Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • DAVID FRIEDMAN’S BOOK ON LIBERTINE LEGAL SYSTEMS ALL (Feedback) (Joseph Valerius

    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lega…/LegalSystemsContents.htmON DAVID FRIEDMAN’S BOOK ON LIBERTINE LEGAL SYSTEMS

    ALL (Feedback) (Joseph Valerius thanks for inviting me to respond.)

    Just read through these chapters quickly – I know this material already. As usual David’s work is readable and enjoyable. My central criticism is that ‘different from ours’ plus the choice of legal system’s included, implies an arbitrary equality (difference) rather than an honest statement of intent by which these particular legal systems are chosen according to their shared properties.

    1) The list is interesting because it includes so many failed peoples, and does not include many successful peoples. By successful, I mean, those that can hold territory, create their own institutions, and defend them against competitors. Why is it that most of these legal systems could not produce sufficient productivity and as a consequence sufficient investment in the commons to hold territory against competitors?

    2) Why NOT include these systems of law:

    Hammurabi’s Code

    Early Roman Law

    Late (Stoic) Roman Law

    Frankish Law (Saliq Law)

    Germanic and Anglo Saxon Law

    Continental (Napoleonic) Law

    Soviet Law

    International law

    (FWIW: in intelligence gathering and in propaganda production, what is mentioned tells us more about the speaker than what is mentioned. Just as in straw man arguments, we learn more about the speaker from what he avoids speaking of than we do of what he speaks. Just as in marxist propaganda and postmodern propaganda we learn that heaping of undue praise, and straw man arguments as excuses for criticism serve as the principal means of deception by suggestion.) So I don’t like the selection without qualification of its purpose: what did so many legal codes fail, and why did others succeed?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_legal_codes

    3) The list is even more interesting if we look at which produced high trust societies – where high trust is the most expensive commons, which is why no one outside of the Hajnal Line produces it. Societies that progressed through the agrarian phase and succeeded in holding territory emerged with superior demographics through the reduction of the scale of the underclass. Societies that did not progress through holding territory and the agrarian phase either failed to develop truth, reason, technology, science, formal institutions, and particularly institutions of competitive law.

    4) The Han are the largest homogenous ethnic group, that other than northern europeans, has held the same territory, for the longest period of time. There is a reason that history of only two peoples is worthy of study: the Han and the European: the han could not produce trust but they held territory, produced reason and technology. The Europeans held territory less effectively (particularly against islamic invasion), produced reason, trust, technology and science.

    5) Laws express a group’s evolutionary strategy both in-group and out-group. And it is trivially easy to judge a set of laws by their survival from competition – their evolutionary success or failure.

    6) There is only one universal criteria of decidability in matters of conflict: non imposition of costs against that which others have born costs to obtain an interest: reciprocity. And that is how international law functions today.

    The origin of all legal codes that I know of is the need to suppress retaliation cycles (feuds) in eras where property was largely insured by kin (brothers, uncles, cousins), and where crimes and punishments (or restitutions) were asymmetric, which led to exacerbation of retaliation cycles. So if we look at early legal codes, they emphasize not rules, but standardization of punishments.

    As legal codes mature, they include standardization of crimes, not just punishments. in fact, the word ‘liberty’ refers to the permission to retain local law and custom independent from the ruling law (territorial defense and taxation).

    As legal codes mature further, they include weights and measures (prohibitions against metric fraud). And further as they mature they include prohibitions against verbal fraud. At present for example, we lack prohibitions on a great deal of verbal fraud using pseudoscience (we call this set of frauds economics and financialization). But nearly all the social sciences consist largely of pseudoscientific frauds yet to be prohibited.

    As legal codes mature further they include prohibitions on externalities. And if we go through david’s list, it’s easy to see which of these legal codes prohibits externalities, and which LICENSE or actually encourage externalities. (poly-logical, poly-ethical) legal codes in particular. (Jewish and Islamic ethics in particular).

    The most interesting is the chinese structure for families (it’s a crime to report on your parents) vs the soviet (it’s a requirement to report on them). Or the class based systems where punishments are progressive as are taxes today. Or the egalitarian systems that prohibit differences by class or group.

    In large part these different ethics tell us a great deal about social orders, and the group’s evolutionary strategy. (Western market model is to profit from domestication. Han model is just a large extended family with identical interests. )

    7) We can judge (measure) the difference between legal systems by the methods of parasitism (ir-reciprocity) that they preserve. What kinds of parasitism do each of the listed legal systems preserve? Why did they preserve it. So it is possible to objectively compare the morality or immorality of different cultural systems by their judicial method and content.

    8) Diversity is bad – particularly ethnic diversity. High trust is good. Empirical law is good. Empirical law requires a method of decidability. The only universal method of decidability is perfect reciprocity. Perfect reciprocity is only possible under non-imposition of costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest.

    9) The roman failure is reducible to the underinvestment in the Great Wall Against The Steppe and Desert Peoples that the chinese had managed to construct, and attempts to integrate undomesticated (inferior) peoples into the empire. Or better said: empires leave behind monuments, but cause the death of their originators. As such, as the Han and Medieval Europeans demonstrated, the optimum strategy is nationalism.

    10) Our lesson is that while conquest is profitable in the short term, the cost of colonialism is always higher in the long term than the benefit. And that the success of the only people who rely on fully on markets (europeans), was possibly only where they eradicated prior peoples. The fact that this is obvious from any study of evolutionary biology should not surprise us.

    Worse, wherever europeans (light haired european, dark haired iranian) expanded, wherever they integrated with the locals they were destroyed. They survived only in Europe and Persia. And were (it appears) eradicated by the arab conquest. Those that made it to india are simply outbred and gone.

    Our lessons are the trust of the europeans by use of militia and reason, and the security of the Chinese through isolation and reason.

    11) At present the only matters of contention in legal theory are:

    a) whether democratic polities should be permitted to construct legislation that circumvents reciprocity, or merely agree upon binding contracts within the limits of reciprocity.

    b) whether to contain the law to strict construction, textualism, and original intent (all of which may mean the same thing), or whether to allow judges discretionary control over the law.

    c) when the law is unclear whether to demand clarity from the legislature, or whether judges decide and compensate for weaknesses of the legislature.

    d) whether or not to rely on the common law’s argument to first principles and judicial review, or whether to rely on the continental law establishing intermediary first principles, regardless of judicial review.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 09:18:00 UTC

  • WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Obscenity Child

    WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

    Obscenity

    Child pornography

    Perjury

    Blackmail

    Defamation (including libel and slander)

    Fighting words

    True threats

    Solicitations to commit crimes

    Incitement to imminent lawless action

    Treason

    —“Hate speech is not prohibited but lots of hate speech crosses the line into slander, libel, inciting violence, fighting words or true threats so be aware that the SCOTUS did not say you can say any stupid thing you want without consequences.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 22:18:00 UTC

  • THE LAW IS SACRED by Simon Ström —“The law is sacred to Aryans. And in accorda

    THE LAW IS SACRED

    by Simon Ström

    —“The law is sacred to Aryans. And in accordance with the Dumézilian function of sovereignty, the spiritual role of Kings is to lead by example and be the high priest of the law; the judge of last resort at the tribunal of the Thang.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 17:20:00 UTC

  • A COMMON DECEPTION VIA FRAMING What is the best for humanity: rule of law under

    A COMMON DECEPTION VIA FRAMING

    What is the best for humanity: rule of law under natural law – meaning non discretionary rule, or one of the variants of discretionary rule: Authoritarian Martial/Fascism, Authoritarian Oligarchical/Liberalism, Authoritarian Syndicate/Social(ism) Democracy, Authoritarian Underclass/Communism?

    I mean. If you ask the question honestly, in operational language, then the answer is pretty obvious. The best rule is by NO ONE but rule of law.

    The question becomes, how then do we construct commons when no one can rule?

    The answer looks increasingly like the swiss model.

    However, that’s assuming you can get rid of the underclasses that destroy any hope of ‘doing what is good for humanity’.

    And that’s the dirty problem of all political systems.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 13:51:00 UTC

  • ( Thanks for tolerating the hyper-posting lately. I’m working on the ‘Constituti

    ( Thanks for tolerating the hyper-posting lately. I’m working on the ‘Constitution’ and solving Religion allowed me to finish with Education. So thanks for letting me work through the issue. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 12:37:00 UTC

  • There is only one way to guarantee rule of law: a militia that won’t tolerate ot

    There is only one way to guarantee rule of law: a militia that won’t tolerate otherwise.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 10:31:00 UTC

  • The american system of law differs a great deal from the continental in that we

    The american system of law differs a great deal from the continental in that we have almost no input limitations on our actions in exchange for requiring courts to decide conflict on outputs. The european system seeks heavy limitation on actions in order to minimize conflicts.

    The american system is superior for the use of truth testing, since it is very difficult to regulate truthful speech going in, other than to test due diligence when conflict arises.

    For this reason I would expect the continental (more restrictive because of high blame avoidance) and the russian (absurdly low trust) to be more resistant to the use of the common law to test the truthfulness of speech than under the anglo system.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:52:00 UTC

  • by Joel Davis “A contract is nothing without insurance. A constitution is just a

    by Joel Davis

    “A contract is nothing without insurance.

    A constitution is just a contract.

    Therefore, that contract is nothing without the militia.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-12 19:39:00 UTC

  • (read this) The Ancient Civilization of Greece and Rome culminated under Roman P

    (read this)

    The Ancient Civilization of Greece and Rome culminated under Roman Paganism, Roman Stoicism, and Roman Law.

    Christendom consists of Steppe Orthodoxy, Mediterranean Catholicism, North Sea Protestantism, Anglo/German Puritanism, French/Ango Postmodernism. With the masculine at the start of the spectrum, and feminism at the end of it.

    All of christendom has restored some aspect of aristotelianism (science) and stoicism (virtues). But most have preserved some Semitic deceptions, out of habit, indoctrination, familiarity, or ignorance of alternatives.

    All of christendom has preserved some aspects of our paganism – particulary in celtic, germanic, slavic, lands – if only in our mythos of pedagogy, hearth, and home. Masculinity survives. It survives most strongly in america which has preserved the militia the longest, and succeeded in defeating the state, rather than defeating the church. This is a lesson for mankind for all eternity. America preserved her churches and her militia longest, by defeating the state, not empowering it or taking it over. Just as anglo saxon man and Classical man would not tolerate the state’s imposition on the militia.

    But once we depart the masculine entirely we find the Jewish philosophy.

    The Jewish Counter-Enligthenment arrived in the form of Jewish cosmopolitanism in the works of Boaz’s restatement of jewish (feminine) history, Marx’s restatement of jewish (feminine) ethics, sociology, and history, freud’s restatement of jewish (feminine) ethics, and Mises restatement of jewish (feminine) economics, as well as the Frankfurt School’s restatement of jewish (feminine) aesthetics.

    If we want to discover social science and the articulation of western civilization’s strategy of truthfulness: it’s Aristotle and Zeno culminating in the Roman Stoics, Defeated by the Eastern Empire under Constantine through Justinian.

    The truth (stoicism) was Restored by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, DaVinci,Newton, AND Machiavelli Bacon, Locke, Hume, Smith.

    THEN the near defeat by the Abrahamic Counter-Enlightenment IN COMPETITION WITH the second scientific and industrial revolution (social sciences) by Maxwell, Poincare, Darwin, Spencer, Hayek, and Nietzsche.

    DEFEATED again by the combination of the Jewish (feminine) Abrahamic Counter-Enlightenment, and the French (feminine) counter enlightenment: Postmodernism.

    Meanwhile the German (protestant) Counter-Enlightenment (pious, or submissive, masculine) had little consequence, because of Kant and subsequent continental philosophers continuing the conflation of experience, existence, and goodness, instead of truth.

    At present, very, very, very, reluctant Jewish social scientists, cautious anglo american cognitive scientists, evangelic british historians and archaeologists, romantic russian archaeologists, a very select group of pragmatic other european scientists, and now (thankfully) competitive chinese scientists, have, at least since the 1980s used science (once again) to defeat the lies of the Abrahamists, whether jewish, french, feminist, or feminist-apologists using feminine strategy of gossip (betas, journalists, writers, artists, teachers, and professors).

    The primary challenge we face today is immigration. Because it is fairly certain the the scientific problem will be answered, and the entire feminine argumentative artifice be overthrown, within the next thirty years.

    So our primary challenge is to repatriate vast legions, or lock them in ghettos again, or overthrow our governments and kill as many as we can until they leave, so that the science can confirm what men know by intuition.

    You cannot fix stupid. You cannot clean genes. And the prosperity of a people is not a matter of opinion and choice but one of incentives produced by a militia of sovereign men in the service of a common enemy, where the common enemy is the universe, and the half humans that surround us, and prevent our conquest of both.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-11 10:29:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK) Interesting. Was searching for c

    THE PROBLEM WITH THE US LAW (THE LEFT’S ATTACK)

    Interesting. Was searching for colloquial opinions on “legislating from the bench” and found this page.

    DECIDABILITY (LOGIC) VS JUDGEMENT (OPINION)

    1) If the Natural Law of reciprocity exists, all questions of law should be decidable by a test of reciprocity. (They are.)

    2) If the constitution was intended as an implementation of Natural Law, then all question of law under natural law should be decidable. (It was, They are).

    3) In those cases of contracts of the commons (legislation, and regulation) that consist of contract provisions (trades) constructed under Natural Law, the terms of the contract may be undecidable given the terms specified in the contract. (painfully common)

    4) In those cases that are undecidable by the Court, because of the insufficiency of the terms of the Contract of the Commons (legislation and regulation) the court has the obligation, (as was intended by the constitution) to return the decision to the legislature rather than to ARBITRARILY provide decidability by subjective preference.

    5) In those cases that are undecidable by the court because the terms of the Contract of the Commons conflict with Natural Law, then the Court has the OBLIGATION to return the decision to the Legislature to correct the contract of the commons (legislation, and regulation) so that conflicts under the contract are decidable.

    6) In those cases that the legislature cannot construct legislation that is decidable by the judiciary because the terms of the contract for the commons is undecidable under the terms of the constitution, the legislature may propose to the legislature of the states (Congress) an amendment to the constitution that would permit decidability of such matters as cannot be decided under natural law, and the contracts of the commons we call legislation and regulation.

    FAILINGS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S AUTHORS

    1) The founders (Principally, Adams) understood natural law, and understood Locke, and understood the development of Contractualism of the Anglo Saxons (North Sea Civilization), in which all men are sovereign, and that all cooperation under any crown was limited to sovereign contract. They had fought civil wars over it.

    But they lacked the knowledge with which to require decidability in the law. It wasn’t until the last decade of the 19th and the first half of the twentieth century that we developed an understanding of the limits of language in philosophy and logic, and developed Operational Language in the Physical Sciences. It has taken us until the late twentieth century (for reasons I won’t go into here) to develop Operational Grammar, Functional authoring of Contracts (Legislation, Regulation, and Findings of the Law), and the requirement for strict construction of the law from the first principle of Reciprocity (Natural Law), the codifications of the tests of Reciprocity (Property in person, family, private, and common forms), and finally the measurement of changes in capital produced by advances in our ability to enact policy in Monetary, Fiscal, Trade, Institutional, Cultural – and now genetic – forms.

    2) While the provision by which to modify the constitution was put in place, it has been aggressively circumvented such that the 14th amendment has eradicated the 9th and 10th. But while modification of the constitution was encoded (even if ignored) the legislatures were not bound in the Constitution to pay the consequences of the poor quality of their legislation, by a limit on the time to revise legislation that was returned to them by the Court before it was nullified as undecidable by the court, or the court reverted to natural law as a means of deciding a conflict despite nullifying the legislation.

    3) Requirement for Positive Intent of the law (Scope). While the constitution states intentions (Scope) in the form of ‘whereas…(intent)’, followed by prohibition.

    THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY BY THE LEFT

    The Function of the court of Natural Law is not to interpret the law, but to apply the law to cases before it, and determine if the case is decidable or not. And if it is not decidable is it not so because the parties are not believable, the evidence is insufficient, the terms of the private contract are insufficient, or the legislation and regulation are insufficient, or the constitution is insufficient.

    1) The destruction of the constitution during and after the civil war, which, as a means of preventing the extension of slavery to the western territories, and therefore the domination of the continent by the South and its agrarian allies, and the containment of the northeast – a conflcit which still separates our peoples today. Not over slavery but over dominance by the few urban immigrant centers over the suburban, rural, and agrarian peoples. It may have been correct to go to war and kill 500,000 people over slavery, and even to turn the south into a possession, but not to conquer the south and then to destroy the constitution with amendments that violate the natural law of reciprocity under which the constitution and its experiment in meritocracy was created.

    2) the conflation of natural law of reciprocity, common law evolved from it, legislation that usurped it.

    3) the attempt by the activist left to ascend majority tyranny to precedence over that of natural law, thereby reversing the full history of anglo saxon law.

    4) the attempt by the activist left to extend necessary and possible natural rights under natural law, consisting entirely of negative rights, to ideal, and positive claims upon the actions of others, under the misnomer “positive rights” (which cannot logically exist as rights).

    5) The attempt by the communist left to extend natural rights that are necessary for the decidability of conflicts under the natural law of reciprocity, to Human Rights, which both (a) demand positive claims (rights) upon others, and demand (b) these rights be granted universally rather than within the citizenry, *despite* lack of reciprocity by foreign states.

    THE RIGHT HAS FAILED UNTIL NOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF AUTHORING FUNCTIONAL LAW

    Until this century the right has failed to (a) articulate the western tradition in ratio scientific terms, and (b) produce a means of requiring strictly constructed law (in the logical sense not the colloquial sense), textualism, and limited to original intent (scope). But that does not mean the right has not understood the nature of the problem.

    The problem is however now solvable. (although I won’t go into that painful detail here).

    The method and reasons and excuses the left has made to restore the tyranny of the majority over that of reciprocity and meritocracy is well understood. The problem is, do we have to have a revolution to fix this issue and return to negotiating legislation truthfully by contract, or will we continue the charade that we do anything other than deceive the common man in order to obtain power for our factions?

    The question is, why would you not want to engage in honest reciprocal exchanges rather than lobby for predations upon others by propaganda and deceit?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 14:53:00 UTC