Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • Every man a father, a craftsman, a soldier, a sheriff, a warrior, a legislator, a judge, a king.

    Jan 17, 2020, 10:29 AM

    —“Curt I think you need to stay home because after the shit gets hot this country’s going to need a leader because a lot of the people on the right are getting tired of Trumps BS because he’s so pro-israel and pro-immigrant”—Robert Shumaker

    If I want street creed with those that cannot understand my work or even john’s simplification of it, I have to show I’m not pontificating from an armchair. I have to go regardless of the cost. Every man a father, a craftsman, a soldier, a sheriff, a warrior, a legislator, a judge, a king.

  • The Right to Self Determination Is the Right to Persistence

    The Right to Self Determination Is the Right to Persistence https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-right-to-self-determination-is-the-right-to-persistence/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:09:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266763769679618048

  • The Right to Self Determination Is the Right to Persistence

    Jan 24, 2020, 12:56 PM All people have both the right to self-determination, if only because no others have the right to deprive them of it. The only restitution available to those whose self-determination is thwarted is a return in kind. Therefore the only solutions to conflicts of self-determination are either separation or war. And in war, it is possible for either side to lose, and in losing, lose the possibility of self-determination. (To have a ‘right’ means ‘to be in the right’ under the natural law of reciprocity. Or it can mean that one has the right of demand of the court or state for the resolution of differences. One cannot ‘have’ a right.)

  • The Right to Self Determination Is the Right to Persistence

    Jan 24, 2020, 12:56 PM All people have both the right to self-determination, if only because no others have the right to deprive them of it. The only restitution available to those whose self-determination is thwarted is a return in kind. Therefore the only solutions to conflicts of self-determination are either separation or war. And in war, it is possible for either side to lose, and in losing, lose the possibility of self-determination. (To have a ‘right’ means ‘to be in the right’ under the natural law of reciprocity. Or it can mean that one has the right of demand of the court or state for the resolution of differences. One cannot ‘have’ a right.)

  • The State

    The State https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-state/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 14:04:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266732125891551234

  • The State

    Feb 9, 2020, 1:32 PM The state is the only de-facto sovereign (organization) in competition with other polities for territory, resources, trade routes, built capital, and population. The state maintains that sovereignty as an insurer of last resort, maintaining a monopoly of violence in its capacity of insurer of last resort. It obtains income to pay for its function as an insurer of last resort, through fees sufficient to provide insurance against all competitors. The state adds value by suppression of all competitors to it’s fees, using the judicial system – thereby freeing the population from many high friction transaction costs in exchange for one low friction transaction cost (taxes). This is why states are always wealthier than non states – economic velocity. The government produces commons in addition to the states in order to generate the returns from commons – organizing the production of non-consumables prohibiting privatization by consumption ‘abusus’, but by allowing “usus” (use), creating ‘fructus’ (fruits). The production of commons increases population, trade, and therefore revenues that can be distributed between the production of common when times are fair(good), and functioning as insurer of last resort when times are dear (hard). Since the cost of both sovereignty and commons is only determined by market competition, then we have no say about the construction of state, military, judiciary, government, and institutions. We have only say in how competitive we desire to be and the relative conditions we live under. To produce a relatively anarchic polity would require only the production of sufficient military capability to deny all competitors, and retaining population and production necessary to pay for it, with the commons necessary to retain that population. In other words you don’t get to choose very much if you want to survive as a polity. The only means of minimizing a government long term is to do what I’ve recommended, which is exhaustive application of the law of reciprocity limiting allr ents, and then a payment (tax) system that was as closests to operating a business as possible. And that would require, exactly what I’ve proposed.

  • The State

    Feb 9, 2020, 1:32 PM The state is the only de-facto sovereign (organization) in competition with other polities for territory, resources, trade routes, built capital, and population. The state maintains that sovereignty as an insurer of last resort, maintaining a monopoly of violence in its capacity of insurer of last resort. It obtains income to pay for its function as an insurer of last resort, through fees sufficient to provide insurance against all competitors. The state adds value by suppression of all competitors to it’s fees, using the judicial system – thereby freeing the population from many high friction transaction costs in exchange for one low friction transaction cost (taxes). This is why states are always wealthier than non states – economic velocity. The government produces commons in addition to the states in order to generate the returns from commons – organizing the production of non-consumables prohibiting privatization by consumption ‘abusus’, but by allowing “usus” (use), creating ‘fructus’ (fruits). The production of commons increases population, trade, and therefore revenues that can be distributed between the production of common when times are fair(good), and functioning as insurer of last resort when times are dear (hard). Since the cost of both sovereignty and commons is only determined by market competition, then we have no say about the construction of state, military, judiciary, government, and institutions. We have only say in how competitive we desire to be and the relative conditions we live under. To produce a relatively anarchic polity would require only the production of sufficient military capability to deny all competitors, and retaining population and production necessary to pay for it, with the commons necessary to retain that population. In other words you don’t get to choose very much if you want to survive as a polity. The only means of minimizing a government long term is to do what I’ve recommended, which is exhaustive application of the law of reciprocity limiting allr ents, and then a payment (tax) system that was as closests to operating a business as possible. And that would require, exactly what I’ve proposed.

  • “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.

  • Threats

    Feb 21, 2020, 8:16 AM

    “Revoke citizenship to 1965. Revoke benefits. Prohibit anyone with socialist or postmodernist activities or ‘alien’ religions from residency or citizenship. charge 30% additional income taxes for non-citizens.”