Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • On Jury Nullification

    —“Could you please offer your thoughts on Jury Nullification, and how that might play out under P law?”—

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • On Jury Nullification

    —“Could you please offer your thoughts on Jury Nullification, and how that might play out under P law?”—

    Nullifications in England, USA and Canada have a long history, and are dependent upon the character of the jury, and the character of the jury largely a matter of being a responsible middle class citizen, ad a middle class citizen on responsibility for property.

    —“Jury nullification, jury equity, or a perverse verdict occurs when members of a criminal or civil trial jury believe that a defendant is guilty, but choose to acquit the defendant anyway because the jurors also believe that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor or plaintiff, or judge has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case, or that the potential punishment for breaking the law is too harsh.”—

    So let’s list them again: … 1 – The Law itself is unjust, … 2 – The prosecutor(Plaintiff, Judge) has misapplied the law, … 3 – The punishment is too harsh for the crime. Nullification is at present a consequence of two rules of procedure within the law rather than a because it is explicitly encoded in the law: … a) Jurors cannot be punished for reaching a “wrong” decision. … b) A defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried again for the same alleged crime in front of another jury. In practical terms to prevent jury nullification, … a) prosecutors choose not to prosecute, … b) jurors are given a set of options and multiple ‘counts’ (crimes), … c) jurors are given instruction by the judge. The most effective is (b) since this is usually the source of concern. The open issue is the corrupt juror or jurors which originally was a common problem. In the P-Constitution jury nullification is embedded in the law. However, … 1) The unjustness of a law is easy to explain, demonstrate, and difficult to construct, and it is possible to prosecute those who attempt unjust laws before they can be acted upon. … 2) Misapplication of the law is easy to explain, and demonstrate. … 3) Excessive Punishment is open to debate, and in general should be a misapplication of the degree of the crime. So this means it is fairly easy for a juror or jurors to either (a) explain and defend their position on nullification (b) judge, juror or jurors to claim the resistant juror is engaged in contempt. (c) And it should be extremely difficult to make a fraudulent claim of nullification, (d) and extremely difficult for an unjust law to survive. What remains is (e) that the juror or jurors disagree on the interpretation of the facts of the case. (Good examples in the literature are common). In addition, police, plaintiffs, prosecutors, the judge, and members of the court are not free from prosecution for misrepresentation including overcharging including overcharging for the purpose of coercing the accused. THE PROBLEM The problem is preserving the high trust society that makes the jury system possible. it’s almost impossible to create. it’s extremely easy to destroy. And that is the reason for P-law. To defend it.

  • Understanding Fascism in Context

    Nat’l Fascism was the expansion of Napoleon’s Pre-Industrial State and Military Total War, to post-industrial State, Military, Economic, Culture, and informational Total War against International Political, Economic, Cultural and informational extra-state total war of Jewish Communism. Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Communism promised a universal government of the underclasses. The French invented pre-communist european state socialism, Italians post-communist intolerant State socialism in Fascism. Via the French, we forced the Germans into ACTING on it. 

    Napoleon.................Fascism...................Communism
Civilizational...............National................International
... Total War............... Total War...............Total War
... ... Pre-industrial..... ...Post-Industrial.........Post Ind......
... ... State..................State...................Extra-State
... ... Military...............Military..............................
... ... .........................Economic..............Economic
... ... .........................Cultural..............Cultural
... ... .........................Informational.........Informational
... ... .........................Political.............Political
... ... ..................................................Revolutionary
... ... External Offense.......Internal Defense......Internal Revolt.

  • Understanding Fascism in Context

    Nat’l Fascism was the expansion of Napoleon’s Pre-Industrial State and Military Total War, to post-industrial State, Military, Economic, Culture, and informational Total War against International Political, Economic, Cultural and informational extra-state total war of Jewish Communism. Like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Communism promised a universal government of the underclasses. The French invented pre-communist european state socialism, Italians post-communist intolerant State socialism in Fascism. Via the French, we forced the Germans into ACTING on it. 

    Napoleon.................Fascism...................Communism
Civilizational...............National................International
... Total War............... Total War...............Total War
... ... Pre-industrial..... ...Post-Industrial.........Post Ind......
... ... State..................State...................Extra-State
... ... Military...............Military..............................
... ... .........................Economic..............Economic
... ... .........................Cultural..............Cultural
... ... .........................Informational.........Informational
... ... .........................Political.............Political
... ... ..................................................Revolutionary
... ... External Offense.......Internal Defense......Internal Revolt.

  • Grid Explaining Commons-ism

    GRID:

    ........................CHILD............................
.........ANARCHIST........VS..........COMMUNIST 
......(heterogeneous, no commons, just consumption)
(diasporic, tribal, imperial subjects, "the men will do it")
.....no capitalization............no capitalization
......individual.....................collective
.......inequality.....................equality
.
MALE......................VS.........................FEMALE
.
.......inequality.....................equality
.......familial...................collective familial
...max capitalization .............max consumption
..(landed, national, self rule, "we're the men who do it")
..........(homogenous, commons, over consumption )
.........COMMONSIST........VS..........SOCIALIST 
.........................PARENT............................

    Humans have very comprehensible differences in instincts, and evolved to express those very comprehensible instincts, and then to make up stories justifying them.’ “THE ECONOMICS OF NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM”

    1) Commons are a non consumable capitalization from which everyone benefits – a park where you can raise small children cuts the cost of yard ownership for example. Lacking a park where you can raise small children increases the cost of homes and yards, driving people out of high investment parenting. 2) Commons solve the problem of high investment parenting, without requiring high familial economic investment by every family. Families buy access to commons by high investment parenting, which creates incentive for the production of commons and their high returns. 3) We use high investment parenting in the production of high investment commons. We use high investment commons to facilitate high investment parenting. 4) This is what the middle working, and lower working classes sense is being stolen from them – the ability to use commons to produce high investment parenting. Best example is that they can’t afford to move away from malcontents by denying them access. 5) Low investment parenting immigrants and classes, decrease the incentive to produce commons that are then consumed for purposes of other than raising families. Low investment parenting immigrants and classes increase consumption that is upwardly redistributable to the financial sector, and decrease production of commons as redistribution to 6) Elites (advertising, media, financial, academic, political), will happily consume profits and income instead of investing in commons if lower working, working, and middle classes tolerate it. 7) The laboring, lower working, working, middle, and increasingly upper middle class, will only tolerate it until the low hanging fruit of consumption has been exhausted, and the demand for commons is restored. 8) Christianity is exceptional at producing respect for commons because behavior in the church environment (suppression of impulse) and the sacredness of the properties, extend to the commons. 9) In the absence of universal christian indoctrination we must us the law to suppress consumption (destruction) of the incentive to produce high trust, ‘sacred’ commons, suitable for the raising of children. And exporting ‘exploratory’ (teen, young adult) behavior (pre-maturity) to labor (markets) sport(competition) and external (wild) commons.
    WE ARE TRYING TO ARTICULATE “NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM” by Luke Weinhagen I have a suspicion that what many are grasping at within NatSoc is not a socialization of the economy but rather a commonization (not communization) of the government. This is what the west was aimed at solving but without full-accounting under P’s complete description of property, government became just another marketable commodity under globalist capitalism. What we are really trying to articulate is a form of National Commonsism. The resistance to “socializing” any part of our civic under our current model of “governance as commodity” is it effectively means selling whatever was socialized to big interest and international agents. There is no trust. National Commonsism == Kinship Capitalism == reciprocity protected by full-accounting — CD: Always count on luke for genius. Edit

    (Y’all gotta thank Luke Weinhagen for that framing. Been fussing with it myself and wasn’t until he put the frame around it that I could write the economics of it. But this concept has legs.) “Commons-ism”

  • Grid Explaining Commons-ism

    GRID:

    ........................CHILD............................
.........ANARCHIST........VS..........COMMUNIST 
......(heterogeneous, no commons, just consumption)
(diasporic, tribal, imperial subjects, "the men will do it")
.....no capitalization............no capitalization
......individual.....................collective
.......inequality.....................equality
.
MALE......................VS.........................FEMALE
.
.......inequality.....................equality
.......familial...................collective familial
...max capitalization .............max consumption
..(landed, national, self rule, "we're the men who do it")
..........(homogenous, commons, over consumption )
.........COMMONSIST........VS..........SOCIALIST 
.........................PARENT............................

    Humans have very comprehensible differences in instincts, and evolved to express those very comprehensible instincts, and then to make up stories justifying them.’ “THE ECONOMICS OF NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM”

    1) Commons are a non consumable capitalization from which everyone benefits – a park where you can raise small children cuts the cost of yard ownership for example. Lacking a park where you can raise small children increases the cost of homes and yards, driving people out of high investment parenting. 2) Commons solve the problem of high investment parenting, without requiring high familial economic investment by every family. Families buy access to commons by high investment parenting, which creates incentive for the production of commons and their high returns. 3) We use high investment parenting in the production of high investment commons. We use high investment commons to facilitate high investment parenting. 4) This is what the middle working, and lower working classes sense is being stolen from them – the ability to use commons to produce high investment parenting. Best example is that they can’t afford to move away from malcontents by denying them access. 5) Low investment parenting immigrants and classes, decrease the incentive to produce commons that are then consumed for purposes of other than raising families. Low investment parenting immigrants and classes increase consumption that is upwardly redistributable to the financial sector, and decrease production of commons as redistribution to 6) Elites (advertising, media, financial, academic, political), will happily consume profits and income instead of investing in commons if lower working, working, and middle classes tolerate it. 7) The laboring, lower working, working, middle, and increasingly upper middle class, will only tolerate it until the low hanging fruit of consumption has been exhausted, and the demand for commons is restored. 8) Christianity is exceptional at producing respect for commons because behavior in the church environment (suppression of impulse) and the sacredness of the properties, extend to the commons. 9) In the absence of universal christian indoctrination we must us the law to suppress consumption (destruction) of the incentive to produce high trust, ‘sacred’ commons, suitable for the raising of children. And exporting ‘exploratory’ (teen, young adult) behavior (pre-maturity) to labor (markets) sport(competition) and external (wild) commons.
    WE ARE TRYING TO ARTICULATE “NATIONAL COMMONS-ISM” by Luke Weinhagen I have a suspicion that what many are grasping at within NatSoc is not a socialization of the economy but rather a commonization (not communization) of the government. This is what the west was aimed at solving but without full-accounting under P’s complete description of property, government became just another marketable commodity under globalist capitalism. What we are really trying to articulate is a form of National Commonsism. The resistance to “socializing” any part of our civic under our current model of “governance as commodity” is it effectively means selling whatever was socialized to big interest and international agents. There is no trust. National Commonsism == Kinship Capitalism == reciprocity protected by full-accounting — CD: Always count on luke for genius. Edit

    (Y’all gotta thank Luke Weinhagen for that framing. Been fussing with it myself and wasn’t until he put the frame around it that I could write the economics of it. But this concept has legs.) “Commons-ism”

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms

    To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/to-produce-unity-we-have-to-talk-to-each-political-faction-on-their-terms/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:38:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259160801925042176

  • To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms

    Apr 29, 2020, 1:33 PM I want to be able to respect different people with different intuitions, beliefs, and understandings. P-law and Nationalism and markets for polities for everyone is in everyone’s interest. Monopoly political orders are impossible and contrary to the natural right of self determination. We are separating the african, muslim, christian, wn/natsoc, and mainstream ‘libertarian” discussions into individual groups because we lost most of the (silent) military people due to natsoc activity. We must reach people on their own terms and build unity for DIFFERENT political orders under P-law: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom. And mixing muslim, christian, wn/natsoc, world government, antifa-marxist groups versus constitutionalist, civnat, social democratic, and traditional democratic groups prohibit outreach to one another. Until enough people understand P in each faction, comprehension, cross conversation, and collective cooperation against our united enemy of the (((financial, media, entertainment, academy))) that seeks to destroy our civilizations cannot be achieved. Our mission is to reach everyone so that ‘separation’ is possible at the expense of the (((financial, media, entertainment, academy))) and state bureaucracy, and if separation is not possible then escalation to conflict is necessary. But stifling the conversation before people understand their options is counter-productive. And so the only valuable arguments or ideas are those that are in fact arguments so to speak. And all you do when you cross paradigmatic boundaries is cloud the conversation – when P-law is UNIFYING across ALL PEOPLE who wish to live their lives as they do without imposing costs upon the way of life of others by doing so. So understand your audience. The main feeds are mainstream (rule of law, monarchic, republican, democratic mixed economy,. Post Monopoly paradigms: Christian, Muslim, WN, NATSOC, Globalist, Antifa-Marxist content to those audiences and mainstream P-content to the mainstream audiences. Thanks. GROUPS Female Propertarians: Christian Propertarians: Muslim/Secular Muslim and Propertarians Continental African Propertarianism. Mainstream Propertarians (rule of law) Socialist and Left Propertarians WN/NATSOC and Propertarians