Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Questions on Voting Under Propertarian Constitution

    Jan 14, 2020, 12:19 PM by John Mark

    Curt, 3 questions/clarifications:QUESTION 1. Do I understand correctly that each state can choose who gets to vote (depending on what system they choose from the options presented) BUT only citizens can vote – and because the bar for citizenship is so high, most people will not be voting regardless of where they live?

    Answer: (a) CITIZENS: I’m pretty confident on the citizenship criteria – and that’s clearly a federal issue. So I think that’s settled. Yes, Visitors have limited insurance by the courts – they are not equals in court as is a problem in our ‘law’ today. Residents (you are born a resident not citizen) are insured by the government, and citizens (someone who has earned citizenship), and sovereign (someone who has earned the franchise) all seem to be fine. (b) VIA NEGATIVA VENUE: all people have the via-negativa vote via the court, to oppose anything that would harm them. So we have clearly provided a juridical defense to all. But the question is who we provide political OFFENSE(Power) to. Because trade (economic markets), personal and group defense (court), and political offense (political force), provide increasingly powerful levers with increasingly powerful requirements for positive incentives, knowledge, and ability. I think in most cases the people would seek court protection from bad policies, and that only good policies would survive. I don’t like providing a vehicle for bad people to produce bad policies. Remember that while you can produce whatever commons and norms you want you can’t lie or engage in irreciprocity or violate the natural law to do so. And so, I’m pretty confident that the courts will do better than the state as a means of ‘political’ defense. And I don’t see much value in voting other than to throw the bums out. But I’m also aware that democracy is a sort of idiotic cult or false religion. And so it’s not easy to say ‘you can’t vote’. (c ) VIA POSITIVA VENUE: And as for voting, we provide a set of options (they aren’t in there yet, but I might add them today after this post). Voting was a very tough subject to work through, because the tolerance for, and value of, inclusiveness increases as scale decreases. So, voting in say, your village, or town, or county, vs your city or state is very different. On the other hand what we see is people invading an area, then voting to CONSUME ALL POSSIBLE RESOURCES WITHIN IT and then leaving it exhausted by their hyper-consumption. So obviously we have to deal with the empirical reality of a parasitic majority especially since the addition of women. But how much does voting matter? Really? So we either

    • (a) limit voting to the original approval and disapproval of raising of funds
    • (b) limit voting dramatically to a senate, or
    • (c) we create houses for the classes of people by demonstrated merit, or
    • (d) we let people continue the insanity of universal majoritarian democracy and pay for it – with people voting by their feet – because the treasury and the military, in the end, limit what idiots can do.

    In summary:we provide a set of options – but I’m not sure it matters. The competition between court and government under the p-constitution will make it very hard to play silly games. And there is no escape from accountability (ie: california, new york, connecticut) by voting benefits then departing without taking the debts. Under P, there are no state, county, or local debts. They are all apportioned to individuals. And you take your debts with you if you migrate.

    QUESTION 2. There may be more than 50 states because of the (rather ingenious) system where localities can form polities if they can get enough people together? (State lines may end up being redrawn, not just as we separate from the leftist cities but as localities form their own polities?)

    Answer: I expect the number of states to increase and then decrease in pursuit of advantages of scale. I expect city-states to economically insulate themselves from nearby areas. I expect revitalization of each state’s cities. I expect restoration of public transport. Eliminate diversity and you eliminate public frictions, and begin to restore the commons.

    QUESTION 3. Will the blue independent city-states be their own states that form part of the system of governors of states, live under propertarian law, under the supreme court etc, or will they be treated more as independent nations? Will we allow them to “do whatever they want” as long as they don’t allow foreign military presence, or are we ruling them – placing them under P-law, not allowing immigration to those areas either, etc, and just letting them form their own gov’t under P-law and “our rules” but w/ preference for redistribution?

    Answer: Every territory must adhere to the natural law in order to defend states from each other. There is no moral reason to do otherwise. Every other option is simply an attempt at parasitism. so everyone is under the same NATURAL via negativa law for the same reason the founders chose that method – prevent conquest of the continent (island) by hostiles. But within it, whatever norms people want are possible there. This will rapidly split people by norms but prevent economic, political, demographic warfare. Edit

  • Questions on Voting Under Propertarian Constitution

    Jan 14, 2020, 12:19 PM by John Mark

    Curt, 3 questions/clarifications:QUESTION 1. Do I understand correctly that each state can choose who gets to vote (depending on what system they choose from the options presented) BUT only citizens can vote – and because the bar for citizenship is so high, most people will not be voting regardless of where they live?

    Answer: (a) CITIZENS: I’m pretty confident on the citizenship criteria – and that’s clearly a federal issue. So I think that’s settled. Yes, Visitors have limited insurance by the courts – they are not equals in court as is a problem in our ‘law’ today. Residents (you are born a resident not citizen) are insured by the government, and citizens (someone who has earned citizenship), and sovereign (someone who has earned the franchise) all seem to be fine. (b) VIA NEGATIVA VENUE: all people have the via-negativa vote via the court, to oppose anything that would harm them. So we have clearly provided a juridical defense to all. But the question is who we provide political OFFENSE(Power) to. Because trade (economic markets), personal and group defense (court), and political offense (political force), provide increasingly powerful levers with increasingly powerful requirements for positive incentives, knowledge, and ability. I think in most cases the people would seek court protection from bad policies, and that only good policies would survive. I don’t like providing a vehicle for bad people to produce bad policies. Remember that while you can produce whatever commons and norms you want you can’t lie or engage in irreciprocity or violate the natural law to do so. And so, I’m pretty confident that the courts will do better than the state as a means of ‘political’ defense. And I don’t see much value in voting other than to throw the bums out. But I’m also aware that democracy is a sort of idiotic cult or false religion. And so it’s not easy to say ‘you can’t vote’. (c ) VIA POSITIVA VENUE: And as for voting, we provide a set of options (they aren’t in there yet, but I might add them today after this post). Voting was a very tough subject to work through, because the tolerance for, and value of, inclusiveness increases as scale decreases. So, voting in say, your village, or town, or county, vs your city or state is very different. On the other hand what we see is people invading an area, then voting to CONSUME ALL POSSIBLE RESOURCES WITHIN IT and then leaving it exhausted by their hyper-consumption. So obviously we have to deal with the empirical reality of a parasitic majority especially since the addition of women. But how much does voting matter? Really? So we either

    • (a) limit voting to the original approval and disapproval of raising of funds
    • (b) limit voting dramatically to a senate, or
    • (c) we create houses for the classes of people by demonstrated merit, or
    • (d) we let people continue the insanity of universal majoritarian democracy and pay for it – with people voting by their feet – because the treasury and the military, in the end, limit what idiots can do.

    In summary:we provide a set of options – but I’m not sure it matters. The competition between court and government under the p-constitution will make it very hard to play silly games. And there is no escape from accountability (ie: california, new york, connecticut) by voting benefits then departing without taking the debts. Under P, there are no state, county, or local debts. They are all apportioned to individuals. And you take your debts with you if you migrate.

    QUESTION 2. There may be more than 50 states because of the (rather ingenious) system where localities can form polities if they can get enough people together? (State lines may end up being redrawn, not just as we separate from the leftist cities but as localities form their own polities?)

    Answer: I expect the number of states to increase and then decrease in pursuit of advantages of scale. I expect city-states to economically insulate themselves from nearby areas. I expect revitalization of each state’s cities. I expect restoration of public transport. Eliminate diversity and you eliminate public frictions, and begin to restore the commons.

    QUESTION 3. Will the blue independent city-states be their own states that form part of the system of governors of states, live under propertarian law, under the supreme court etc, or will they be treated more as independent nations? Will we allow them to “do whatever they want” as long as they don’t allow foreign military presence, or are we ruling them – placing them under P-law, not allowing immigration to those areas either, etc, and just letting them form their own gov’t under P-law and “our rules” but w/ preference for redistribution?

    Answer: Every territory must adhere to the natural law in order to defend states from each other. There is no moral reason to do otherwise. Every other option is simply an attempt at parasitism. so everyone is under the same NATURAL via negativa law for the same reason the founders chose that method – prevent conquest of the continent (island) by hostiles. But within it, whatever norms people want are possible there. This will rapidly split people by norms but prevent economic, political, demographic warfare. Edit

  • Are Consumers Sovereign?

    Jan 15, 2020, 3:06 PM No. Because with large corporations we need via-negativa in courts to be able to correct bad behavior. And the state (politicians) are too easily (and frequently) bought. Furthermore they are too economically illiterate to comprehend the choices, and left-economists too dominant as consultants. (Obama only asked left wing jewish economists: Krugman Stiglitz etc). P-Constitution restores the courts as a market for defense of the commons. P-economics restores the financial assets made possible by fiat currency to the state (people), while still permitting bankers, thereby splitting the consumer credit economy, the medium term economy, and the long term economy, to the consumer, business banks, and actors on behalf of the treasury, so that commissions are possible but profits more so, and vast sums can be put to work in the world. As such we WEAPONIZE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. This is important. P-constitution weaponizes the economy for american (western) interests as have the Chinese at the cost of the major banks (JPM, GS, Citi, HSBC etc). If the People insure the investment then the people obtain the rewards of their risk. For big thinkers this means that we can drive the investment chain further into the future with heavier capital investment using the state, the financial sector can industrialize the application of whatever opportunities those technologies and benefits that can arise. The consumer sector can (interest free) seize the gains. And the proceeds can be directed to commons, so that the work week can be reduced and the working mother population reduced to produce more offspring. (one of the investments needs to be artificial wombs it seems.)

  • Are Consumers Sovereign?

    Jan 15, 2020, 3:06 PM No. Because with large corporations we need via-negativa in courts to be able to correct bad behavior. And the state (politicians) are too easily (and frequently) bought. Furthermore they are too economically illiterate to comprehend the choices, and left-economists too dominant as consultants. (Obama only asked left wing jewish economists: Krugman Stiglitz etc). P-Constitution restores the courts as a market for defense of the commons. P-economics restores the financial assets made possible by fiat currency to the state (people), while still permitting bankers, thereby splitting the consumer credit economy, the medium term economy, and the long term economy, to the consumer, business banks, and actors on behalf of the treasury, so that commissions are possible but profits more so, and vast sums can be put to work in the world. As such we WEAPONIZE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. This is important. P-constitution weaponizes the economy for american (western) interests as have the Chinese at the cost of the major banks (JPM, GS, Citi, HSBC etc). If the People insure the investment then the people obtain the rewards of their risk. For big thinkers this means that we can drive the investment chain further into the future with heavier capital investment using the state, the financial sector can industrialize the application of whatever opportunities those technologies and benefits that can arise. The consumer sector can (interest free) seize the gains. And the proceeds can be directed to commons, so that the work week can be reduced and the working mother population reduced to produce more offspring. (one of the investments needs to be artificial wombs it seems.)

  • Jan 15, 2020, 5:01 PM —“Jack Sandusky What’s your take on what just happened a

    Jan 15, 2020, 5:01 PM

    —“Jack Sandusky What’s your take on what just happened at the Kremlin?”—

    Putin is (as we should also) removing a clause from the constitution that puts international law above the russian constitution. We have the same vulnerability in our constitution in that it is possible for a treaty to override our constitution. This is yet another hole in the constitution that the P-constitution repairs.

    (a) there is no violation of natural law no matter what. (b) there is no means of violating the constitution no matter what. (c) there is no law higher than the natural law, and no other law higher than the constitution than the natural law. (d) the constitution includes the law of the european peoples. So we have physical reality > the natural law > law of european peoples (our group strategy) and > constitution that implements that strategy in the natural law, using strict construction. Like I said, I think shit thru.

  • Jan 15, 2020, 5:01 PM —“Jack Sandusky What’s your take on what just happened a

    Jan 15, 2020, 5:01 PM

    —“Jack Sandusky What’s your take on what just happened at the Kremlin?”—

    Putin is (as we should also) removing a clause from the constitution that puts international law above the russian constitution. We have the same vulnerability in our constitution in that it is possible for a treaty to override our constitution. This is yet another hole in the constitution that the P-constitution repairs.

    (a) there is no violation of natural law no matter what. (b) there is no means of violating the constitution no matter what. (c) there is no law higher than the natural law, and no other law higher than the constitution than the natural law. (d) the constitution includes the law of the european peoples. So we have physical reality > the natural law > law of european peoples (our group strategy) and > constitution that implements that strategy in the natural law, using strict construction. Like I said, I think shit thru.

  • That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:01 AM

    —“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot

    You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements. Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population. Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man). You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.

  • That’s Not Rule of Law, and One Man Is Not a Movement

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:01 AM

    —“Trump is a cancer, but it’s totally operable cancer. Remove him under the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. Serve a purpose bigger than yourselves.”— Some Twitter Idiot

    You’re wrong of course: a useful idiot for purveyors of the Alinsky method of personalizing political movements. Trump is just a representative of half the population. Half the population that is getting very close to “cleansing” the country of the other half of the population. Rule of Law = Rule of non-discretion, and rule of non-discretion limits us to voluntary reciprocity. You’re lying by pretending majoritarian dictates are rule of law. They aren’t. Our ancestors spent thousands of years developing rule-of-law rather than rule-by-discretion (man). You and Yours didn’t seek exchanges under rule of law, under the american constitution as a document of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity – you sought majoritarianism. Rule by discretion (authority). Whether that authority by one, some, or majority is irrelevant.

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/three-questions-on-rule-of-law-and-governing/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:38:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265034578319806470

  • Three Questions on Rule of Law – and Governing

    Jan 17, 2020, 2:06 PM by Caleb Mimnaugh

    —” Rule of law rather than rule by man… man, even the aesthetics of those words are beautiful. 3 clarifications – if you have the time. 1. Do you think the authorising/legitimising process of rulers (e.g an election, the divine right of kings) is an unnecessary function or do you think it could be performed better? 2. If the former, how is it unnecessary? 3. If the latter, where can it be improved? 3a. I ask because I don’t see how majoritarianism is rule by discretion. “—-

    1. Via-Negativa: One needs a king, as a minimum of a judge of last resort. This is the only duty of king that cannot be performed by subordinates. Presidents have failed to bridge the gap between king and prime minister. It was a bad idea. Washington was wrong. There is no better solution than hereditary monarchy for reasons Hoppe’s done a better job of explaining than I have.

    2. Via-Negativa: The purpose of elections is not legitimacy but to de-legitimize a government that is failing to perform. So far we have no better solution than regular elections, and the parliamentary system is clearly better than the american system.

    3. The first improvement is to return to houses for the classes, even if they are not physical houses, but simply assigned voting. The second improvement is to end majoritarianism, and instead, to negotiate construct contracts between the houses, so it’s a market for the production of commons. The third improvement is to outlaw and severely punish even the advocacy of a violation of the natural law and the constitution of natural law. The fourth is to restore standing in court in matters of the commons.

    3a. Majoritarianism in the left’s understanding (a falsehood) is First, that there is no law the majority cannot override. Second, that there is nothing a majority cannot impose upon the minority. AS FAR AS I KNOW: The organs of the state are limited to: 1. Defense of all the people’s capital by military means (military) 2. Defense of the truth and reciprocity in display word and deed by judicial means (courts) 3. Production of catastrophic insurance by financial means. (Treasury). 4. Production of goods, services, information, and knowledge (research) by empirical, financial and economic means (State) 5. Production, and maintenance of those commons that decrease the costs of differences in time and physical space (infrastructure) by political means. (Government) 6. Production of the “sacred” monuments that produce intertemporal, intergeneration, aesthetics by monarchical means. (monarchy). This is the division of labor that our ancestors era lacked sufficient resolution due to sufficient economic experience, to foresee. There is however, little evidence, that there exists a superior form of government to a universal militia, a monarchy and cabinet, with a house of lords (franchise holders) and commons (business owners) approving limited to rejecting the raising of funds (rather than continuous taxes) requested by the cabinet, when they are regulated by rule of law, and standing in court in matters of the commons. Democracy is nothing more than a peaceful way of throwing the bums out, and that is the maximum utility we should ever expect of it. Cheers