Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • RT @wjfrisby: @alexisgoldstein Those who don’t want Third Reichs shouldn’t build

    RT @wjfrisby: @alexisgoldstein Those who don’t want Third Reichs shouldn’t build Weimar Republics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 23:19:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1107058853273878529

  • we don’t do ideology. We do law. Countries are run by an operating system we cal

    we don’t do ideology. We do law. Countries are run by an operating system we call ‘law’. It’s the only way that they CAN be run. You can build all three of those ideologies, but you must do it with law. And to do it and prevent (((enemies))) you must do it with Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 15:34:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106941807672348675

    Reply addressees: @HonkHonkler88 @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106940587272339456

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106940587272339456

  • GET OVER THE NAP. IT MEANS YOU’RE A USEFUL IDIOT No. NAP looks like another semi

    GET OVER THE NAP. IT MEANS YOU’RE A USEFUL IDIOT

    No. NAP looks like another semitic (abrahamic, marxist, libertarian, postmodern) pretense to reciprocity and rule of law, that (a) does not require reciprocity be earned, (b) retains the semitic means of deceit by fraud by omission enabling blackmail, enabling conspiracy, (c) (d) continuing the semitic method of baiting well meaning fools into hazard thru piplup and deceit.

    NAP is to Reciprocity as Labor Theory of Value is to Subjective Value, and as money proper is to money substitutes – it’s another fraud.

    Other things may look like reciprocity. But they are not. They are all substitutes for reciprocity because they are means of circumventing reciprocity. So since they are all worse than reciprocity, one must answer the question why one seeks something less than reciprocity, and as such why one seeks to preserve means of irreciprocity.

    I mean, we know why our ancient enemy wants to preserve irreciprocity – to preserve parasitism upon the productive people.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 16:44:00 UTC

  • “Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103

    –“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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 12:50:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53609538_10157036272777264_532877788

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53609538_10157036272777264_5328777881336152064_o_10157036272772264.jpg 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) ~30mCOURSE 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

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-08 13:22:00 UTC

  • DEFINE: RULE OF LAW I – RULE OF LAW Among modern legal theorists, we will find t

    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).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-08 11:21:00 UTC

  • “Rule by Judges? Sounds a lot more like Rule by Truth and the Rule of Law. Sure,

    —“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

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 09:41:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53439770_10157032235317264_607085794

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53439770_10157032235317264_6070857949872390144_n_10157032235312264.jpg PATCH STRATEGY: UNITY

    1. THE NATURAL LAW

    2. THE RELIGION

    3. THE NATIONJWarren PrescottI like the Knights of natural law and the impending, unforeseen consequences of a black swan. It’s like an open threat 😁Mar 6, 2019, 2:59 PMJWarren PrescottI wonder if Hugo Boss would still accept a commission for uniforms… 😁Mar 6, 2019, 3:04 PMEamon O’NeillMeh for the St George’s Cross in Europes. Could he solved with making one with erins harp for Ireland. 😂Mar 6, 2019, 3:19 PMAndy Ujku-DardaniaWhat is the significance of the Black Swan?Mar 6, 2019, 3:22 PMMartin ŠtěpánOriginally from Hume. You can’t ever say black swans don’t exist just because you’ve never seen one. You’d have to be certain that you’ve seen every single swan. Funnily enough, black swans have actually been found later.

    Black swan event is the one you don’t believe could realistically arise. And then it does.Mar 6, 2019, 3:49 PMIvar Diederik(If you’re going to have actual badges printed, move the S a little to the right, so that it doesn’t touch the outer circle.)Mar 6, 2019, 4:14 PMZach QuarryOh yeah!!! How do I get both?Mar 6, 2019, 7:01 PMMark Di RussoShardMar 6, 2019, 8:56 PMTom BielerPVC with Velcro pleaseMar 6, 2019, 9:40 PMFrancesco PrincipiI prefer “Unus sid leo” (Esopo)Mar 7, 2019, 7:51 AMCurt DoolittleFixed. Thank you for catching it. The “S” was the wrong font size.Mar 7, 2019, 9:51 AMPATCH STRATEGY: UNITY

    1. THE NATURAL LAW

    2. THE RELIGION

    3. THE NATION

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 14:39:00 UTC

  • You shouldn’t trust me or anyone else. If you need trust or faith you’re a moron

    You shouldn’t trust me or anyone else. If you need trust or faith you’re a moron. I don’t matter. Either the law, constitution, and policies I”ve proposed are possible and will function as I suggest or they won’t. Anything else is just right wing cowardice, and signaling.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:34:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102366642506485761

    Reply addressees: @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364988163936256

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364988163936256

  • GOVERNMENT UNDER PROPERTARIANISM, NOT PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT. (AND THE ABSOLUTI

    GOVERNMENT UNDER PROPERTARIANISM, NOT PROPERTARIAN GOVERNMENT. (AND THE ABSOLUTIST QUESTION)

    (core)

    Propertarianism consists of a methodology for producing truthful, rational, reciprocal, commensurable fully accounted speech that all but prohibits error, bias, deceit, and fraud. And the application of that method to the scope of human knowledge, producing a universal vocabulary and grammar commensurable across all disciplines.

    With this methodology, applied to law, you can produce arguments, constitutions and bodies of law, that are fully commensurable, fully accounted, and prohibit error, bias, deceit, and fraud.

    With these arguments, constitutions, and bodies of law you can produce any form of government – you just must do so truthfully with full accounting and transparency.

    There is no ideal form of government because different forms of government are more or less suitable to different demographic distributions, degrees of neoteny, states of cooperative (middle class) development, and more or less suitable to times of war, peace, and windfalls.

    There is however, an optimum system of government for european peoples, and any other peoples who wish to produce european standards of life, because this form of government provides the greatest limitation on rents, greatest incentive for production distribution and trade, and the greatest adaptability to change, greatest rates of innovation, and the greatest shared rewards (commons) because of all of the above.

    That system of government consists in:

    A Federation (nomocracy).

    Of Nation States.

    Under Rule of Law:

    …Federally Limited to material conflicts between polities.

    …Locally unlimited production of commons.

    …Each Administered by an Independent Judiciary.

    And Defended by:

    …A Universal militia

    …In Regimental Orders

    …And a Cadre of Professional Warriors.

    And either Limited Monarchy:

    …A Hereditary Monarchy

    …A Professional Cabinet

    …Houses of Juries by Class (assent, veto)

    …Privatized Bureaucracies

    Or Narrowly Participatory Monarchy:

    …A Hereditary Monarchy (assent, veto)

    …A Professional Cabinet

    …Houses as a Market between Classes (market)

    …Privatized Bureaucracies

    Or Broadly Participatory Monarchy:

    …A Hereditary Monarchy (assent, veto)

    …A Professional Cabinet

    …Virtual Houses as a Market between Classes (market)

    …Privatized Bureaucracies

    With each state producing commons suitable to the interests and desires of the people.

    I work under the model of progressive decline in sovereignty given ability to organize. The lesson of the soviet model is that

    (Authoritarian )

    Monarchy

    Military

    Warriors

    Judiciary

    Sheriffs

    Police

    (Market)

    Finance, Scientific Elites, Academic Elites

    Entrepreneur, Scientists, Professors

    professional, researchers, teachers

    administrator, research assistants, media.

    (Mixed Market)

    craftsman,

    laborer,

    dependents,

    (Non-Market)

    Soldiers

    Serfs

    Slaves

    Prisoners

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-02 10:25:00 UTC