Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • Assuming preservation of a federal govt that covers the continent coast to coast

    Assuming preservation of a federal govt that covers the continent coast to coast (and better, from the isthmus of panama to the arctic), and the devolution of powers to the states resulting in restoration of regional sovereignty in internal affairs, there is no reason we cannot survive almost indefinitely. However, without that centralization the principle value of the territory – a giant island compared to eurasia – then I don’t see survival but balkanization.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-26 04:19:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938089618647490988

  • FYI: – states have sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which limits

    FYI:
    – states have sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which limits federal courts’ ability to force states to pay certain debts unless the state consents.

    – no federal bankruptcy court process for states, so courts cannot impose a structured reorganization plan.

    – creditors may sue the state if disputes arise over prioritizing payments (e.g., bondholders vs. pension obligations)

    – State defaults have been rare but not unprecedented. During the 19th century, several states defaulted on canal and railroad bonds (e.g., Arkansas in the 1830s). These were resolved through negotiations with creditors, often involving partial repayments or land grants.

    – Modern examples are limited. Illinois came close to fiscal collapse in the 2010s due to pension underfunding and budget gridlock but avoided default through emergency borrowing and legislative compromises.

    In other words – states have discretion over what they don’t pay when they can’t pay.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-26 00:05:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938025763368014178

  • I don’t know if I’d disagree with ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge sufficient for individ

    I don’t know if I’d disagree with ‘meaning’ or ‘knowledge sufficient for individual action’ which is I think your intention. My problem is different: judicial and political – when we are in conflict, or perhaps more importantly, when people use non-testimonial methods to achieve personal to political ends while engaging in the spectrum of baiting into hazard that constitutes so much of human discourse.

    The only problem is the mixed bag of say, religion, or say marxist pseudoscience, which attempts to achieve a good by fictionalist means (deception), that by externality causes harm – and all religions it turns out caused as much harm as they did good.
    But the three philosophical traditions of europeanism, confucianism, and original buddhism, … each was defeated by some other ‘religion’ because the original non false solutions to the expansion of human numbers were inaccessible by too much of the population.
    In other words, the upper intellectual classes can produce non-false non-bad philosophies that fulfill the demands of any religion in producing mindfulness. But they are not available to far too much of the population that is less cognitively evolved (or carrying too much genetic load).
    This is … depressing.
    What we can learn however, is that it just means we must spend more on indoctrination than we have so far. Religions are cheap indoctrination. Education is expensive indoctrination. But it may require expensive indoctrination to leave behind our vulnerability the hazards of easily accessible religions as a means of achieving mindfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 18:22:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937577123918872730

  • I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But hte

    I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But hte function of judges in resolving conflicts is one of independence of subjectivity.

    The reason you think as you do is because you have been indoctrinated into a given moral system that relies on justification and makes few demands of people and presumes a relatively simplistic agrarian condition of life.

    The fish is unaware of the water.

    I mean, you are only concerned with self and others who agree with you. But the function of judges in resolving conflicts is one of independence of subjectivity.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 17:18:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937561059721904208

  • Comparing Doolittle’s Natural Law Reasoning to Mainstream Constitutional Reasoni

    Comparing Doolittle’s Natural Law Reasoning to Mainstream Constitutional Reasoning

    This comparison must be properly framed to avoid mischaracterizing Natural Law as a hypothetical or reactionary moral alternative. In reality, Curt Doolittle’s Natural Law project is an effort to convert the empirical (observed, intuitive, or correlative) into the scientific and operational (measurable, decidable, and causal). It emerges from a body of knowledge accumulated across genetics, evolutionary computation, behavioral economics, institutional analysis, and cognitive science—most of which was either ignored, suppressed, or corrupted under Enlightenment universalism, Marxist class warfare, postmodern relativism, and “woke” moral inversion.
    What Doolittle presents is not speculative but computationally necessary. The 20th and early 21st centuries have demonstrated the near-fatal consequences of replacing the European-Christian reciprocal ethos—which co-evolved to sustain high-trust, high-investment, rule-of-law civilization—with institutionalized parasitism. This parasitism emerged through the feminine instinct toward caregiving moralism, weaponized into Abrahamic submission, Marxist underclass revolt, postmodern obscurantism, and finally woke deconstruction.
    Each domain below—free speech, domestic military action, and immigration—must therefore be understood not in terms of legal pluralism, but in terms of decidability, liability, and reciprocity accounting. Doolittle’s Natural Law formalizes these dimensions of constraint not as ideals, but as operational necessities. Where the Constitution operates with textual ambiguity and moral universalism, Natural Law supplies first-principles constraints to prohibit the institutionalization of hazard, whether informational, demographic, or coercive.
    The mainstream court sees law as a negotiation between rights and state interests. The Natural Law program sees law as a system of measurements designed to suppress parasitism across all dimensions of human cooperation.
    Curt Doolittle’s “Natural Law” program – often associated with Propertarianism – proposes a legal philosophy grounded in operationalism, performative truth, group evolutionary strategy, and decidability. This approach contrasts sharply with mainstream American constitutional reasoning as practiced in courts today. Mainstream jurisprudence often relies on textual and historical interpretation (e.g. originalism) or on evolved judicial doctrines, and it typically rests on universalist moral assumptions about individual rights. Doolittle’s Natural Law, by contrast, demands that all legal principles be stated in operational (actionable) terms and judged by their truthfulness and reciprocity, with an eye to what benefits a particular group or “polity” in evolutionary terms (favoring the survival and flourishing of that group).
    Natural Law, unlike the Constitution, is not a theory of rights derived from Enlightenment abstraction but a response to empirical hazard. Where constitutional law permits informational, coercive, and demographic asymmetries under the guise of neutrality or procedural fairness, Natural Law asks whether those asymmetries are computationally tolerable or structurally parasitic.
    Below, we compare these approaches across three domains – free speech, domestic use of the military, and immigration – using one historical case, one contemporary case, and one hypothetical scenario. For each, we outline the mainstream constitutional reasoning (including interpretive methods and moral assumptions) and then the reasoning Doolittle would apply under his Natural Law framework. We then analyze the likely implications and outcomes under both approaches, citing case law and Doolittle’s own writings where relevant.
    Natural Law Frame Correction:
    Mainstream jurisprudence frames the issue of free speech around tolerance, but tolerance without accountability invites asymmetry. Doolittle’s Natural Law identifies falsehood and seductive incitement not as protected expressions but as institutionalized baiting into hazard. When speech carries externalities (e.g., undermines war mobilization, misleads the polity, or promotes parasitic ideologies), it ceases to be reciprocity-preserving. Under Natural Law, the failure of the U.S. legal system is its failure to distinguish between informational exchange and informational aggression.
    Speech that weaponizes high-verbal falsehoods to deceive low-agency actors—whether in the form of Marxist utopianism, religious submissionism, or identity-based sedition—is subject to suppression as fraud. Natural Law defines the informational commons as a trust domain, where speech must be warranted, reciprocally testable, and liable.
    Natural Law Frame Correction:
    Mainstream legal institutions tolerate the temporary abrogation of rights under emergency justifications, often granting discretion to the executive. Natural Law rejects executive discretion absent operational proof of reciprocity violation. Martial force is justifiable only in direct defense of demonstrated interests and public reciprocity, never in protection of regime self-preservation or ideological enforcement.
    Under Natural Law, the use of military power against civilians is judged by a singular criterion: was force used in reciprocal defense of life, property, or commons against demonstrable aggression? If not, then the regime is in breach of contract and has forfeited legitimacy. Doolittle’s work explicitly restores the sovereignty of the people by making every man a sheriff and warrior against parasitism, including state-based parasitism.
    Natural Law Frame Correction:
    The mainstream court avoids the core question: what is immigration but the importing of demonstrated interests into a commons that others have produced and preserved? Under Natural Law, immigration is a liability transaction that must be subject to demonstrated reciprocity and decidability.
    The failure of the constitutional regime is its unwillingness to acknowledge group differences and its refusal to prohibit demographic hazard. Doolittle identifies open immigration from incompatible or low-trust populations as a form of intergenerational baiting into hazard. Where the Constitution permits political discretion, Natural Law demands biological, cultural, and economic commensurability.
    This is not ethno-nationalism by preference, but reciprocity by necessity. It is a scientific rule: no polity can survive parasitism by incompatible agents with irreconcilable demonstrated interests.
    Across free speech, domestic military power, and immigration, we see a fundamental divergence between mainstream constitutionalism and Doolittle’s Natural Law. Mainstream reasoning, whether employing originalist fidelity or pragmatic balancing, operates within a framework of universal individual rights moderated by state interests – it often seeks compromise and incremental development via precedent. Its moral stance as practiced is implicitly universalist: even when protecting collective security, it frames restrictions in neutral principles (e.g. time-place-manner rules for speech, due process for all, nondiscrimination ideals). Curt Doolittle’s Natural Law flips many of those presumptions: it starts from group survival and moral reciprocity as axioms, and is willing to curtail individual liberties or outsider interests in service of what he considers objective, scientific truth and the long-term good of the in-group.
    Jurisprudentially, mainstream courts ask “What did the Framers intend? What have past cases held? Is this law procedurally and facially valid?” – whereas Doolittle asks “Does this norm or decision produce truthful, reciprocal outcomes? Is it decidable and operational in reality?”. The outcomes under mainstream vs. Natural Law can occasionally coincide (e.g. both would condemn a blatantly false claim that causes direct harm, or both would allow force to stop a violent uprising, or both might permit excluding hostile foreigners), but the justifications differ and thus lead to different limits.
    Mainstream reasoning provides procedural safeguards and pluralistic tolerance, but can be slow to act against emerging collective harms (false propaganda, internal subversion, etc.) because of its very tolerance. Natural Law promises decisive action and moral coherence (no protection for liars, traitors, or out-groups who threaten the in-group), but at the risk of authoritarian enforcement and the loss of individual freedom and equality as foundational values.
    The difference is not one of moral taste—but of epistemic method. Doolittle’s program operationalizes moral constraint based on scientific evidence of human and group differences, the consequences of asymmetry, and the necessity of prohibiting hazard in all cooperative domains. What mainstream law treats as contestable or pluralistic, Natural Law treats as measurable and decidable.
    In this light, the Natural Law framework is not merely a legal theory—it is a cognitive upgrade to law itself: converting it from negotiated scripture to computable constraint. It is not a rejection of constitutionalism, but its completion.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-21 00:25:29 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1936218881233977518

  • GET HER OFF THE BENCH! You’re either committed to the Rule of Law by the Natural

    GET HER OFF THE BENCH!
    You’re either committed to the Rule of Law by the Natural, Common, Concurrent Law of the Constitution we inherited – or you are not.
    There is no room for personal political ideology or preference in the adjudication of the law. That is, if anything, a choice of the Legislature we have elected to express those CONCURRENT preferences the people request – not the judge’s. The judge’s discretion is limited to punishment necessary to prevent repetition or imitation.
    In this case her discretion did neither – she achieved the opposite.
    And murder occurred.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-16 16:25:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934648585427329025

  • It might be a due to growing up during the nuclear threats of the cold war, but

    It might be a due to growing up during the nuclear threats of the cold war, but every time a country has a chance of achieving freedom, democracy, and rule of law it fills me with spiritual joy.
    I’m old enough to remember the Shah’s iran and the sadness of it’s conquest by the islamists.
    And I have had too many persian expats lament the loss of their country.
    So, war aside, conditions aside, the promise that Persian people may rise from near ashes is inspiring.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-15 22:25:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934376721505276008

  • Rule “of” Law? Or Rule “by” Law. Unfortunately, americans have been intentionall

    Rule “of” Law? Or Rule “by” Law. Unfortunately, americans have been intentionally educated to ignore that difference.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-15 22:09:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934372700899983598

  • Please restore the Iranian people by restoring #KingRezaPahlavi to the throne. A

    Please restore the Iranian people by restoring #KingRezaPahlavi to the throne. A monarchy, a republic, a constitution, rule of law, will best serve our distant cousins in Iran.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-15 20:42:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934350793131606072

  • To: Scott Adams( @ScottAdamsSays ) Regarding: “No Kings” 😉 Concept: (First prin

    To: Scott Adams(
    @ScottAdamsSays
    )
    Regarding: “No Kings” 😉
    Concept: (First principles of government)

    Oddly enough:
    – Assuming the persistence of the English Constitution, as the invention of the modern rule-of-law state.

    – The Monarchy has no positiva rights, only negativa (veto), and more importantly, the Monarchy is “above the law in the restoration of the law” – essentially it is the highest court in the land.

    – And the importance of the English constitutional monarchy, (a) the intergenerational interests of monarchies (“Owners”) are superior to the temporal interests of all factions and parties (“Renters”), and as such (b) is the only defense against the tragedy of the commons that universally destroys all rule of law and all participatory governments. (See Hoppe in Democracy, the God that Failed)

    – And the failure of the English constitutional monarchy, is that unlike the US, where the people are sovereign, and the people determine the constitution, and the people’s determination of the constitution is limited to natural law (sovereignty in exchange for duty of reciprocity, truth before face, excellence, and beauty – the UK Parliament is sovereign, not the people, nor the monarchy, nor the constitution. — And until that is ‘fixed’ by a written constitution the monarchy cannot protect the people from the legislature.

    – And in the USA the absence of a Monarchy (Despite Trump’s efforts to mirror one in the restoration of the law), cannot be protected from the courts, the legislature, the bureaucracy, the special interests, and the frauds and deceits of “The talking classes”.

    – In a Republic, under a Constitution, under rule of law of the natural law, under the sovereignty of the people, under the empirical common law of discovered resolution of disputes, and under empirical concurrent legislation creating a market between regions, classes (and now sexes), a Monarchy as a judge of last resort, “is a good thing” because it is a necessary means of compensating for the deterministic failure of the processes of consolidating popular choice that produces deleterious outcomes that cyclically worsen over time. (See Robert Michels addressing the Iron Law of Oligarchy in The Machiavellians by Burnham)

    A scholar of these matters (and there are many apologists, commentaries, and critics but few scholars) will come to the conclusion that we might add to rule of law with monarchy, add to justice with courts, add to governing with legislatures, and add houses of legislature as classes demonstrate agency and ability to bear responsibility – thereby creating a market for the production of commons.

    But almost any fool will discover that one cannot substitute any of the latter for the former. Only continuously divide the labor of governance across larger numbers of people, producing a market for the production of commons regulated by a hierarchy of courts – the last of which is the monarchy as judge of last resort – prior to civil war.

    The problem: small homogenous polities can preserve rule of law and participatory government because of marginal indifference in competitive wants. However, a heterogenous polity does nothing but generate demand for authority to impose costs on one group or another for the benefit of one group or another. As such heterogenous polities serve no purpose but to getherate authoritarianism to compensate for the impossibility of participation.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    NLI

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-15 19:36:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934334176905638271