Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Fixing Court and State

    Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM (important)

    –“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy

    This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare. HOW DO YOU FIX IT? You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it. And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system. In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.

    1. Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
    2. Our supreme court is a far better solution.
    3. Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.

    4. A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.

    5. A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.

    6. A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.

    7. The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense

    8. My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.

    9. There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.

    10. However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
      a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
      b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
      c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
      d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
      e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.

    That should provide you with a bit of understanding.

  • Fixing Court and State

    Jan 28, 2020, 8:58 AM (important)

    –“Women are able to make false accusations (for example of domestic violence), and they can lie to the courts without repercussion. How would you deal with this?”—Will Peavy

    This is one of the examples of ‘female privilege’ that has gotten out of hand. In my divorce, Allora said I had threatened to burn the house down as a means of coercing the court to lock the house and seize the assets. This was a lie. We had discovered black mold in the house, and I had said that we would have to burn the house down to fix it. But we all know how that false accusation was drummed up. I said I wouldn’t settle without withdrawal of that accusation. My lawyer said they wouldn’t do so because it was admission of perjury. If I hadn’t been rapidly declining from cancer (which they also used to manipulate me) I would have pursued the matter on principle. So, this happens every day and women get away with it every day because lying and undermining is the female strategy of warfare. HOW DO YOU FIX IT? You fix this by restoring punishment for it with zero tolerance. You fix zero tolerance by punishing judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for tolerating it. And I am very close to preferring the British system of a three stage legal system (paralegal, lawyer, barrister, (plus specialized barristers) and specialized judges rather than this one size fits all american system. In general, the British system has survived far better than the american system in a number of ways.

    1. Our written “Transactional”, Natural Law” constitution is FAR better. Even if P-Law will take it further.
    2. Our supreme court is a far better solution.
    3. Our only failure was a process for returning undecidable propositions to the legislature, thereby preventing legislation from the bench.

    4. A territorial senate like the house of lords has been erroneously diluted in both systems.

    5. A Senate (house of lords) and Congress (parliament) like our roman and greek ancestors remains successful, but in both systems new houses should have been added for non-propertied (non-business owners), and another for women. In this way the classes could have continued trading instead of producing monopoly race to the bottom.

    6. A monarch and prime minister is a better system than president. Washington was wrong.

    7. The continental party system of proportional seating appears to have been more effective at producing coalitions(ideologies), and consistent policy, and the anglo system seems to have been better at producing classes(practicalities). So, in this sense

    8. My goal is to end the monopoly of majoritarianism, and instead restore the original intent of the parliament: a market for commons between the classes of those demonstrating competence and contributions the commons: monarchy, senate (territory), commons (business), and consumers (labor, women). This failure to understand the rise of the consumer class and to provide a house for consumers – especially women, who are the vast majority of dependents and consumers, and who consume the vast majority of common goods – is probably the primary failure of post medieval political thought.

    9. There is a good argument to be made that monarchy is without question the best form of government if mirrored by a militia and a constitution of natural law with universal standing – because there is no evidence that democratic governments are anywhere near as effective as monarchical. In western civilization – prior to napoleon – one ‘voted with one’s feet’ via negativa (right of exit). Something we do even more so today. The court provides individual defense via-negativa (right of juridical defense). And a parliament that must approve new law and new levies provides political defense via negativa (right of legislative dissent). With these three, we use POLITIES not parties or houses to compete. And this is the most effective market for political excellence, just as business is the most effective market for productive excellence.

    10. However, if by common consensus democracy (voting) we obtain better loyalty to one another and the state(territory, constitution, laws, culture) and polity, and we obtain a sense of belonging and harmony, then as long as the constitution prohibits even the mention of the irreciprocal (unconstitutional) then this is a trade off we can make. As such we can choose the following choices:
      a) Elected Representative Voters (vote initiatives up and down)[Works with multiple houses and creates a market]
      b) Direct Household Voting (vote initiatives up and down)[works with multiple houses]
      c) Direct Equalitarian Voting (vote initiatives up and down) [works with multiple houses]
      d) Direct Economic Voting (vote to fund initiatives, and what’s funded passes, and unfunded closes) [requires most informed public]
      e) Randomly Selected Jury (votes up and down – the original function of parliament) Parliament is an extension of the jury.

    That should provide you with a bit of understanding.

  • A Huge Empathy Deficit in The Far East.

    Jan 30, 2020, 7:02 PM

    —“There seems to be a huge empathy deficit in the Far East. Intra-human cruelty can be brought on by moral violations, rather than an empathy deficit. But animals can’t violate, so….”– a friend.

    The sphere of demand for empathy increases with the sphere of demand for cooperation. The chinese are disturbing because despite their long history of civilization that have an equally long history of disregard for human life, lack of responsibility for non-family members, lack of responsibility for the commons, and murderousness against their people that never existed in european civilization’s or indian civilization’s history. Look at how humans are displayed in chinese art, literature, and law., Compare to how they are depicted in greek, roman, continental, and anglo european art and literature. Art is the psychology of People are unattractive and despicable in much of chinese art. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Compare with how the exceptional human form was central to european art. Videos today are very telling. And so we have evidence from around the world every day. Chinese stand by as children are kidnapped in broad daylight, or rapes are conduced in broad daylight. In general, asian civilization is relatively peaceful but it’s also, in its own way, despicable – just as their ‘face before truth’ is despicable by our standards.

  • A Huge Empathy Deficit in The Far East.

    Jan 30, 2020, 7:02 PM

    —“There seems to be a huge empathy deficit in the Far East. Intra-human cruelty can be brought on by moral violations, rather than an empathy deficit. But animals can’t violate, so….”– a friend.

    The sphere of demand for empathy increases with the sphere of demand for cooperation. The chinese are disturbing because despite their long history of civilization that have an equally long history of disregard for human life, lack of responsibility for non-family members, lack of responsibility for the commons, and murderousness against their people that never existed in european civilization’s or indian civilization’s history. Look at how humans are displayed in chinese art, literature, and law., Compare to how they are depicted in greek, roman, continental, and anglo european art and literature. Art is the psychology of People are unattractive and despicable in much of chinese art. Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Compare with how the exceptional human form was central to european art. Videos today are very telling. And so we have evidence from around the world every day. Chinese stand by as children are kidnapped in broad daylight, or rapes are conduced in broad daylight. In general, asian civilization is relatively peaceful but it’s also, in its own way, despicable – just as their ‘face before truth’ is despicable by our standards.

  • Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance

    Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM

    —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance to an average performing trustworthy soldier, but it’s an easy choice of who you want on your side.”–Steve Pender

  • Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance

    Feb 9, 2020, 2:21 PM

    —“An enemy in war has comparable or superior performance to an average performing trustworthy soldier, but it’s an easy choice of who you want on your side.”–Steve Pender

  • “WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A VOTE?” (voting)

    Feb 11, 2020, 1:52 PM 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.

  • “WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE A VOTE?” (voting)

    Feb 11, 2020, 1:52 PM 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.

  • SIMPLE RULES FOR SIMPLE PEOPLE 1 – Don’t engage in criminal activity 2 – Don’t r

    SIMPLE RULES FOR SIMPLE PEOPLE
    1 – Don’t engage in criminal activity
    2 – Don’t resist
    3 – Don’t talk
    4 – Don’t run
    5 – Don’t blame others

    #RIPGeorgeFloyd

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 11:54:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266699413076017153

  • you reap what you sow

    you reap what you sow.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 06:55:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266624339304157184

    Reply addressees: @brianstelter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266541229841551360