Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Constitutional Convention? How about Hanging-Trees?

    ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING TREES FOR THE LIARS. No we are not having a constitutional convention. 1) Liberals have destroyed the constitution’s rule of law by arguing that we can pass whatever laws we want. The 14th amendment alone invalidated the constitution. What damage wasn’t done then was done by the income tax. What wasn’t done then was done by Roosevelt’s threat to stack the supreme court if we didn’t enact social security. If we can pass abortion, gay marriage, and obamacare, and if we have circumvented the amendment and convention process, then rule of law no longer exists. the government exists only out of habit, and simply hasn’t created enough discord to cause a revolution – until now.
    2) So lets just skip yet another leftist lie. There is no united states any longer, because there is no constitution any longer, because there is no rule of law any longer, because the liberals destroyed rule of law in order to destroy the united states by achieving through immigration of the third world against the will of the people in order to destroy the united states by an act of fraud.. 3) So here is what we suggest: the moment you call for a convention you’re declaring war. And we WANT a war. We love war. It is our greatest achievement after truth. We can agree that the undesirable states with the immigrant cities leave the union, freeing us from generations of accumulated debt and expense, and cultural and genetic conquest. Preserving the government. Or we can remove all federal legislation and return it to the states, and dissolve the supreme court, the congress and the presidency, leaving only the Military, the Treasury, and The Insurer of Last Resort, to be managed by a board of the governors. Or we will end the united states and devolve into separate regional polities that reflect regional cultures, and abandon the federal government entirely, returning all powers and functions to the regions or states. Or we can start a civil war, kill as many of each other and the members of the government that we can – and let the chips fall where they may. But what we will NOT do is allow the liberals to use the pretense of rule of law to engineer a conquest of our people, culture, and territories We’ll kill all of you first – and revel in it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • ( I don’t get involved in ‘***gates’. Rallying and shaming is for common folk. S

    ( I don’t get involved in ‘***gates’. Rallying and shaming is for common folk. Sorry. The substantive problem is the lack of rule of law under natural law with which we can prosecute by violence acts of harm, theft, fraud, and deceit. Everything else is just monkeys hooting at one another across territories. So either pull out your weapons and beat, break, kill, and burn, or look in the mirror at the monkey. It’s about that effective. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-07 11:43:00 UTC

  • ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING

    ON LIBERAL CALLS FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION: WE HAVE OTHER IDEAS – HANGING TREES FOR THE LIARS.

    No we are not having a constitutional convention.

    1) Liberals have destroyed the constitution’s rule of law by arguing that we can pass whatever laws we want. The 14th amendment alone invalidated the constitution. What damage wasn’t done then was done by the income tax. What wasn’t done then was done by Roosevelt’s threat to stack the supreme court if we didn’t enact social security. If we can pass abortion, gay marriage, and obamacare, and if we have circumvented the amendment and convention process, then rule of law no longer exists. the government exists only out of habit, and simply hasn’t created enough discord to cause a revolution – until now.

    2) So lets just skip yet another leftist lie. There is no united states any longer, because there is no constitution any longer, because there is no rule of law any longer, because the liberals destroyed rule of law in order to destroy the united states by achieving through immigration of the third world against the will of the people in order to destroy the united states by an act of fraud..

    3) So here is what we suggest: the moment you call for a convention you’re declaring war. And we WANT a war. We love war. It is our greatest achievement after truth.

    We can agree that the undesirable states with the immigrant cities leave the union, freeing us from generations of accumulated debt and expense, and cultural and genetic conquest. Preserving the government.

    Or we can remove all federal legislation and return it to the states, and dissolve the supreme court, the congress and the presidency, leaving only the Military, the Treasury, and The Insurer of Last Resort, to be managed by a board of the governors.

    Or we will end the united states and devolve into separate regional polities that reflect regional cultures, and abandon the federal government entirely, returning all powers and functions to the regions or states.

    Or we can start a civil war, kill as many of each other and the members of the government that we can – and let the chips fall where they may.

    But what we will NOT do is allow the liberals to use the pretense of rule of law to engineer a conquest of our people, culture, and territories We’ll kill all of you first – and revel in it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-06 18:45:00 UTC

  • ANN: Unless we change the constitution, and restore the monarchy…. 😉

    ANN: Unless we change the constitution, and restore the monarchy…. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 19:06:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805488366829600768

    Reply addressees: @AnnCoulter @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803395923233636352

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AnnCoulter

    Tragedy at OSU today: Trump can only serve two terms.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803395923233636352

  • KANT IS NO LONGER CONFOUNDED — ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embar

    KANT IS NO LONGER CONFOUNDED

    — ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.”—Immanuel Kant

    Except with Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, we can answer both those questions ‘perfectly’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 19:06:00 UTC

  • I want civil war, the dissolution of the empire, and the restoration of rule of

    I want civil war, the dissolution of the empire, and the restoration of rule of law. (the nazis hate me btw)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 04:18:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804177866137235456

    Reply addressees: @jeffreyatucker @grimsithe

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804167002973761538

    IN REPLY TO:

    @jeffreytucker

    @curtdoolittle @grimsithe I really don’t think you want to embrace what’s about to happen Curt.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804167002973761538

  • Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of: 1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads. 3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly. Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Is The Problem Really Democracy? Here Is Your Answer.

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of: 1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities. And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads. 3) MONOPOLY COMMONS. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly. Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • THE END OF THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA (worth repeating)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA13akwRFBcUNDERSTANDING THE END OF THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 08:53:00 UTC

  • IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER: The problem is not DEMOCRA

    IS THE PROBLEM REALLY DEMOCRACY? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER:

    The problem is not DEMOCRACY (the choice of leadership) but the combination of:

    1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

    And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.

    3) MONOPOLY MAJORITARIANISM. All MONOPOLIES are ‘bad’ because they prohibit innovation, and they allow us to violate the Natural Law of Cooperation. Yet majoritarian democracy produces a monopoly. There is no reason why Seattle must choose between a Monorail and a Train, when they can choose both and let the best solution win. The excuse is efficiency. But this is a deception. Instead, the competition will force voters to pay for that which is most likely to succeed not what they themselves want at the expense of others – and that is more efficient. The purpose of majoritarian democracy is to legitimize authority – to rubber stamp the oligarchy’s choices. Majoritarian democracy is possible for the selection of priorities among people with common interests (farmers), where resources are scarce. But markets (contracts) are the solution to heterogeneous polities with disparate or competing interests (like ours today), where expenditures of resources are plentiful (surpluses are possible) must be constrained in order to prevent expansion of debt. So instead of single house majoritarian democracy, our ancestors created houses for each class, so that classes could construct exchanges, rather than rule over one another. They created a MARKET for the construction of COMMONS between the classes, just as they had created a market for the consumption of goods and services: cities. Just as they had created a market for leadership by voting. Just as they had created a market for dispute resolution that we call the ‘independent judiciary’ under ‘rule of law’. So you see, democracy can function as a market if and only if we restore market institutions, instead of market-violating institutions: multiple houses of government (families, businesses, territories, monarchy-as-vote-of-last-resort-by-veto, and then we can have democracy. Otherwise democracy is just a means by which to fraudulently legitimize the formation of tyranny by monopoly.

    Why this is so difficult? Because the academy teaches pseudoscience, not social science.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 06:12:00 UTC