Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link. —“CURT, WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT?”–

    Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    —“CURT, WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT?”–

    Great question.

    PERFECT GOVERNMENT (short)
    https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PERFECT GOVERNMENT (longer)
    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/

    COMMON QUESTIONS
    (a) checks and balances are performed via the courts, since individuals and groups can provide suit against anyone whatsoever, in matters private or public.

    (b) the monarch can only veto. Veto is a simple process and if law is too complicated it’s veto-able on that grounds alone. So there is no need for specific legal skill. We have jurists for that – it’s not like a monarch cannot ask advice.

    (c) The monarchy in my work is very similar to constitutional monarchy (ceo). Except that they have a lot of intergenerational interests and obligations.

    (d) commons do not use enumerated shares (quantities). In that sense citizens can never have more than one ‘share’ in the commons. Secondly, like any corporation, common shareholders (citizens) only have certain powers. In our case, it’s the franchise.

    LAYER 1) RULE OF LAW
    The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    A professional Judiciary (‘judicial priesthood’)

    LAYER 2) FASCISM (IN TIMES OF WAR)
    Monarchy
    Cabinet (Management Team)

    LAYER 3) REPUBLIC (IN TIMES OF GROWTH)
    Houses “Juries” for Necessary Commons
    … Territorial, and of classes.

    LAYER 4) DIRECT DEMOCRACY (IN TIMES OF WINDFALLS)
    Direct Choice of Preferential Commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 19:50:39 UTC

  • WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT?”– Great question. PERFECT GOVERNMENT (sho

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/—“CURT, WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT?”–

    Great question.

    PERFECT GOVERNMENT (short)

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PERFECT GOVERNMENT (longer)

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/

    COMMON QUESTIONS

    (a) checks and balances are performed via the courts, since individuals and groups can provide suit against anyone whatsoever, in matters private or public.

    (b) the monarch can only veto. Veto is a simple process and if law is too complicated it’s veto-able on that grounds alone. So there is no need for specific legal skill. We have jurists for that – it’s not like a monarch cannot ask advice.

    (c) The monarchy in my work is very similar to constitutional monarchy (ceo). Except that they have a lot of intergenerational interests and obligations.

    (d) commons do not use enumerated shares (quantities). In that sense citizens can never have more than one ‘share’ in the commons. Secondly, like any corporation, common shareholders (citizens) only have certain powers. In our case, it’s the franchise.

    LAYER 1) RULE OF LAW

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity.

    A professional Judiciary (‘judicial priesthood’)

    LAYER 2) FASCISM (IN TIMES OF WAR)

    Monarchy

    Cabinet (Management Team)

    LAYER 3) REPUBLIC (IN TIMES OF GROWTH)

    Houses “Juries” for Necessary Commons

    … Territorial, and of classes.

    LAYER 4) DIRECT DEMOCRACY (IN TIMES OF WINDFALLS)

    Direct Choice of Preferential Commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 15:50:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT?”– Great question. PERFECT GOVERNMENT (sho

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/—“CURT, WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR GOVERNMENT?”–

    Great question.

    PERFECT GOVERNMENT (short)

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/09/14/perfect-government-2/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PERFECT GOVERNMENT (longer)

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/30/a-short-course-in-perfect-government/

    COMMON QUESTIONS

    (a) checks and balances are performed via the courts, since individuals and groups can provide suit against anyone whatsoever, in matters private or public.

    (b) the monarch can only veto. Veto is a simple process and if law is too complicated it’s veto-able on that grounds alone. So there is no need for specific legal skill. We have jurists for that – it’s not like a monarch cannot ask advice.

    (c) The monarchy in my work is very similar to constitutional monarchy (ceo). Except that they have a lot of intergenerational interests and obligations.

    (d) commons do not use enumerated shares (quantities). In that sense citizens can never have more than one ‘share’ in the commons. Secondly, like any corporation, common shareholders (citizens) only have certain powers. In our case, it’s the franchise.

    LAYER 1) RULE OF LAW

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity.

    A professional Judiciary (‘judicial priesthood’)

    LAYER 2) FASCISM (IN TIMES OF WAR)

    Monarchy

    Cabinet (Management Team)

    LAYER 3) REPUBLIC (IN TIMES OF GROWTH)

    Houses “Juries” for Necessary Commons

    … Territorial, and of classes.

    LAYER 4) DIRECT DEMOCRACY (IN TIMES OF WINDFALLS)

    Direct Choice of Preferential Commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 15:50:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVERE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend

    There are only three conditions:
    1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions).
    2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions).
    3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification.

    And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria.

    The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly)

    The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”).

    I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch.

    Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry).

    (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 14:21:44 UTC

  • REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN) —“What legal grounds can the

    REVOKING THE LEGITIMACY OF A MONARCHY (SOVEREIGN)

    —“What legal grounds can the legitimacy of the extant commonwealth sovereign (the Queen of England) be revoked?”— A Friend

    There are only three conditions:

    1 – If you hold a constitution of natural law (like the USA, and less so the UK), then for the systemic violation of that law (this is the virtue of absolute constitutions).

    2 – if you do not hold a constitution of natural, then for the systemic violation of that constitution. (This is the problem with populist constitutions).

    3 – If the sovereign attempts to alter the constitution without a substantive (natural law/common law juridical), or legislative procedural (continental), or populist (democratic approval) justification.

    And the three criteria are: Treason(conspiracy), Usurpation, Circumvention. Ill judgement is not a criteria. Disagreement is not a criteria.

    The purpose of the monarchy remains, as does do lords in the UK, Senate under the old US constitution, Judiciary in the current US constitution, defenses against the ‘populism’ of the people. This is the best defenese against the ‘passions’ of the people. (ignorance and folly)

    The second best defense against misrule by the people is the demand for reversibility and restitution for bad policy, legislation, and law. This has not been yet implemented in a constitution that I know of but it would end most nonsense debates by warranty (“skin in the game”).

    I have never seen another reason to revoke the legitimacy of a sovereign, only to replace the sovereign. The process of replacing a sovereign is quite simple and common: Regicide. Regicide is most often performed by members of the royal family, out of familial defense from the public anger at a monarch.

    Let us recall that anglos have the longest continuous governments extant for the very simple reason that our governments from time immemorial out of necessity of dependence upon the militia for defense (and aggression), is contractualism. And that while we have had many civil wars in our history on both sides of the atlantic, the only substantive change to prevent them and to end them has required modification of the written contract that limits the powers of the government over the militia (citizenry).

    (Populist Brits are insane. Monarchies are priceless assets.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 10:21:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE COMPLETE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS 1 – The Decla

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE COMPLETE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS

    1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natural Law as justification for secession(independence).

    2 – The Bill of Rights codifies the natural law as they enumerated those rights at the time.

    3 – The Constitution describes the organization and processes of the government.

    I tend to tell people to read them in that order: Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution: from the reason for the secession: violation of natural law, to the articulation of the specific defenses of it, to the institutions that protect it yet still allow for the production of commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 23:30:47 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. TWO IMPORTANT POSTS ON RULE OF LAW 1) RULE OF

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    TWO IMPORTANT POSTS ON RULE OF LAW

    1) RULE OF LAW – THE SPECTRUM OF WHAT IS AND ISN’T
    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156509147362264

    2) THE WEAKNESS IN THE RULE OF LAW: THE SUPREME COURT
    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156510056397264

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 23:30:15 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT’S DEC

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS

    —” the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers mandates that judges anchor their analysis to the text as reasonably understood by the people of the time. If that leads to a violation of Reciprocity (Natural Law), then the proper avenue for redress is to amend the constitution so the text better and better codifies Reciprocity (Natural Law).”—

    I assume, and the minority of strict jurists assume that the founding documents consist of The Declaration, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. And if clarity of original intent is required then we resort to The Federalist Papers, or notes on the proceeds of the debate. Once the bill of rights was ratified, then the founding documents were complete.

    1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natural Law as justification for secession(independence).

    2 – The Bill of Rights codifies the natural law as they enumerated those rights at the time.

    3 – The Constitution describes the organization and processes of the government.

    I tend to tell people to read them in that order: Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution: from the reason for the secession: violation of natural law, to the articulation of the specific defenses of it, to the institutions that protect it yet still allow for the production of commons.

    Unfortunately, first, reciprocity is not specifically stated as the first rule of natural law. Second, there is no requirement that the judiciary certify the constitutionality of legislation, and instead, all legislation ascends until falsified by the court. In other words, the market tests the legislation, and if conflicts arise the court corrects legislation.

    This approach continues the no-prior-restraint of the Anglo Saxon (Germanic) law versus the prior-restraint of continental (french and roman) law. And this is yet another example of ‘markets in everything’.

    Worse, without specifying Reciprocity, there is no means by which the initial rights can be limited, and therefore no means by which the court can limit the grant of rights rather than permissions and obligations.

    Worse, there are no means by which the court can return the legislation to the legislature and demand correction. Nor are there means by which the court can suggest corrections or amendments to rectify the deficiency, and return to the legislature.

    As such the court must, as the president must, choose ‘line item veto’ so to speak, or to veto the entire piece of legislation. So that is what the court does.

    And the court members use different criteria for determining the power of the legislature:
    1- Rule of Law (Substantive) in which the legislature and the people may only act in concert with natural law (reciprocity), or ;
    2-Rule by Law (Formalist) in which the legislature can do what it wants;
    3-Rule by Law (Majoritarian), in which the people can do whatever they want.

    In other words, there are always at least THREE parties to a matter before the court: Plaintiff, Defendant, and Legislature. And the court cannot demand remedy of the legislature. And that is the oversight.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:52:22 UTC

  • The False Dichotomy of Socialism vs Capitalism

    What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question. Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume). There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).

  • The False Dichotomy of Socialism vs Capitalism

    What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question. Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume). There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).