Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551979928 Timestamp) Could you produce a competition between a hereditary monarchy ruling the military and the judiciary and the militia, and a fascist government ruling the commons and economy? Not sure. I prefer a fascist monarchy under rule of law.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551969700 Timestamp) —“Rule by Judges? Sounds a lot more like Rule by Truth and the Rule of Law. Sure, in the beginning there will be more activity in the courts as people adjust to an honest society. However, once the adjustment to a more “clean” Commons is made. The Courts will calm down as the cost of lying will be far too high to pay.”—Stephen Thomas

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552153817 Timestamp) –“Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103 Foundations is done, and LAW203/6 and we have worked through the method, the definitions, and then the long list of applications of that law, we have a purely descriptive science of the psychological and social sciences. I am on the third revision of LAW103 – Foundations, and it is … well it’s where you can understand it pretty easily as a single thing in a hierarchy of applications. And that the number of component parts is just a handful that I could roll off right now with east. I will be done with 103 fairly shortly, and doing so has helped me shorten the book down to something very simple. Between the constitution (which is a chinese menu) , the Course LAW103/LAW203/6, and a book containing both, the work will be rock solid. And it is achievable. And while y’all complain about me taking so long (and I complain too) the time I take matters because it allows me to turn all of this prose into something parsimonious, clear, and accessible to most people by one means or another. b) The Institute owns everything I do other than my software biz which is owned by me and my investors. If anything happens to me all IP goes either to the institute, or to my investors, with a portion of any software profits for my family. c) In the case where something happens to me, the institute, a few people whose names I won’t mention, and the donors will have license to do what they will with the work after I’m gone. d) There are people here today capable of continuing the work. The problem is that I am able for various economic reasons to devote full time to the effort, and they are not. The best people have limited time to devote. My hope would be that the institute will evolve successfully into an online university for teaching this material, and a network of schools and teachers will evolve and will provide income to those people willing and able to continue the work whether contributing or simply persisting it. e) I need to be clear though that my age and health are not in my favor. Even this winter I’ve been questionably effective since maybe mid december because of health issues. But, if I can finish the courses, constitution, and book, and then spend the rest of my time using the same method to produce courses and books I will be productive as long as I am able, and reconstruct the western canon – a full academic program that is defended against the left forever. I have to get into a living condition where i can walk and lift every day but sleep enough every night so that I stay healthy enough to do it. And I’m not keen on abandoning care of my elders to do that. LAW103 – Foundations – The Method (“The Core”) LAW106 Foundations: Man, Law, and Argument LAW206 Application and Reformation It is possible that if I continue making similar progress that law 106 will be just another 3 credits. I can’t easily estimate the work load without completing the course. People might be able to do the work faster than I assume. Law 206 (application to the scope of knowledge) should be a 300 level course i think, and Law 306 a 400 level course, since it involves writing constitutions for different groups of people. After that we then go to comparative legal systems and tear apart constitutions and legal systems on a country by country basis. Once that is donet here will be no legal scholars in the world that can compete with Propertarian Jurists with any excuse other than ‘it’s tradition’. Now that I feel REALLY secure about the Foundations, I feel like the workload for students will drop, because once you get the hang of it I think a lot of this will come more naturally than I expected. I would love to get this into a two year program, and then spend more time on economics, history and war to fill out a degree. But again. I have this work and my software work to do and I’m not 30 years old any longer.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552149827 Timestamp) VALUE: Markets (LAW) vs Dictators (DISCRETION) And this is the value of strong men – change to what is known from what is unknown when one is not current but behind. The value of markets is in changing from current and known to future that is unknown. Efficient organization to produce a known by eliminating competition vs efficient organization to produce an unknown by competition.

  • (FB 1552069378 Timestamp) COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations Almost there with t

    (FB 1552069378 Timestamp) COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations Almost there with these videos 1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m 2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m 3. Serialization (how to) ~15m 4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30m

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552062098 Timestamp) DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law. 1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights; 2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist“: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and; 3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway. The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights. Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights. Rule of Law (By Rights) 1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation) 2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges). Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”. The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion) 3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”. Closing (Summary) In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552153817 Timestamp) –“Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103 Foundations is done, and LAW203/6 and we have worked through the method, the definitions, and then the long list of applications of that law, we have a purely descriptive science of the psychological and social sciences. I am on the third revision of LAW103 – Foundations, and it is … well it’s where you can understand it pretty easily as a single thing in a hierarchy of applications. And that the number of component parts is just a handful that I could roll off right now with east. I will be done with 103 fairly shortly, and doing so has helped me shorten the book down to something very simple. Between the constitution (which is a chinese menu) , the Course LAW103/LAW203/6, and a book containing both, the work will be rock solid. And it is achievable. And while y’all complain about me taking so long (and I complain too) the time I take matters because it allows me to turn all of this prose into something parsimonious, clear, and accessible to most people by one means or another. b) The Institute owns everything I do other than my software biz which is owned by me and my investors. If anything happens to me all IP goes either to the institute, or to my investors, with a portion of any software profits for my family. c) In the case where something happens to me, the institute, a few people whose names I won’t mention, and the donors will have license to do what they will with the work after I’m gone. d) There are people here today capable of continuing the work. The problem is that I am able for various economic reasons to devote full time to the effort, and they are not. The best people have limited time to devote. My hope would be that the institute will evolve successfully into an online university for teaching this material, and a network of schools and teachers will evolve and will provide income to those people willing and able to continue the work whether contributing or simply persisting it. e) I need to be clear though that my age and health are not in my favor. Even this winter I’ve been questionably effective since maybe mid december because of health issues. But, if I can finish the courses, constitution, and book, and then spend the rest of my time using the same method to produce courses and books I will be productive as long as I am able, and reconstruct the western canon – a full academic program that is defended against the left forever. I have to get into a living condition where i can walk and lift every day but sleep enough every night so that I stay healthy enough to do it. And I’m not keen on abandoning care of my elders to do that. LAW103 – Foundations – The Method (“The Core”) LAW106 Foundations: Man, Law, and Argument LAW206 Application and Reformation It is possible that if I continue making similar progress that law 106 will be just another 3 credits. I can’t easily estimate the work load without completing the course. People might be able to do the work faster than I assume. Law 206 (application to the scope of knowledge) should be a 300 level course i think, and Law 306 a 400 level course, since it involves writing constitutions for different groups of people. After that we then go to comparative legal systems and tear apart constitutions and legal systems on a country by country basis. Once that is donet here will be no legal scholars in the world that can compete with Propertarian Jurists with any excuse other than ‘it’s tradition’. Now that I feel REALLY secure about the Foundations, I feel like the workload for students will drop, because once you get the hang of it I think a lot of this will come more naturally than I expected. I would love to get this into a two year program, and then spend more time on economics, history and war to fill out a degree. But again. I have this work and my software work to do and I’m not 30 years old any longer.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552149827 Timestamp) VALUE: Markets (LAW) vs Dictators (DISCRETION) And this is the value of strong men – change to what is known from what is unknown when one is not current but behind. The value of markets is in changing from current and known to future that is unknown. Efficient organization to produce a known by eliminating competition vs efficient organization to produce an unknown by competition.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552062098 Timestamp) DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find that at least three common definitions of the rule of law. 1 – Rule of Law: a “Substantive” (Skeptical) or “thick” definition that must preserve certain rights; 2 – Rule by Law: a “Formalist“: (Optimistic) or “thin” definition, that must not preserve any such rights, and; 3 – Rule of Man: a “Functional” (Fictional) or “ultra-thin” definition that requires neither formal process nor substantial rights be respected, and allows government officials great leeway. The ancient concept of rule OF law can be distinguished from rule BY law, in that, under the rule OF law, the law serves as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule BY law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that oppresses the population a using legislation as justification for arbitrary commands – a means of violating rights. Under Rule of Man, there are no checks on power to violate rights. Rule of Law (By Rights) 1- Substantive (Skeptical) conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law. The substantive interpretation holds that the rule of law intrinsically must protect some or all individual rights. Rule By Law (Rule by Legislation) 2 – Formalist (Optimistic) definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the “justness” of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. The formalist interpretation holds that the rule of law has purely formal characteristics, meaning that the law must be publicly declared, with prospective application, and possess the characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty, but there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law. In addition, some theorists hold that democracy(majority) can circumvent both procedure and rights, or construct new rights (rather than privileges). Why Formalism? Formalism allows laws the pretense of claiming rule of law when rights are not protected by including countries that do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual rights in the scope of the definition of “rule of law”. The “formal” interpretation is more widespread than the “substantive” interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality, equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no requirements as to the content of the law. Rule of Man (By Arbitrary Discretion) 3 – The functional (Fictional) interpretation of the term “rule of law”, consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of “rule of law”, whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of “rule of law”. Closing (Summary) In other words, there is only one form of rule of law under which no one can override natural rights (life, liberty, property, reciprocity, truth, and duty). Rule by legislation allows either the state, or the body politic to override those rules. And rule by man allows arbitrary discretion on the part of officials (members of the monopoly bureaucracy).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552835382 Timestamp) —“Productive conflict results in enforceable local contracts and meaningful dispute resolutions, eliminating the need for a grand moral contracts like equality to compensate for local shortcomings.”–Pat Ryan (via Brandon Hayes)