson has some good screen shots of how the original documents of America where explicitly ethnocentric. These legal documents didn’t prevent the dissolution of a homogeneous because, again, legislature can not be “under the rule of law” as.long as it makes law. This too isn’t a result of democracy but rather legislation being conflated with rule of law. We’ve corrected for this via testimonialism, but also by having a separation of judicial and legislative branches which the judiciary holding supremacy, and one law, natural law of reciprocity. We can correct the current problems via an alloy of kritocracy, stratocracy, aristocracy and democracy where aristocracy is constrained to via positiva commons creation, democracy to commons management, both of which are subservient and beholden to kritocracy, and stratocracy acts as the teeth for kritarchs (and can boycott if the kritarchs step out of line). So – nobles for development of commonly shared property and community services (via positiva commons), management teams to manage the commons via contract – both inferior too and with out the power of the judges and both under the rule of the judges, with a.militia to back the judges. If strict barriers exist within these four areas (judges can’t be generals, aristocrat can’t be judged etc) it prevents competition for power between these areas – it explicitly prevents a “product” that rules can “sell” without consequence. Modernity had way more correct than not and wasn’t so much wrong as incomplete. I find most fascist and aesthetics arguments against modernity to be strawmans. Monarchy alone, aristocracy alone did not pull humanity out of the Malthusian trap and away from discretionary rule – modernity did.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549595684 Timestamp) ANOTHER LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Here is an other legit criticism via Richard Heathen: The catastrophic failure of our constitution to protect us from marxism, socialism, neoconservatism, postmodernism, and feminism under the pressure of universal enfranchisement and FPTP representative, majoritarian democracy, has soured all faith in our institutions, and driven the desire for a strong man – which is what history tells us will always happen. But I view this as an understandable but unnecessary fear. I will agree that democracy was a terrible tragedy, but the vulnerabilities were within our system, and they can be corrected and amended. We have the longest running governments in the modern world among the english speaking peoples, and the reason is that our form of government is contractual and open to continuous reform without catastrophic bloodshed – well, at least, we survive it. We can produce the most intolerant government in history with the greatest defenses of our people by simply providing market incentives to prosecute those who violate those those intolerances. I have more faith in our use of the courts and the law to circumvent the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies, than I do of the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies being constrained by their adherence to the law. More later.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549687771 Timestamp) By: Bill Joslin (via Brandon Hayes ) There are missing distinctions in the criticisms of democracy. 1) democracy in the anglo-sphere but not America, was a last resort offered to the polis before rebellion – a.proxy for violence. This decision being made during the restoration after the glorious rebellion etc (I’m sure you know this). It’s not, nor has it ever has been “the will of the people”. Data on voting intentions (the wishes of voter when voting) and the resulting legislation has never had an impact more than about 30% and only in the negative (about 30% of the time a legislation the voters do not want will be blocked, but in terms of policies they do want – the vote has no impact) – this compared to lobbying groups where up to 70% of the time they get what they seek in negative and about 30% in the positive. This means the social changes we are concerned about are not a result of the wishes of the voting public. 2) there are many means in the American and British system from primaries to electoral vote which address the criticisms launched today at democracy – the “dumb voters trope” is false and based on strawmans. The failure of our systems isn’t due to democracy it’s due to the conflation not legislation with weight of law which creates a product which politicians sell to special interests – a market for parasitism. Democracy acts as the currency for those transactions. If we weren’t under democracy, this dynamic would persist with a different currency (this issue is law making not democracy). 3) Daniel Roland Anderson has some good screen shots of how the original documents of America where explicitly ethnocentric. These legal documents didn’t prevent the dissolution of a homogeneous because, again, legislature can not be “under the rule of law” as.long as it makes law. This too isn’t a result of democracy but rather legislation being conflated with rule of law. We’ve corrected for this via testimonialism, but also by having a separation of judicial and legislative branches which the judiciary holding supremacy, and one law, natural law of reciprocity. We can correct the current problems via an alloy of kritocracy, stratocracy, aristocracy and democracy where aristocracy is constrained to via positiva commons creation, democracy to commons management, both of which are subservient and beholden to kritocracy, and stratocracy acts as the teeth for kritarchs (and can boycott if the kritarchs step out of line). So – nobles for development of commonly shared property and community services (via positiva commons), management teams to manage the commons via contract – both inferior too and with out the power of the judges and both under the rule of the judges, with a.militia to back the judges. If strict barriers exist within these four areas (judges can’t be generals, aristocrat can’t be judged etc) it prevents competition for power between these areas – it explicitly prevents a “product” that rules can “sell” without consequence. Modernity had way more correct than not and wasn’t so much wrong as incomplete. I find most fascist and aesthetics arguments against modernity to be strawmans. Monarchy alone, aristocracy alone did not pull humanity out of the Malthusian trap and away from discretionary rule – modernity did.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549595684 Timestamp) ANOTHER LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Here is an other legit criticism via Richard Heathen: The catastrophic failure of our constitution to protect us from marxism, socialism, neoconservatism, postmodernism, and feminism under the pressure of universal enfranchisement and FPTP representative, majoritarian democracy, has soured all faith in our institutions, and driven the desire for a strong man – which is what history tells us will always happen. But I view this as an understandable but unnecessary fear. I will agree that democracy was a terrible tragedy, but the vulnerabilities were within our system, and they can be corrected and amended. We have the longest running governments in the modern world among the english speaking peoples, and the reason is that our form of government is contractual and open to continuous reform without catastrophic bloodshed – well, at least, we survive it. We can produce the most intolerant government in history with the greatest defenses of our people by simply providing market incentives to prosecute those who violate those those intolerances. I have more faith in our use of the courts and the law to circumvent the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies, than I do of the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies being constrained by their adherence to the law. More later.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549746742 Timestamp) THE GREAT LIE OF THE 20TH CENTURY IT’S NOT CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM but RULE OF LAW, MARKETS FOR CLASSES, and NATIONALISM of EUROPEANS VS RULE BY AUTHORITARIAN DISCRETION, MONOPOLY, and INTERNATIONALISM of MIDDLE EASTERNERS. (Simple rules for moral people, and simple rule for immoral people.) —“I think the issue could largely be the hierarchy of what we value. Rather than seeing capitalism as the best way to improve the material well-being of people, it became the goal itself. So, whereas before, the focus of life was family, faith, and folk (and the method by which you took care of your family was economic system), capitalism became the goal (“greed is good” rather than the more neutral “everyone operates in their self-interest” of Locke and Smith), and family, faith, and folk became secondary, tertiary, or a non factor. Communism is an evil, possibly the greatest evil to ever gain traction, but it’s not an evil because of the market conditions.”—Ethan Trice Yeah. well who invented the term ‘capitalism’ and who advances it rather than rule of law?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549746742 Timestamp) THE GREAT LIE OF THE 20TH CENTURY IT’S NOT CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM but RULE OF LAW, MARKETS FOR CLASSES, and NATIONALISM of EUROPEANS VS RULE BY AUTHORITARIAN DISCRETION, MONOPOLY, and INTERNATIONALISM of MIDDLE EASTERNERS. (Simple rules for moral people, and simple rule for immoral people.) —“I think the issue could largely be the hierarchy of what we value. Rather than seeing capitalism as the best way to improve the material well-being of people, it became the goal itself. So, whereas before, the focus of life was family, faith, and folk (and the method by which you took care of your family was economic system), capitalism became the goal (“greed is good” rather than the more neutral “everyone operates in their self-interest” of Locke and Smith), and family, faith, and folk became secondary, tertiary, or a non factor. Communism is an evil, possibly the greatest evil to ever gain traction, but it’s not an evil because of the market conditions.”—Ethan Trice Yeah. well who invented the term ‘capitalism’ and who advances it rather than rule of law?

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549769416 Timestamp) Replying to @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy I don’t do ideology. I do law. What you folks do with law is up to you. But ask me to decide a question, I can do so using the law. It’s just that some of those decisions are unpleasant. … … And I answered the questions according to that law. Not according to whether it’s normative, pleasant, or acceptable. Just whether decidable (true). The law does not appeal for your permission. It just is the law whether you like it or not. And my work on law suppresses untruth. That said, (a) I was laughing because I found the circumstance humorous, absurd, and intellectually ridiculous. (b) I teach and practice radical intolerance for ignorance, error, bias, sophism, and deceit and laugher is more pleasant than anger. (c) I don’t feign respect.