Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Why Anglos Think European Bureaucracy and Law Is Idiotic

    1. There is only one law and that is property. All else is an application of that law to circumstance.
    2. Every man is sovereign and equal before the law
    3. The members of the state are merely members of the polity who have taken jobs administering the polity.
    4. We ‘battle’ before the court, and jury, with arguments, and the jury (really) can nullify laws or decisions at will.
    5. Judges discover violations of the one law creating decisions that become applications of, and records of, that law.
    6. This law is PURELY EMPIRICAL (scientific) method of continuously discovering what not to do, without determining what we should do.
    7. This law adapts immediately without administrative intervention or process to changes in circumstance and technology.
    8. Under this system of law anything not illegal is legal, and moreover, law may not be applied retroactively: where there is no law there is no crime.
    9. Under this system of law, we have very little constraint on people but more conflict in courts as a result, so we trade maximum opportunity for cooperation for higher chances of conflict we must defend against if we err.
    10. MOST IMPORTANTLY: To govern we only need to prohibit crimes. The ‘market’ and the court does the rest of its own self regulation, purely empirically not theoretically.

    The real difference? Because we could trust anglo judges and the french couldn’t trust french judges. Now the answer to that question of why is fascinating. Judges are just professional lawyers in Common law, not political or state bureaucrats. (the best generals were soliders) The European Union And The Common Law By Dr. Gary K. Busch There are many reasons why the European Union has failed in its task to create a system of democracy, fairness and transparency in its internal dealings. These include political corruption, economic ineptitude and the elites adherence to the religion of federalism among states and citizens whose agnosticism to that faith is proven at every referendum. The political and economic vacuity of the European bureaucrats is a heavy burden for any organisation to bear. However, despite the manifold failings of the leadership of the EU, the root cause of its incapacity lies elsewhere. There is a fundamental problem which has beset the European Community since its inception the conflict between the common law and the Roman-Dutch civil law of the Continent. THE COMMON LAW In essence, the Common Law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages, and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire. It is a system of law which is founded on case law and precedents. This Common Law was developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. The fundamental principle is that of the continuity of the law and the root belief that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedents developed through prior adjudication binds future legal decisions on similar points of law.. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past presidential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as Stare Decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a “matter of first impression”), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. This system of Common Law is the source of law in England, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the former British colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. This Common Law distinguishes itself from Statutory or Regulatory Law promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature and is generally anterior to these statutory or regulatory laws. The Common Law arises from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, Most criminal law and procedural law; most of contract law and the law of torts; and court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies relies on judges taking evidence in an adversarial proceeding and delivering a judgement which establishes the strictures of the ensuing law. This body of common law, sometimes called “interstitial common law,” includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts. This Common Law system is very different that the civil law system which prevails in Europe. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered “law” with the same force of law as statute for nearly a millennium, common law courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions courts lack authority to act where there is no statute, and judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law. CIVIL LAW Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections which are referenced. Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal and local practices as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism. Civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law. Juries separate from the judges are not used, although in some cases, volunteer lay judges participate along with legally trained career judges. European civil law relies on the notion of codification. The concept of codification was developed as conforming to a political ideal which required the creation of certainty of law, through the recording of law and through its uniformity.[iii] The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow. Where codes exist, the primary source of law is the law code, which is a systematic collection of interrelated articles arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order, and that explain the principles of law, rights and entitlements, and how basic legal mechanisms work. Law codes are usually created by a legislature’s enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions[iv] There are many differences between the Common Law and civil law, much too abstruse for this analysis. For the purpose of analysing the conflict of laws within the European Union a simple concept will suffice. This was recited to me by the new head of the Legal Division of the European Economic Community in the early 1970s. I was researching and writing a television documentary for the Canadian Windows on the World� (CTV) called The New Europeans. The legal head was a British lawyer. He said to me, This European Community will never work. English law says that whatever is not illegal is permitted. In Europe, if something is not specifically permitted under some codified rule, than it is illegal. He went on to say that not only must everything be specifically permitted it has to be permitted uniformly throughout the Community. That is why there are so many directives, guidelines and rules set up by the EU which govern all aspects of economic and political life. All these rules must be the same throughout the EU. Most of the time taken up by the EU (except for the profitable business of allocating subsidies, allowances and quotas) is spent dealing with the minutiae of governance. This is why the EU is bogged down by pettifoggery and why the English cannot fathom what these bureaucrats are about. If it isn’t illegal than one should be free to do it. It certainly makes sense to Americans, Canadians, Australians and others. This conflict of laws is equally a challenge to multinational companies attempting to pursue their aims in the EU. Much of what is taken for granted as legal and permissible in other parts of the world is differently construed in Europe. This is repeated in Africa where ex-British colonies are often in conflict with ex-French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies. This issue is an important factor in the current debate on the imposition of a tax on financial transactions. It is a dilemma for those involved. Ultimately there is no solution to this dilemma. Perhaps a separation of the Common Law countries from the civil law bureaucracies is inevitable. To quote Marx, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. [i] Garner, Bryan A. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd, revised ed.). New York: OUP. [ii] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold. Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007, pg.28. [iii] Smits, Jan (ed.); Dotevall, Rolf (2006), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, “63: Sweden”, Edward Elgar Publishing, [iv] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold., op.cit.

  • Why Anglos Think European Bureaucracy and Law Is Idiotic

    1. There is only one law and that is property. All else is an application of that law to circumstance.
    2. Every man is sovereign and equal before the law
    3. The members of the state are merely members of the polity who have taken jobs administering the polity.
    4. We ‘battle’ before the court, and jury, with arguments, and the jury (really) can nullify laws or decisions at will.
    5. Judges discover violations of the one law creating decisions that become applications of, and records of, that law.
    6. This law is PURELY EMPIRICAL (scientific) method of continuously discovering what not to do, without determining what we should do.
    7. This law adapts immediately without administrative intervention or process to changes in circumstance and technology.
    8. Under this system of law anything not illegal is legal, and moreover, law may not be applied retroactively: where there is no law there is no crime.
    9. Under this system of law, we have very little constraint on people but more conflict in courts as a result, so we trade maximum opportunity for cooperation for higher chances of conflict we must defend against if we err.
    10. MOST IMPORTANTLY: To govern we only need to prohibit crimes. The ‘market’ and the court does the rest of its own self regulation, purely empirically not theoretically.

    The real difference? Because we could trust anglo judges and the french couldn’t trust french judges. Now the answer to that question of why is fascinating. Judges are just professional lawyers in Common law, not political or state bureaucrats. (the best generals were soliders) The European Union And The Common Law By Dr. Gary K. Busch There are many reasons why the European Union has failed in its task to create a system of democracy, fairness and transparency in its internal dealings. These include political corruption, economic ineptitude and the elites adherence to the religion of federalism among states and citizens whose agnosticism to that faith is proven at every referendum. The political and economic vacuity of the European bureaucrats is a heavy burden for any organisation to bear. However, despite the manifold failings of the leadership of the EU, the root cause of its incapacity lies elsewhere. There is a fundamental problem which has beset the European Community since its inception the conflict between the common law and the Roman-Dutch civil law of the Continent. THE COMMON LAW In essence, the Common Law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages, and in nations or regions that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire. It is a system of law which is founded on case law and precedents. This Common Law was developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. The fundamental principle is that of the continuity of the law and the root belief that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedents developed through prior adjudication binds future legal decisions on similar points of law.. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past presidential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as Stare Decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a “matter of first impression”), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. This system of Common Law is the source of law in England, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the former British colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. This Common Law distinguishes itself from Statutory or Regulatory Law promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature and is generally anterior to these statutory or regulatory laws. The Common Law arises from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, Most criminal law and procedural law; most of contract law and the law of torts; and court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies relies on judges taking evidence in an adversarial proceeding and delivering a judgement which establishes the strictures of the ensuing law. This body of common law, sometimes called “interstitial common law,” includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts. This Common Law system is very different that the civil law system which prevails in Europe. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered “law” with the same force of law as statute for nearly a millennium, common law courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions courts lack authority to act where there is no statute, and judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law. CIVIL LAW Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law and whose primary feature is that laws are codified into collections which are referenced. Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal and local practices as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism. Civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially trained judicial officers with a limited authority to interpret law. Juries separate from the judges are not used, although in some cases, volunteer lay judges participate along with legally trained career judges. European civil law relies on the notion of codification. The concept of codification was developed as conforming to a political ideal which required the creation of certainty of law, through the recording of law and through its uniformity.[iii] The principle of civil law is to provide all citizens with an accessible and written collection of the laws which apply to them and which judges must follow. Where codes exist, the primary source of law is the law code, which is a systematic collection of interrelated articles arranged by subject matter in some pre-specified order, and that explain the principles of law, rights and entitlements, and how basic legal mechanisms work. Law codes are usually created by a legislature’s enactment of a new statute that embodies all the old statutes relating to the subject and including changes necessitated by court decisions[iv] There are many differences between the Common Law and civil law, much too abstruse for this analysis. For the purpose of analysing the conflict of laws within the European Union a simple concept will suffice. This was recited to me by the new head of the Legal Division of the European Economic Community in the early 1970s. I was researching and writing a television documentary for the Canadian Windows on the World� (CTV) called The New Europeans. The legal head was a British lawyer. He said to me, This European Community will never work. English law says that whatever is not illegal is permitted. In Europe, if something is not specifically permitted under some codified rule, than it is illegal. He went on to say that not only must everything be specifically permitted it has to be permitted uniformly throughout the Community. That is why there are so many directives, guidelines and rules set up by the EU which govern all aspects of economic and political life. All these rules must be the same throughout the EU. Most of the time taken up by the EU (except for the profitable business of allocating subsidies, allowances and quotas) is spent dealing with the minutiae of governance. This is why the EU is bogged down by pettifoggery and why the English cannot fathom what these bureaucrats are about. If it isn’t illegal than one should be free to do it. It certainly makes sense to Americans, Canadians, Australians and others. This conflict of laws is equally a challenge to multinational companies attempting to pursue their aims in the EU. Much of what is taken for granted as legal and permissible in other parts of the world is differently construed in Europe. This is repeated in Africa where ex-British colonies are often in conflict with ex-French, Spanish and Portuguese colonies. This issue is an important factor in the current debate on the imposition of a tax on financial transactions. It is a dilemma for those involved. Ultimately there is no solution to this dilemma. Perhaps a separation of the Common Law countries from the civil law bureaucracies is inevitable. To quote Marx, it contains the seeds of its own destruction. [i] Garner, Bryan A. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd, revised ed.). New York: OUP. [ii] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold. Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007, pg.28. [iii] Smits, Jan (ed.); Dotevall, Rolf (2006), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, “63: Sweden”, Edward Elgar Publishing, [iv] Neubauer, David W.,and Stephen S. Meinhold., op.cit.

  • Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs

    Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs: https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/explaining-defining-propertarianism-for-newbs/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 00:54:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265446293771616256

  • Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs:

    Jan 2, 2020, 6:35 PM 1 – The completion of the scientific method and all that it entails – which is a lot and why P is such a big program: it touches everything and it converts almost all psychological, social, and political speech to economic expressions – which is counter-intuitive because it’s scientific where our current psychological social, moral, and political speech is only normative or in the case of psychology sociology and politics, both pseudoscientific and sophomoric. 2 – The explanation for western success in ancient and modern worlds (adaptive velocity because of our individual sovereignty and resulting traditional law of property/tort.) 3 – The explanation of the different systems of argument used in the different civilizations, and in particular the abrahamic means of deceit used in the ancient world (judaism, Christianity, islam) and in the modern world (marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism/political correctness). EXPLANATION Do you know what a formal logic is? It’s grammar of the logic of inference using sets and binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what programming is? It’s a grammar of operational logic using binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what law is? It’s a formal operational rational grammar of conflict resolution, using ternary falsehood, truth candidacy, and undecidability. Do you know what tort law is? it’s a formal rational operational grammar of conflict resolution over demonstrated interests that we enumerate as property, using ternary logic of falsehood, truth candidacy, undecidability. Propertarianism is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of Tort (demonstrated interests), and as a consequence a value neutral universal language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy), that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable constitutions, and their enumerated rights and responsibilities, the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy) by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech. As such it allows us to outlaw hostile religions, and pseudo-religions especially the pseudoscientific and sophomoric restatements of supernatural judaism , christianity, and islam, in pseudoscientific and sophomoric and ir-reciprocal marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism. Propertarianism is equivalent in scope to the revolutions of Aristotelian reason (Realism, Naturalism, Reason), the Empirical Revolution(Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism), in that it completes the scientific method by extending it from the physical to the psychological and social sciences, including that of law, politics, and group strategy. In other words, “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; producing a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; resulting in a logical and scientific constitution; permitting the criminalization of ir-reciprocal and un-testifiable speech, and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” When we explain the reason for western success we discover: “Heroism and Excellence; Truth and Duty; Oath and Warranty; Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Law and Jury; And Voluntary Markets in Every Aspect of Life: Association, Cooperation, Production, Reproduction, Commons, Polities and War; The direction of surpluses to the production of commons and the returns therefrom; at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses; and the Direction of Dominance Expression to the Production of Commons by a Distributed Dictatorship of Individually Sovereign People and the Reciprocal Warranty of Denial of Power To Any and All.” Propertarianism is (a) the completion of the Aristotelian program (b) the completion of the scientific method (c ) the logic and science of the social sciences, and (d) the Natural Law of Reciprocity under which all display word and deed is expressible and commensurable. (e) and the means of institutionalizing in a “Market for the Suppression of Fraud” the suppression of the greatest crime against humanity: the big lies that are responsible for the last dark age and the new one that the enemy has sought to bring about.

  • Explaining (defining) Propertarianism – for Newbs:

    Jan 2, 2020, 6:35 PM 1 – The completion of the scientific method and all that it entails – which is a lot and why P is such a big program: it touches everything and it converts almost all psychological, social, and political speech to economic expressions – which is counter-intuitive because it’s scientific where our current psychological social, moral, and political speech is only normative or in the case of psychology sociology and politics, both pseudoscientific and sophomoric. 2 – The explanation for western success in ancient and modern worlds (adaptive velocity because of our individual sovereignty and resulting traditional law of property/tort.) 3 – The explanation of the different systems of argument used in the different civilizations, and in particular the abrahamic means of deceit used in the ancient world (judaism, Christianity, islam) and in the modern world (marxism, feminism, postmodernism, denialism/political correctness). EXPLANATION Do you know what a formal logic is? It’s grammar of the logic of inference using sets and binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what programming is? It’s a grammar of operational logic using binary truth or falsehood. Do you know what law is? It’s a formal operational rational grammar of conflict resolution, using ternary falsehood, truth candidacy, and undecidability. Do you know what tort law is? it’s a formal rational operational grammar of conflict resolution over demonstrated interests that we enumerate as property, using ternary logic of falsehood, truth candidacy, undecidability. Propertarianism is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of Tort (demonstrated interests), and as a consequence a value neutral universal language (vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy), that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable constitutions, and their enumerated rights and responsibilities, the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy) by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech. As such it allows us to outlaw hostile religions, and pseudo-religions especially the pseudoscientific and sophomoric restatements of supernatural judaism , christianity, and islam, in pseudoscientific and sophomoric and ir-reciprocal marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism. Propertarianism is equivalent in scope to the revolutions of Aristotelian reason (Realism, Naturalism, Reason), the Empirical Revolution(Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism), in that it completes the scientific method by extending it from the physical to the psychological and social sciences, including that of law, politics, and group strategy. In other words, “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; producing a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; resulting in a logical and scientific constitution; permitting the criminalization of ir-reciprocal and un-testifiable speech, and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” When we explain the reason for western success we discover: “Heroism and Excellence; Truth and Duty; Oath and Warranty; Sovereignty and Reciprocity; Law and Jury; And Voluntary Markets in Every Aspect of Life: Association, Cooperation, Production, Reproduction, Commons, Polities and War; The direction of surpluses to the production of commons and the returns therefrom; at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses; and the Direction of Dominance Expression to the Production of Commons by a Distributed Dictatorship of Individually Sovereign People and the Reciprocal Warranty of Denial of Power To Any and All.” Propertarianism is (a) the completion of the Aristotelian program (b) the completion of the scientific method (c ) the logic and science of the social sciences, and (d) the Natural Law of Reciprocity under which all display word and deed is expressible and commensurable. (e) and the means of institutionalizing in a “Market for the Suppression of Fraud” the suppression of the greatest crime against humanity: the big lies that are responsible for the last dark age and the new one that the enemy has sought to bring about.

  • Why Are Contracts a Mess?

    Why Are Contracts a Mess? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/why-are-contracts-a-mess/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 21:08:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265389487330336769

  • Why Are Contracts a Mess?

    Jan 5, 2020, 5:23 PM 0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense. 1) Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems. The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters. Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid. The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it. And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties. And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail. Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure your time. 2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance. 3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice. 4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended. 5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage. 6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law. 7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts. 8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard. 9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision. That’s just the surface.

  • Why Are Contracts a Mess?

    Jan 5, 2020, 5:23 PM 0) Reality: all contracts are just form letters with names and dates in them. All that changes is the list of assets, and the rights and obligations of both parties – and mostly, it’s the obligations for both parties, ’cause rights only exist if the contract fails. The courts have spent decades since the rise of text databases in the 80’s making sure that there is settled law for almost everything you can bring before it – so much so that the only job left in court is who either (a) lied, or (b) failed due diligence (c ) sought an unearned premium at the other’s expense. 1) Surprisingly lawyers are taught contract law, not how to write contracts. And they will write for other lawyers most of the time, sometimes for in-house counsel, other times for skilled people, and otherwise for ordinary citizens. So absent this they learn to write contracts by the cut-and-paste method of contract development. So contracts accumulate ‘waste’ so to speak in most offices. They don’t accumulate solutions to problems. The courts (federal, state, local) do not put out standard contract formats that force what’s called “transactional” work into standard form. When in reality, the law does not grant much flexibility in these matters. Terms of art are largely bullshit claims. Judges are not stupid. Jurors are not stupid. The reality is that contracts are not complicated. My particular ‘thing’ is shareholder agreements. They don’t have to be complicated. They have to hit al the points in simple language. All contracts are like this, if (a) definitions are put on a separate page, (b) the before-and-after diagrams are displayed in visual form, ( c) a project-plan for signing the agreements in the appropriate sequence and the purpose of each one is stated in that plan (document), that states the title or interest change it enacts. (think of it as an accounting transaction with ledger entries). (d) each section includes a whereas “this is what we seek to accomplish” and therefore the terms of the contract in legal prose. (lawyers will resist this because it prevents people from pulling shit out of thin air, but that’s exactly why to do it. And this is the most simple – just capture the bullet list of concerns from everyone involved and make sure you’ve resolved them satisfactorily for all parties. And this is the most uncomfortable: Those engaging the contract do not inform the lawyers of the full suite of advantages that may arise from the deal, and the lawyers do not list all the reasons that they think the contract (arrangement) will fail. Truth: I generally have to tell lawyers to let me manage risk (that’s my job as a business person) and you create the level of contract suitable to my target risk. This is how you ‘Price’ a contract so to speak. By risk reward and resource expenditure your time. 2) Current legal training is antithetical to business, because it begins as teaching the adversarial method – it does not teach means of reaching compromise, settlement, or methods of cooperation that must adapt to changing circumstances. This leads people in defense to ‘double down’ on conflict rather than double down on compromise. This is not how business people resolve conflicts. So really there are two stages. the ones exterior to the contract, and the terms that will fight before the court if the contract fails. My understanding is that this is a problem of failing to require via positiva statements of intent for every via-negativa bit of blame. In other words contracts do not spend time on the via positiva means of settling error, failure of due diligence, change in circumstance. 3) The legal teams try to add unnecessary value to justify jobs (this is endemic). I see this all over the place. The problem is malincentives in legal fees: especially hourly. The problem is revenue constraints. In other words we have too many lawyers, working too hard, to drive up fees, and a court that doesn’t stop it, and a population that has no choice. 4) Courts work too often by win/lose instead of proportional settlements. This is partly by design to force settlement prior to court, and then turning the courtroom into a lottery of uncertainty, where the outcome is worse than settlement – it is not what the framers or common law judges in history intended. 5) Irreciprocal competency and scale of legal teams means they compete for providing opportunities for advantage rather than due diligence in preventing advantage. 6) systemic abandonment of moral norms has led to the need to articulate what was normative in law. 7) the law is lagging behind the rate of evolution of the complexity of contracts. 8) The law does not prevent entrapments as it used to, because it defers to the wisdom of business people (good) but not to baiting into hazard. 9) Law does not punish (as it used to) abuses of the court, the law, the contract so it is worthwhile for full time legal teams or lawyers to bill by the hour to use the economics to drive a settlement or court decision. That’s just the surface.

  • The Main Propertarian Innovations and Clarifications that Complete Western Law a

    The Main Propertarian Innovations and Clarifications that Complete Western Law and Aristotelian Epistemology. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/the-main-propertarian-innovations-and-clarifications-that-complete-western-law-and-aristotelian-epistemology/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 20:58:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265386825776054272

  • “My Current Copy/paste of What Is P Is”

    Jan 6, 2020, 8:29 PM THE MAIN PROPERTARIAN INNOVATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS THAT COMPLETE WESTERN LAW AND ARISTOTELIAN EPISTEMOLOGY. by Alain Dwight My current copy/paste of what is P is pretty much a break down at the narrative level: Here’s what I think the main Propertarian innovations/clarifications are that complete western (common/tort) law and Aristotelian epistemology. 1 – Testimonilaism: The tests you can use to attempt to falsify a claim and truth as real rather an ideal, meaning truth is an adjective meaning “claim I can warranty has survived all means of falsification known to man” Link: https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/01/14/what-does-truth-mean-and-what-is-its-adjective-form/ 2 – Law as descriptive (framed as the science of co-operation and agency): retaliation and high trust can be deterministically predicted based on measuring reciprocity and impositions against property-en-toto. Errosion of trust erodes social norms and this cascades down to the rest of commons required to accumulate agency and retain sovereignty. Natural law says “if you do this your group will fail.” Common/tort law is men saying “we’re not going to let you do this because we refuse to be a failed group.” 3 – Property-en-toto: all investments acquired without violating reciprocity that a person is willing and able to defend (whereas certain forms of damage against normative and informational commons were exploitable loopholes in tort law – hence we see hte industrialization of professional deception) 4 – Reciprocity as deterministic: reciprocity will be exchanged by co-operation when interactions are “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntarily exchanged, and free of imposition upon others by externality.” Otherwise reciprocity will be exchanged by means of conflict.