Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • Powers of The British Monarchy

    Feb 3, 2020, 4:15 PM (as of 2003) (via a friend) Summary. If the queen has the loyalty of the armed forces she can do anything she wishes. The only practical means of her action is in crisis, if the government fails. The Monarch is Sovereign People are her subjects (family, wards) Above the law and immune from prosecution Diplomatic immunity anywhere on earth Exempt from FOI requests No passport nor driving license No taxes Commander in chief of all armed forces, who are sworn to her, not the state The making of treaties Declaration of war Deployment of armed forces overseas Recognition of foreign states Accreditation and reception of diplomats Appointment of Queen’s Counsel (Cabinet) The appointment and regulation of the civil service The appointment and dismissal of ministers, including the prime minister. The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament Royal assent to bills (or veto) Consent before any law that affects the monarchy can be even discussed. BUT!!! …. Cannot create law, only assent or veto – this is the cornerstone. (And can bring in the army if she wants to enforce it) Issue and revoke passports Arrest, seize, anything commander anything at will Administer punishments at will prerogative to keep the peace Creation of corporations by Charter Granting honours Prerogative of mercy Even over their souls – head of the church. Only revolution can replace her. Which is how it should be. Devoted to public service Limits her opinions to saying nothing Specializes in ‘soft power’. Most powerful woman in the world. The commissioning of officers in the armed forces Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK

  • Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years

    Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/thomas-jefferson-recommended-an-uprising-evert-twenty-years/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 07:01:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264451495988256768

  • Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:17 PM by Skye Steward and Thomas Jefferson Imperialists hate secession. Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years 🤔: —“What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” —-Letter to William Stephens Smith. Paris Nov. 13. 1787

  • Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years

    Feb 3, 2020, 8:17 PM by Skye Steward and Thomas Jefferson Imperialists hate secession. Thomas Jefferson recommended an uprising evert twenty years 🤔: —“What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” —-Letter to William Stephens Smith. Paris Nov. 13. 1787

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Should a Monarch Be Above the Law? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/should-a-monarch-be-above-the-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264450605235359746

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • Should a Monarch Be Above the Law?

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:00 PM Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.
    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.
    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.
    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The Question Whether One Generation of Men Has a Right to Bind Another

    Feb 3, 2020, 9:10 PM

    (taken from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to James Madison) “I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches. The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it’s lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.”

    (CURT: In other words, (a) debt/inheritance (b) prohibition on dependency collateral (c) the tragedy of renters, (d) the tragedy of the commons )

  • The 20th Experiment in Cosmopolitanism Failed

    The 20th Experiment in Cosmopolitanism Failed https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-20th-experiment-in-cosmopolitanism-failed/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 06:52:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264449241193250817