Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • ORIGINATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON LAW —“Hey Curt, there’s a question I

    ORIGINATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON LAW

    —“Hey Curt, there’s a question I have been wrestling with for a while regarding your work. It’s about discretion versus judge discovery law. In common law I have understood the idea to be, that judges look at previous cases of decisions in similar incidents of parasitism and make informed judgements based on that history. But how are not the original, “inaugural” decisions with no historical precedence not entirely reliant on that said judge’s discretion? … Thanks in advance!”—Alex, your friend.

    A number of dependencies require clarification to answer this question:

    0 – There is only one law in tort: reciprocity.

    1 – The test of property is investment.

    2 – The court is reluctant to transfer title (possession) and make itself a participant in a crime – which would harm the law, the people, and the profession.

    3 – Because of evolution of our civilization, earlier cases are always more ‘rudimentary’, with law ‘cumulative’ (increasing in complexity with the complexity of the division of knowledge and labor)

    4 – Judges are ‘informed’ by prior decisions so that they don’t have to do all the work all over again of being smarter than all other judges in all other matters (they consult the market for judgements).

    5 – Because of the competition between judges over time in a multitude of similar cases, the market for decisions tends to resolve on constant judgements. (more than tends, actually) just as markets for goods resolve on prices, just as markets for scientific knowledge resolve on theories.

    6 – Original criteria (sovereignty, reciprocity, property etc) developed over time, such that what we understand today (investment, reciprocity, voluntary transfer etc) is the result of the empirically cumulative record of judgements over time rather than design. (See the three books on the law in my reading list which discuss the ‘messy’ evolution of the common law.)

    … – Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.

    … – Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.

    … – Hayek’s: The Constitution of Liberty.

    7 – The common law evolved because of ancient western indo european (european) sovereignty, truth, duty, and militia (everyone fights) is the principle difference between civilizations, and because the west consists of kinship and shareholder militias federating into armies.

    HOWEVER

    8 – The state began interfering (disintermediating) in the common law in the late middle ages in order to enforce the king’s policy when unifying territory. this is the primary reason for law codes: consolidation of different groups and territories by producing standard weights and measures of justice (conflict resolution).

    9 – Under both Roman Law, Divine Right, and Democracy, legislatures have sought to corrupt common law (tort) into a single ‘non logical’ law. Rather than that tort always remains, and all legislation and regulation must maintain the law of torh (reciprocity).

    10 – this was exacerbated by the juridical relativists (american) in the 1800’s particularly in response to the suppression of the south after the civil war, and in the 1900’s by the jewish and ne protestant attempt to undermine the constitution in order to bring about socialism.

    11 – Worse, the american constitution would require:

    (a) An explicit declaration of reciprocity as the basis of all law.

    (b) The inviolability of tort and therefore reciprocity.

    (c) The binding of the legislature to tor (contract production not law production.)

    (d) The requirement that such law be strictly constructed (justified as adherent to tort, and reciprocity)

    (e) That any legislation (contract of the commons) pass the court as lawful (in other words, all legislation is immediately subject to suit)

    (f) That the court require legislators revise legislation found faulty, rather than ‘creating’ new legislation from the bench (not law). (Legislation must be returned to the legislature who has only so many days before

    (g) That the monarchy (or ‘president’ or ‘nobility’ or ‘people’ or whatever) possess rights of veto over any and all legislation.

    So, I think I have pretty thoroughly answered the question of the origination and method and means of correction.

    I hope this helps.

    Curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 11:27:00 UTC

  • “And an idiot is the most dangerous thing to any organization.”—Austyn Pember

    —“And an idiot is the most dangerous thing to any organization.”—Austyn Pember

    (from Siege)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 10:08:00 UTC

  • POLICY SHIFT. NEW WAVES OF NEWBS. —“Curt: In future, … Don’t respond to low

    POLICY SHIFT. NEW WAVES OF NEWBS.

    —“Curt: In future,

    … Don’t respond to low tier criticisms.

    … No more punching down.

    … Interviews with nobody’s are a waste of time.

    … No more responding to drama.

    … Build the courses.”– The Management.

    RULES OF DISCOURSE

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982354217264

    === 1 ===

    THE OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156979886192264

    VISIONS OF THE FUTURE

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156981696357264

    THOUGHTS ON OTHERS

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156980993577264

    OUR PACKS MUST WORK TOGETHER TOWARD SHARED ENDS

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156979918492264

    THE LANGUAGES OF MALE PACKS

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975183877264

    FEARFUL CONSERVATIVES – UNDERSTAND YOURSELVES

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156976790412264

    INTOLERANCE – WE DON”T NEED YOU IF YOU’RE COSTLY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156982357437264

    CURT, WHY ARE YOU A POMPOUS ASS?

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156980081617264

    === 2 ===

    WHY OPEN DISCOURSE IN PUBLIC?

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975600062264

    WHY NO SECRECY?

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975600062264

    WHY TALK OF REVOLT, REVOLUTION, CIVIL WAR?

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975175932264

    HOW REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975439387264

    THE BIGGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD? US.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156979221467264

    THE HIERARCHY OF WARFARE

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975427007264

    === 3 ===

    LEGIT CRITICISM OF PROP

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156975105752264

    ANOTHER LEGIT CRITICISM OF PROP

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156971446347264

    MOST LEGIT CRITICISMS OF PROP

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156811437002264

    ANY GOOD ARGUMENTS FOR SUPREMACY?

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155415610782264

    === 4 ===

    AD HOM’S WHY IS CURT OUT OF COUNTRY?

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156977781302264

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 22:20:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51720081_10156982732532264_304762189

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51720081_10156982732532264_304762189

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/51720081_10156982732532264_3047621897463267328_n_10156982732522264.jpg Matt EvansOne thing that irritates me about jury trials in the USA is that allegedly I am deserving of a jury of “my peers”, but, in practice people try to stack juries with people too dumb to get out of jury duty.

    Today in the US, if I am put on trial, I will never find a jury box full of my “peers”. The best I could hope for would be people from my community, but my understanding is that jurors are not allowed to have a personal relatinoship with me, or indeed, even to have experienced the same kind of situation I’d be on trial for.

    How are such people peers? How can someone of a vastly different intelligence level [higher or lower], and who has never been in a similar situation to the one that the person charged with a crime found themselves in when committing a crime, truly be an informed juror and a peer?

    What kind or jury reform does P suggest?

    If “markets in everything” is a good idea, why not juries? Why not have a jury made up of 6 people who know the defendant, 6 people who know the victim, and 1 person who doesn’t know either, and a judicial outcome of a transactional, negotiated nature. Shouldn’t the verdict by the jury try to balance the need to protect victims, the need to protect community trust, and the need to protect the accused, the need to restore the specific victim, the need to have mercy [or not] on the specific accused, and result in a balanced outcome?

    P mostly talks about having more judges and them being more important. What about juries?Feb 13, 2019, 1:20 AMCurt Doolittlethe truth is juries have an INCREDIBLE record that should be the envy of every science.Feb 13, 2019, 10:28 AMCurt DoolittleThe only material problem with juries is that people don’t get paid – and they should. We aren’t farmers any longer with planting and harvest and lots of fungible time in between.Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AMCurt DoolittleOne of the reasons they don’t pay is that they want to maintain a middle class jury pool. and it works pretty well.Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AMCurt Doolittletoo many government employees tho.Feb 13, 2019, 10:29 AMDrew JoinerProfessional juries, professional judges.Feb 13, 2019, 2:34 PMJoshua SkeensIs it true that those who refuse to convict don’t get called to serve again?Feb 13, 2019, 3:45 PMStephen ThomasCurt Doolittle If you had to “put a number on it”. How close in percentage do you think the Founders “got it”?

    10%, 20%, etc?Feb 15, 2019, 4:46 PMCurt Doolittleno system of measurment. It’s easy in retrospect to see how and why they made it as far as they did. But I don’t think it was possible to ‘think’ in the manner we use today at that time.Feb 15, 2019, 6:07 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 20:43:00 UTC

  • One of the things that occurs when you run a consulting firm (which again, is si

    One of the things that occurs when you run a consulting firm (which again, is simply an intelligence agency, that hires out contract labor) is that you get access to vast bodies of data in every field – because you can’t help not doing so. When you work with large data sets you learn quite a bit about different groups and such. Now, FB and Google have a near monopoly on this information (which I think we should take legal action to end). That said, every company of any scale has this stuff and if you are a db guy (me) you end up going through this data as part of the job. And fortune 400 companies have a lot of this data.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 18:08:00 UTC

  • THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associa

    THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY

    When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associates.

    When associates fail he appeals to superiors

    When superiors fail he appeals to professionals

    When professionals fail the appeals to thought leaders.

    When instincts fail we appeal to familial ethics.

    When familial ethics fail we appeal to virtue ethics.

    When virtue ethics fail we appeal to rule ethics

    When rule ethics fail we appeal to outcome ethics.

    When intuition fails one must appeal to logic.

    When logic fails, one must appeal to empiricism.

    When empiricism fails one must appeal to operationalism.

    When operationalism fails one must appeal to limits scope and parsimony.

    When religion fails, one appeals to reason

    When reason fails one appeals to philosophy

    When philosophy fails, on appeals to science

    When science fails, one appeals to testimony.

    And the opposite is true.

    Why?

    We only have so much knowledge, and so much time, to satisfy the market for decidability in time for taking action.

    – Curt Doolittle

    – The Propertarian Institute.

    —-

    PS

    by Bill Joslin

    Incremental Disambiguation in one direction (from low to high investment)- Graceful failure in the other (from high to low cost) which explains why the later presents stronger incentives than the former.z

    —-

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 13:11:00 UTC

  • It is the most effective recruiting tool we have found. The people with whom we

    It is the most effective recruiting tool we have found. The people with whom we argue are immaterial. It’s the people that ‘sense something right’ in our arguments that we seek to attract by taking advantage of the attention (advertising) you create by your attempted criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 18:50:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094670071207727104

    Reply addressees: @realjoshneal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094653262387728386

    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/1094653262387728386

  • well you konw, running a country isn’t like a baskeball team or video game. it’s

    well you konw, running a country isn’t like a baskeball team or video game. it’s a complicated thing, and it is done by law, legislation, regulation and command.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-08 03:17:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093710293639794689

    Reply addressees: @WarriorEternal8 @TheOldOrder1 @PaddockSperg @laceyxcensored @SarinSquad @FashyxLacey @Jameswoods271

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093708477413945345

    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/1093708477413945345

  • LETS UNDERSTAND: JOHN MARK IS SUCCESSFUL He’s meteorically successful. And that’

    LETS UNDERSTAND: JOHN MARK IS SUCCESSFUL

    He’s meteorically successful. And that’s good and bad. I would like to have meteoric success after the institute had graduated a few courses, and the book was published, so that it was much harder to ‘make shit up’ rather than defend the work.

    So, this meteoric rise increases our reach at the expense of the burden of those on the right who have failed for years. Our success illustrates their failure.

    These members of the failed-right are envious of John’s success and are using his success as a coattail to ride on. By attacking our work (and me) they can generate interest from the tinfoil hat and zig-heil crowds. And so it’s expected.

    Now, my strategy with the libertine-libertarians, was to understand, and then destroy the movement as best I could – which at this point is pretty much the ‘lol-bertarians’.

    The failed-right needs the same treatment as the failed-libertarians. The winning right is not destined for the limited demographic of keyboard meme-warriors seeking ideology, nor those seeking paternal authority to save them, nor those seeking religion to save them. Those without agency cannot be saved – they can only stay out of the way.

    So my strategy is to pivot.

    Because the conservative mainstream is vast. And they care about policy, because they have agency, because they have skin in the game.

    And the failed-right is death sentence for anything touching it.

    The purpose of any movement is to obtain power. And to obtain power one needs something that can sell. And not to the fringe, but to the mainstream. Once one has power, then the future consists of a field of choices.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-07 21:16:00 UTC

  • What I Do Here: An Experimental Classroom (King of the Hill, and No Hate)

    (regular repost) ===AN EXPERIMENTAL CLASSROOM=== [F]or new friends and followers, please understand what I do here and on FB. It is my sketch pad. I work in public like a village blacksmith where you can peer into the forge and see the experimental work being done – good and bad. Propertarianism is a very special thing and you can learn a lot about the world by following me. But it does require that you keep in mind that I am constantly using the community as an experimental pool to test ideas and seek criticism. I am slaying a few hundred years of sacred western ideas, and doing so mercilessly. This often requires that I experiment in everything from very rigorous philosophy, to the most general of aphorisms and narratives. Some of which are guaranteed to offend you. (And me sometimes, too.) But my goal is to capture what made the west competitively successful in our history in formal logical and scientific terms – for the first time, to capture it as an analytic political philosophy, recommend formal institutions, espouse it as an ideology, and provide moral authority for revolution, the strategic and tactical means of conducting that revolution. I am not so much a populist as an engineer. Its not my job to be popular. It’s my job to discover the truth. === KING OF THE HILL GAME: TEACHING MEN === I have developed the “King of the Hill” strategy of discourse (teaching) because it is actually THE BEST method of teaching (masculine) men. I’ve been doing this since we used 300 baud dial up modems and 80 character monochrome screens. And I learned it early. Men can attack me and my ideas, without acting vulnerable, or submissive, or begging for attention, but by exercising their dominance. And they can fail and no one cares. This is actually the optimum method of reaching men: we create a dominance game of low risk. We learn from playing this dominance game. The secret is to reward dominance expression if it’s backed by insight, argument, or wit. And to stop on effeminate, abrahamic, and non-argument. I make serious arguments to teach. I make half arguments to encourage debate. And I push controversial ideas to encourage them to refute them. My role in this game is to play king of the hill, and say “come get me“. I provide symbolic rewards (sharing quotes), and meaningful rewards (investing time in those with potential), and lifetime rewards (skill development). That is why this game works. Not everyone can play this game. But if they can play this game, and get good at it they will master a very special skill. And it’s that collection of talent I’m interested in creating. The internet does change. Men don’t change. The number of stupid men with access to digital discourse simply increases. The internet of such men requires street fighting, and I try to create a locker room for street fighters. In that locker room we play king of the hill. WE PUT DOMINANCE PLAY TO CONSTRUCTIVE USE. If you want beta-and-chick-friendly theatre watch TED videos. It’s a cult of pseudoscience. I teach argument.. I teach men. (And the occasional woman with character, intellectual honesty, and brains.) You might not realize I know this is a game, and that we are playing a game until you meet me in person or talk to me in an interview – because I’m not very much like my online persona. This is educational entertainment and theatre. === I DON’T DO HATE === Um. I’m pro natural law; pro my people; pro humanity; and pro transcendence; Yes, I will dig on genetic differences, biological differences, genetic differences, cultural differences, class, gender, and racial differences. Yes I will make objective analysis of the those differences. I will work to destroy the cherished lies of every race, civilization, culture, nation, tribe, and class. And I will crush those lies with some sense of both desperation, conviction and joy. But I don’t do racism. I hate on parasitism predation, and fictionalism to justify it. But I don’t hate on people. I fault my people for not using their superiority to defend against the group evolutionary strategies of other groups. I fault my people for failing to rule and rule well. I fault my people for intellectual folly and dishonesty. I advocate nationalism, tribalism, sovereignty and natural law of reciprocity and markets in everything for all human beings. And as many nations as it takes to transcend all humans through the gradual improvement of all and the gradual reduction of the underclasses that prohibit our transcendence. I don’t like hating on people. It’s not Christian and therefore not European. And not even Aryan. The beauty of christianity is that it seeks to extirpate all hatred from the human heart. And once extirpated we are free to use reason, with clear minds and clear judgement. I have no problem with war, murder, violence and destruction. i have no problem with rule, punishment, and if necessary incarceration or enslavement. I have a problem with hatred. A problem with deception. And a problem with any order other than the laws of nature, the natural law of reciprocity, and the transcendence of man.