Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • YOU HAVE MANY CHOICES. WE HAVE ONE. SO LEAVE If you want socialism, and open boa

    YOU HAVE MANY CHOICES. WE HAVE ONE. SO LEAVE

    If you want socialism, and open boarders, then leave – open borders work both ways. And you have a whole world offering socialism that is willing to take you. Canada alone wants 100M people in this century and there are as many as 100M of you that want Canadian Socialism. But If you want western civilization, and in particular anglo american high trust institutions, and the proceeds from them, then there is only one country left to get them. And we are going to keep it that country and those institutions, no matter what the cost – including no matter what cost to you – including the greatest cost.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 12:14:00 UTC

  • Is there any democrat that isn’t trying to buy the election with bread and circu

    Is there any democrat that isn’t trying to buy the election with bread and circuses for the masses?

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 11:13:00 UTC

  • The greatest mistakes our country made were not letting the south secede, expand

    The greatest mistakes our country made were not letting the south secede, expanding the franchise to those unproductive and lacking responsibility, and the hart cellar act to open the gates to the underclasses – destroying the American experiment in a third way: middle class civ. These are followed closely by tolerating the postwar suppression of the american eugenics movement, and not brutally crushing the communist movement, marxist-postmodernist movements.

    We were tolerant in greek, roman, germanic, and british civilizations.

    Tolerance is a weakness not a virtue.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 11:12:00 UTC

  • READ HOPPE TO UNDERSTAND “WHY MONARCHY?” by Scott De Warren ‘Democracy: The God

    READ HOPPE TO UNDERSTAND “WHY MONARCHY?”

    by Scott De Warren

    ‘Democracy: The God that Failed’ by Hoppe is available online and to help expand people’s thinking on monarchies.

    Also, it will help to know that the founding fathers originally intended to stay under the monarchy and that George Washington’s officers regularly toasted the health of the King.

    Their fight was with the King’s ministers in their mind . Even after the decision to break was made many of the officers and leaders were open to monarchy in the United States.

    Our enemies have greatly exaggerated the extent to which radical anti-monarchical elements played in the founding of our Republic. The military leaders wanted to make Washington king, but he declined in the face of the radical fringe democratic elements.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 11:02:00 UTC

  • “IT”S HARD TO GET ON BOARD WITH MONARCHY” I wasn’t on board with it either. It’s

    “IT”S HARD TO GET ON BOARD WITH MONARCHY”

    I wasn’t on board with it either. It’s just eventually I couldn’t deny it any longer.

    Constitutional monarchy with power of veto, termination of ministers, dissolution of parliament. That’s all.

    Monarchy = Kinship government, and Intergenerational Incentives, and capitalization rather than tragedy of the commons, and compensates for fashion, political, and procedural failure.

    The enemy wanted to end our monarchy to replace it with an organized crime family.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 09:53:00 UTC

  • VOTING —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it w

    VOTING

    —“Universal suffrage was a mistake…and practically everyone knew it would have a great cost, but did it anyway because it’s “right”…the cost was exactly what they predicted it would be: the quality of civilization itself.”—Mike Harvey

    From Alexander Hamilton:

    —“It is also, undeniably, certain, that no Englishman, who can be deemed a free agent in a political view, can be bound by laws, to which he has not consented, either in person, or by his representative. Or, in other words, every Englishman (exclusive of the mercantile and trading part of the nation) who possesses a freehold, to the value of forty shillings per annum, has a right to a share in the legislature, which he exercises, by giving his vote in the election of some person, he approves of, as his representative.

    “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them, under some undue influence, or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections, than is consistent with general liberty. If it were probable, that every man would give his vote, freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of Liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote, in electing those delegates, to whose charge is committed the disposal of his property, his liberty and life. But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order, to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

    Hence it appears, that such “of the people as have no vote in the choice of representatives, and therefore, are govern’d, by laws, to which they have not consented, either by themselves or by their representatives, are only those persons, who are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.” Every free agent, every free man, possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is, by the British constitution, intitled to a vote, in the election of those who are invested with the disposal of his life, his liberty and property.”—

    Source:

    Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, or A more impartial and comprehensive View of the Dispute between Great-Britain and the Colonies. . . . (New York, 1775), in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-1979), 1:81-165.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 09:50:00 UTC

  • She had name recognition, but she went too far on policy, is too shrill, and whe

    She had name recognition, but she went too far on policy, is too shrill, and when people got to know her they didnt like her, and they don’t think she can win Foolish really. She knows the issues thoroughly. She can campaign. but not for president.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-12 08:35:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227511538317217792

    Reply addressees: @BadgrGrl21

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227413261110403072

    IN REPLY TO:

    @BadgrGrl21

    I love Elizabeth Warren, and I just don’t get what is going on with her support right now in these early states. I mean, Klobuchar over her??? I mean, WHAT?? #NHprimary2020 #NewHamshire https://t.co/2oHxgODDFx

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227413261110403072

  • P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective) by John Mark In any

    P EMPHASIZES THE COURT (effective) NOT VOTING (ineffective)

    by John Mark

    In any nation there will be capable and incapable people, wealthy and poor, etc – all across the spectrum.

    There is a huge difference between giving less capable people (who often tend to vote for free stuff stolen from others) “via-negativa” power thru P-law (the power to STOP violations of reciprocity) and giving them “via-positiva” power thru voting (the power to INITIATE violations of reciprocity).

    The Propertarian system does NOT allow less capable (often parasite-minded) people the ability to INITIATE violations of reciprocity, and at the same time it DOES allow everyone to stop violations of reciprocity. So you can see it solves 2 problems at once: It TAKES AWAY via-positiva initiating power from a demographic that has a majority of parasite-instinct people, and GIVES via-negativa power to STOP violations of reciprocity, to everyone.

    And under P-Law the average person WILL have MUCH more power to counter the well-heeled than today.

    First, keep in mind that poor people even today often have no trouble getting legal representation when the lawyers believe their is strong chance of a big financial reward. P-Law would provide significant $ rewards – violators of reciprocity will have to pay damages, and the richer the violator, the greater the financial reward for taking them to court will be in many cases.

    Second, under P-Law there will be very few if any frivolous lawsuits because loser has to pay extra damages. This reduces/eliminates the ability of rich people to use their wealth to “play the lawsuit game” as a tool of control over the poor. Everyone regardless of wealth level will be much more careful about their actions and words in general (so as not to end up in court by violating reciprocity), and careful about going to court (poor people if they have a good case will have no trouble finding a good lawyer, rich people will not be able to use frivolous lawsuits to intimidate & wear out opposition).

    (Curt has thought this through very thoroughly. People just need to stick around long enough to find out that the multiple changes outlined in the propertarian system fix multiple problems as well as they can be fixed, keeping in mind that no fix will be 100% perfect.)

    —

    —“The importance of voting is evidence the American experiment failed. The greater the importance, the greater the evidence, the greater the failure.”— Luke Weinhagen

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 21:11:00 UTC

  • Trump does not have congress to help with domestic organization. He has power to

    Trump does not have congress to help with domestic organization. He has power to alter trade, military, and diplomatic strategy. And with that alone he is about a third of the way to rebuilding america.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 16:15:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227264954308399106

    Reply addressees: @AMCarbonaro @realDonaldTrump @SecPompeo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227233583695302656

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1227233583695302656

  • “WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A VOTE?” If you have juridical defense in matters private a

    “WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A VOTE?”

    If you have juridical defense in matters private and public, but haven’t served, aren’t financially independent and responsible for yourself, haven’t had a family that you are responsible for, don’t run a company whose employees and capital you are responsible for, or haven’t run an enterprise whose employees, capital, and patterns of trade you are responsible for, or run a state whose entire economy you are responsible for, then why do you have a vote in any of those matters without having demonstrated sufficient ability to successfully hold that responsibility?

    If you haven’t served then why do you have free speech, ownership of property?

    If you haven’t had replacement number of children, then why do you also have a vote in matters of commons?

    If you haven’t employed dozens, then why do you also have a vote in matters of the economy?

    If you haven’t employed tens of thousands, why do you have a vote in matters international?

    If you haven’t governed a state, then why do you have a vote in matters of the state?

    About 1/5-1/4 of the population is informed enough to make choices. The rest are either biased to a political party, or dependent upon filtering propaganda and opinions of friends and family. We are all capable of different levels of intellectual resolution whether by level of ability, level of interests, level of knowledge, or constitution of character.

    We do not have standing in matters public today – only private. The state deprived us of the user of courts in matters public – we had to invent class action to circumvent that deprivation.

    But If you have juridical defense, in matters BOTH private AND public – called ‘universal standing’ – then you have defense against harmed by others private and political.

    But aside from defense why should you have any opinion on anything over which you cannot demonstrate comprehension, success, and responsibility?

    All government action is limited to coercion, either by informing/lying, bribery/deprivation, or force/defense. It is only the rule of law of reciprocity, the judiciary, the monarchy, and the military as last resort, that protects us from abuse of those levers of coercion.

    Combine rule of law of reciprocity, with demonstrated investment and capacity for participation, with demand for truthful reciprocal speech, with houses of the classes, with a monarchy as a judge of last resort – and democracy can work.

    But universal unearned franchise, political parties, single house majoritarianism, and devolution from rule of law to rule by legislation (or even rule by discretion) has proven too vulnerable to baiting the ignorant and unaccountable into hazard with false promise of circumvention of nature’s necessity for markets in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 13:52:00 UTC