Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sovereignty

  • 1) israel is a cheap buy, and so are the saudis. 2) the wall is blocked by congr

    1) israel is a cheap buy, and so are the saudis.
    2) the wall is blocked by congress and he’s even tried circumventing the wall. I mean it’s not his fault.
    3) Because the military is overextended, teh equipment depleted, and they are fighting him on it, and congress won’t allow.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 20:18:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177316499930910723

    Reply addressees: @NoSorcerer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177314612863229952

    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/1177314612863229952

  • THE END OF THE DISCUSSION OF SOVEREIGNTY LIBERTY AND FREEDOM. ***The law must sa

    THE END OF THE DISCUSSION OF SOVEREIGNTY LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.

    ***The law must satisfy the market for dispute resolution, where property consists in the enumeration of those subjects of conflict having been decided by the law, and where the scope of property insured under the law is determined by the market for dispute resolution. And where reciprocity is always and everywhere decidable under all circumstances under which there is human conflict – because it is purely empirical, purely logical, purely rational, and of evolutionary necessity.***

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 15:52:00 UTC

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE SYSTEM OF LIBERTARIANISM AND IT IS EURO

    THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE SYSTEM OF LIBERTARIANISM AND IT IS EUROPEAN RULE OF LAW OF RECIPROCITY

    (updated)

    Libertarianism in the Western sense is just rule of law. The difference between libertarians (jewish vs european) has been the scope of tort (trespass) that the law must provide resolution of disputes over.

    Rothbardians use intersubjectively verifiable property (material things), and I (following Hayek and Ostrom) include everything at all in which people demonstrate and investment interest (demonstrated interest) over which disputes must be settled.

    The law must satisfy the market for dispute resolution, and the scope of property is determined by the market for dispute resolution. And reciprocity is always and everywhere decidable under all circumstances under which there is human conflict – because it is purely scientific purely logical, and of evolutionary necessity.

    Rothbardianism is just marxism(denial) of the commons instead of marxism(denial) of private property. In other words I use the empirical definition of property (that which people desire we insure) not an arbitrary one (that which is materially scarce).

    This jewish(monopoly, authoritarian) vs european(markets) conflict is consistent across every branch of thought, including the so called Austrian economics of Menger (european) and Mises (jewish) in which Menger merely applied calculus to markets, but mises tried to invent a version of Pilpul (a sophism) in praxeology, when all he had discovered (without knowing it, probably because the insight was not his own) operational falsification in economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 13:26:00 UTC

  • (Staying on message: rothbardian libertarianism is just Common Property Marxism

    (Staying on message: rothbardian libertarianism is just Common Property Marxism – the low trust ethics of sheep herders and the ghetto. No more useful idiots. The only source of Sovereignty, Liberty, or Freedom is Rule of Law insured by every able bodied man bearing arms. Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 23:19:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176999786496561153

    Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176999138925436928

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @BobMurphyEcon Socialists drive produce arbitrary rule disregarding not only the external but the internal, and driving people into the market for corruption, rent seeking, and black markets. So the capitalism vs socialism debate distracts us from the west’s origin: Rule of Law by reciprocity.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1176999138925436928

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @BobMurphyEcon Socialists drive produce arbitrary rule disregarding not only the external but the internal, and driving people into the market for corruption, rent seeking, and black markets. So the capitalism vs socialism debate distracts us from the west’s origin: Rule of Law by reciprocity.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1176999138925436928

  • Strategic Options in Warfare

    1. If you want to overturn the government directly it might rally people against you but it’s possible to siege the capital. I wouldn’t recommend it. That’s a left tactic.

    2. If you want to start a secession movement and take the center of the country, you take Texas because it has sufficient population, sufficient military resources, ports, a power grid, and one of the two mints. You move north using texas as a base, and cut off the rest of the country – but you have to do it fast.   I don’t favor holding territory on the defense, it’s better to keep in constant motion.

    3. If you want to take over the country you raid one of the more vulnerable immigrant or leftist cities, and overload it’s resources, and move on to the next in short order, leaving fires, power, water, communication, rail, and road (air doesn’t matter), although preventing landings at least is trivial.

    4. If you want to win quickly you issue demands that people actually prefer to the current order, issue incentives to police, military, guard, and ‘civilian actors’, and then do three to four cities at once. It’s impossible to react to that.  And it only takes ‘thousands’ per city.

    Communication is more important than power. Power more important than money, money more important than transport, transport more important than political figures.

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

      [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • —“Q: What Is Your Opinion of Monarchy”—

      [M]onarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract. Russian Tzars had dictatorial power, European monarchs did not. Roman and Greek did not. The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law. As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state. Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises. If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other. As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things). And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory government altogether – as predicted.

  • “WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”— Monarchy (which is a purely christian euro

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF MONARCHY”—

    Monarchy (which is a purely christian european order, in which kings are crowned by the church, as an insurer of their fitness), has been limited by traditional (indo european then germanic law) of individual sovereignty, interpersonal reciprocity, truthful testimony, promise, and contract.

    Russian Tzars had dictatorial power,

    European monarchs did not.

    Roman and Greek did not.

    The rest of the world has some version of chieftain, headman, ruler, but they do not have traditional european law of tort, trespass, property, or what we call natural law.

    As far as I know we had the optimum form of government evolve in england, with a strong monarchy, a strong parliament as a jury negotiating the monarchy’s requests for money and policy, a house of industry (lords) as a supreme court, and a church for matters of family and society not matters of state.

    Unfortunately the church did not reform itself into a benevolent house government of natural law, nor did the state force it to, because the malinvestment by the church in it’s supernatural dogma was impossible to overcome. And so we both failed to add a house of ‘the family’ for labor and the underclasses, ad the church fell out of public policy. This resulted in parliaments and houses of government eventually subject to mob (underclass) rule and the frauds, sophists and pseudoscientists who made those classes false promises.

    If we maintained houses for the classes, and one for women, then we would be able to conduct trades (parliament = parley-ment = parley = negotiating conflicts) between the classes and genders rather than conduct all out propaganda wars in public in an attempt to get the most ignorant to side with one class or the other.

    As far as I can tell, a monarchy hiring and firing aristocracy to rule the state under that natural law, traditional law, indo european law of trespass, tort, property, combined with christian tolerance and charity) is the optimum form of government. My opinion is that we need only retain voting by direct vote, by economic contribution, when the monarchy wishes to raise taxes (revenues), and that those revenues be directed to stated purposes, not under discretion of the monarchy, and then some constant portion of revenues left to the monarchy to use at its discretion for the development of high commons (beautiful things).

    And so, we will now either add houses or lose participatory goverment altogether – as predicted.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 10:42:00 UTC

  • Tsar (/zɑːr, sɑːr/ or /tsɑːr/; Old Church Slavonic: ц︢рь [usually written thus w

    Tsar (/zɑːr, sɑːr/ or /tsɑːr/; Old Church Slavonic: ц︢рь [usually written thus with a title] or цар, царь), also spelled csar, or tzar or czar, is a title used to designate East and South… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=471878056742423&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-24 20:22:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176592647110242305

  • Tsar (/zɑːr, sɑːr/ or /tsɑːr/; Old Church Slavonic: ц︢рь [usually written thus w

    Tsar (/zɑːr, sɑːr/ or /tsɑːr/; Old Church Slavonic: ц︢рь [usually written thus with a title] or цар, царь), also spelled csar, or tzar or czar, is a title used to designate East and South Slavic monarchs or supreme rulers of Eastern Europe, originally Bulgarian monarchs from 10th century onwards.

    As a system of government in the Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire, it is known as Tsarist autocracy, or Tsarism.

    The term is derived from the Latin word Caesar, which was intended to mean “Emperor” in the European medieval sense of the term—a ruler with the same rank as a Roman emperor, holding it by the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch)—but was usually considered by western Europeans to be equivalent to king, or to be somewhat in between a royal and imperial rank.

    Tsarist autocracy[a] (Russian: царское самодержавие, transcr. tsarskoye samoderzhaviye) is a form of autocracy (later absolute monarchy) specific to the Grand Duchy of Moscow, which later became Tsardom of Russia and the Russian Empire.[b] In it, all power and wealth is controlled (and distributed) by the Tsar. They had more power than constitutional monarchs, who are usually vested by law and counterbalanced by a legislative authority; they even had more authority on religious issues compared to Western monarchs. In Russia, it originated during the time of Ivan III (1440−1505), and was abolished after the Russian Revolution of 1917.

    West Europeans have had Kings, and Constitutional Monarchies but they were limited by traditional (customary) law.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-24 16:21:00 UTC