Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • “Feminism is not the result of the thought process of grown women but observatio

    —“Feminism is not the result of the thought process of grown women but observations made by a female child that then get turned into a law”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 20:38:00 UTC

  • Q&A WHAT HAPPENS IN A SOVEREIGN SOCIETY IF I GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO COME TAKE YO

    Q&A WHAT HAPPENS IN A SOVEREIGN SOCIETY IF I GET PEOPLE TOGETHER TO COME TAKE YOUR THINGS?

    Under a judge of last resort (hereditary monarch); an independent judiciary with rule of law, natural law, and universal standing; a market for the production of commons consisting of houses for each of the classes and genders, a insurer of last resort (treasury); every-enfranchised-man-a-sheriff; and every enfranchised man a member of the militia; that I would merely ask either the sheriff, or the court, to demand restitution and prevent further incursion. And that the sheriff would gather other enfranchised men and members of the militia if necessary, to achieve that goal – including me.

    ( I realize it is very hard to abandon god; very hard to abandon religion; and it is very hard to abandon platonism (fantasy ‘rights’). And actually reduce ‘magical-stuff-happens-here’ to ‘this sequence of events would occur’. But we all must grow up some day. Or at least enough of us must. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 21:03:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK The purpose of my work, and taking it to its conclusion,

    THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK

    The purpose of my work, and taking it to its conclusion, is to produce the ‘bible’ of western civilization, beyond which no man or government may tread: the cult of non-submission: the philosophy of Aristocracy: sovereignty, and its ‘scripture’: natural law.

    (Because this sentence seems to strike a chord)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 20:38:00 UTC

  • KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. We use law (common law of torts) to decide ma

    KNOWING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

    We use law (common law of torts) to decide matters of conflict. That is the total function of the law. (Yes, that’s just the fact of it)

    The practice of law evolved to standardize punishments in order to reduce retaliation cycles between groups that had evolved different punishments (yes, that’s just a fact of it)z

    The reason for the standardization was to prevent conflict was to preserve the income from taxation, and the cost of policing the territory and economy, including market for productive populations.

    Law exists as a set of records. Those records consist of decisions. Those decisions include reasons for those decisions. Those decisions are necessary to resolve conflicts between individuals.

    While we use the term ‘law’ for many purposes, the term can only mean common law – (post action). Command of dictators (direction to act or not to), command of legislatures(legislation) – direction to act or not to, and command of regulators (administration of insurance by the state) – (prior constraint), do not constitute law. They merely are enforced as if they are law.

    Whenever someone says something is like something else, it means he does not know what constitutes the thing in the first place.

    WHile it is possible to use analogies for the purpose of establishing definitions, one cannot treat an analogy as a premise for the purpose of deductions from the analogy.

    Instead, one can use analogies to establish understanding (definitions) then to clarify that understanding (definition) through operational construction (proof of possibility, test of parsimony).

    From that parsimonious definition it may be possible to continue to produce constructions that define operations that change state between that which we have defined.

    But analogies are the primary reason that people overestimate their understanding, and it is the primary means of deceit.

    The word ‘is’ and all variations of it (the verb to-be) can only mean ‘exists as’. Otherwise it is equivalent to using the word ‘thing’: meaning ‘i dont know or understand this reference.’

    So, no. If you understand what you speak, then you can speak it and argue with it. If you cannot understand it you may speak it, but you cannot argue it.

    It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-18 14:48:00 UTC

  • How Close Are We To A Constitutional Crisis? Does The Current Admin Really Care About Our Rights?

    You don’t have any rights intrinsically. You can’t have them. You can aspire to possess them. No other statement is true or possible. We create governments to create legal rights by denying each other choices.

    At present many people possess legal privileges not legal rights. These privileges come at the expense of others rights and privileges.

    The people who do ‘everything’ (the working and middle class) are tired of losing rights in order that other people may have privileges.

    What differentiates a right from a privilege? A Right consists of a prohibition upon the imposition of costs upon that which you have born costs to obtain. A privilege consists of an imposition of costs upon others that you have not born a cost to obtain.

    So you must know the difference between a right and a privilege. What has occurred is that the government has attempted to grant as many privileges as possible in order to maintain social harmony in order to maintain the economy and society despite having dismantled our history, our traditions, our culture, our law, and our families.

    We tolerate governments so long as the pain of the status quo is less than the pain of revolution.

    People have begun to care about their rights, and care less about other’s privileges. This is because the emphasis on immigration and free trade, and globalization has put an undue cost on the ‘moral’ working and middle classes.

    This will end badly.

    https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-constitutional-crisis-Does-the-current-admin-really-care-about-our-rights

  • How Close Are We To A Constitutional Crisis? Does The Current Admin Really Care About Our Rights?

    You don’t have any rights intrinsically. You can’t have them. You can aspire to possess them. No other statement is true or possible. We create governments to create legal rights by denying each other choices.

    At present many people possess legal privileges not legal rights. These privileges come at the expense of others rights and privileges.

    The people who do ‘everything’ (the working and middle class) are tired of losing rights in order that other people may have privileges.

    What differentiates a right from a privilege? A Right consists of a prohibition upon the imposition of costs upon that which you have born costs to obtain. A privilege consists of an imposition of costs upon others that you have not born a cost to obtain.

    So you must know the difference between a right and a privilege. What has occurred is that the government has attempted to grant as many privileges as possible in order to maintain social harmony in order to maintain the economy and society despite having dismantled our history, our traditions, our culture, our law, and our families.

    We tolerate governments so long as the pain of the status quo is less than the pain of revolution.

    People have begun to care about their rights, and care less about other’s privileges. This is because the emphasis on immigration and free trade, and globalization has put an undue cost on the ‘moral’ working and middle classes.

    This will end badly.

    https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-constitutional-crisis-Does-the-current-admin-really-care-about-our-rights

  • How Would You Restructure The United States?

    The current conflict is occurring because the regions have matured from settled territories into genetically, culturally, economically, separate nations, each of which resists the genetic, cultural, and economic differences of the others. In other words, the federal government is a domestic empire as well as a global empire.

    People don’t like empires. For good reason.

    The solution is:

    1. Universal right of secession and confederation on a county by county basis. Universal right of association and disassociation on an individual basis.
    2. County-by-county choice of political affiliation with bordering counties, to form new regions. The result will look something along the lines of the Nine or Eleven Nations of North America, with the six (large) immigrant cities as island plantations amidst the rest of the territories.
    3. Devolution of the powers of the federal government by limiting them only to Insurer of last Resort: Military, Common Treasury, Disaster Relief, Judge of Material Property conflict.
    4. Reservation of the powers not specifically granted to the insurer of last resort to the regions – specifically property and contract.
    5. Reservation of the powers of individual,interpersonal, family, labor to the county – specifically education, norms, holidays, traditions and information – to the county.

    This will accomplish:

    1. The division of the continental united states into a european -style polity with different cultures and norms, but who are protected by a large and powerful military.
    2. It will end the era of USA imperialism world wide.
    3. And it will create the greatest economic boom and the greatest level of experimentation since the enlightenment.
    4. And we can stop hating each other.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-restructure-the-United-States

  • HAD PERFECT GOVERNMENT AND WE BLEW IT (for newbies)(worth repeating)

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/05/25/perfect-government/WE HAD PERFECT GOVERNMENT AND WE BLEW IT

    (for newbies)(worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-10 10:29:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION OF A CONDITION OF LIBERTY (for newbies)(worth repeating)

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/07/evolution-of-a-condition-of-liberty-the-struggle-from-discretionary-to-non-discretionary-to-market-rule/THE EVOLUTION OF A CONDITION OF LIBERTY

    (for newbies)(worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-10 10:14:00 UTC

  • SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that

    SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS SERVILITY

    One can hire an administrator of contracts. If that’s what you mean by ‘governor’ then that kind of “government” is something I am comfortable with.

    But I won’t give up my Sovereignty (My “rights as an anglo saxon”) in the choice of contracts I will prefer to pay for; which choices of contracts I prefer not to pay for; and which choice of contracts I will not tolerate.

    This is the difference between Sovereigns investing in Commons (Anglo Saxons) by vote and hiring project managers, and Subjects choosing their rulers by vote, who will then choose the commons they produce for those who chose them.

    We have had our rights for thousands of years.

    It took those thousands of years to preserve them.

    It took those thousands of years to capture them in draft form the US Constitution.

    And today we can capture them perfectly in a new one.

    So will you choose the Sovereignty of the Warrior, or the Servility of a Subject?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-03 08:10:00 UTC