Answers to Six ARC Questions



I have worked on this problem for more years and in more detail than anyone living (or dead for that matter.) And it’s common knowledge that my work may require multiple reads and considerable knowledge of the spectrum of disciplines. And it’s common knowledge that like darwin before me, some truths of this universe are at first undesirable for our spirits, even if they are useful over time. So, I’ve done my best to write something accessible:

Can we find a unifying story? If you mean will we all get on the same moral philosophical and policy train, then the answer is no and it might be ‘never again’. If you mean federally yes. If you mean locally no. But if we solve the federal problem of devolution of SOCIAL policy to the states, or locales, we are all free to solve the local problem as we see fit. We are too large and too diverse for the degree of liberty each community desires and the degree of freedom each individual desires to join communities with similar want of liberties. And as a consequence produce loyalty and patriotism to the locale for social policy, and the federal government for strategic and trade policy.


Step 1: The empirical revolution occurred in England it was a legal and empirical revolution for a legal and empirical society. The French revolution was in many ways a counter-revolution against that empirical revolution, by the french catholic authoritarian society. The German Rational revolution was a counter-revolution against both, seeking a protestant secular religion of unity. The Jewish sequence of revolutions firsts by Mendelsohn and then by Marx and the marxist sequence of his many marxist, neo-marxist, pomo, neoconservative, feminist, libertarian, woke, followers, doubled down on the Jewish separatist religion of universality and resistance (undermining). The Russian literary, Chinese communist, Hindu socialist, and Islamist fundamentalist imitation of the communist strategy all followed.

With the sequence of commercial financial scientific and industrial revolutions, we raised the middle class, then working classes, then women into the consumer economy, and then into the franchise. Both the working and laboring classes, and women more so, and single women much more so, and single women without children even more so, to interpersonal empathizing regardless of consequences rather than political systematizing precisely because of the consequences – a systematizing that is necessary for rule of law, by the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity, using the judge discovered common law by the commonality of dispute resolution, and the concurrent democracy and legislation as test of the commonality of agreement codification. Thus prohibiting in totality the use of authority anywhere in economy, society, or politics.

We are presently undergoing the consequences of loading the feminine intuition and the Jewish feminine social order, philosophy, and ideology, and its search for unity by three of exclusion and pursuit of authority to do so, into our traditional European trifunctional markets that prohibit both demand for unity instead of markets, and authority instead of sovereignty and market decisions making.

But institutions lag in human history, and novel institutional changes made possible or necessary by vast technological improvements lag more so. In fact, shocks, uprisings, civil wars, collapses, and conquest are the result of the resistance to institutional changes: failures of adaptation.

So, for the first time in human history, instead of 50k years of suppressing male anti-economic, antisocial, antipolitical behavior, and leaving the policing of women to male family members, we are in a novel and totally alien condition, where the sex differences in instinct, intuition, cognition, valuation, feeling, speech, negotiation, argument, and deceit, have been possible and most importantly the female use of antisocial behavior by the female method of competition, conflict by the sequence of loading, framing, obscuring, seduction, special pleading, storytelling, baiting into hazard, cheating, lying, defrauding, denying, undermining, reputation destruction, social construction, sedition and treason.

So we are faced with two easily to identify problems that are easily solved, with political modification of our laws and policies:

1) Return to the requirement that ‘all speech to the public in public in matters public are held to testimony, reciprocity, warranty and liability’which counter intuitively is the origin of western truth before face regardless of cost: in military reporting, testimony before the jury, confession in church, and the threat of duel in public. (No, we don’t need the duel.)

2) Return to the ancient common law prohibition of limiting all of us to positive truthful reciprocal cooperation in markets, or boycott by evasion of those markets, or truthful adversarial competition before a court of our peers. This reforms free speech by returning to demand for free truthful reciprocal speech;

3) Return to ancestral common law of defamation by libel slander regardless of harm, and prohibition on interference in family, commerce (employment), or community, In other words, it prohibits canceling and cancel culture, by making one liable for interference in the lives of others without use of markets or courts.

4) In the sense of ‘the left’ the prohibition on violation of reciprocity, truth, seduction by false promise(fraud), baiting into hazard, and in particular violation of the four sets of laws of the universe (how the left makes false promises) is prohibited.

Those laws are a) scarcity, entropy, and the necessity of improvement of contrition by increasing the per capita transformation of energy b) self-interest, acquisition, amorality, reciprocity, retaliation c) mutation, load, selection, distribution, and evolution, and d) what we call the logic of the universe, consisting of test of identity, internal consistency, operational constructability, external correspondence, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, within stated limits, and full accounting, using the universal grammar of continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder into order: which itself is the first law of the universe applicable at all scales.

5) Return to the original construction of the american constitution, the regions of England, the organization of the Holy Roman Empire of European peoples, and the Roman organization of polities, by the universality of via negative common law of tort (sovereignty in demonstrated interests and reciprocity in display word and deed) but LIBERTY in the diversity of construction of local commons (society), that as we still see in Europe today and we see increasingly vigorous demand for here in post-civil-war America, for a federal government of security insurance and trade policy, and local governments for culture. Our constitution like our ancient traditions guaranteed us only republican government and concurrent legislation, and by implication natural law, natural rights, and the common empirical law of dispute resolution. There is no means by which the strategic importance of the territorial integrity of the continent without vast harms to others. But there is no need for centralization of social and economic policy. So we can satisfy the market for diverse polities, instead of falling into the illusion of Christian and Abrahamic deception that we must all be the same in non-science of wants, even if we are largely the same in the science of not-wants. 😉

That is the only answer to the problem that is possible.
Sorry. Just is.
Everything else is messaging and decoration.

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute



The programming language for civilization, government, economy, society, and even family, is law. whether law is codified, norm, tradition, or religion. This law can vary from the natural law of cooperation or not vary from it. All variation from that natural law of cooperation will increase the friction of cooperation and as in everything human, small things in large numbers over long periods have vast consequences. Who would have imagined that those pirates of the land with horses and chariots on the steppe would invent rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity, contractual government, democracy, truth before face (military reporting, testimony) and the militia as the polity and state? The only government possible for pirates turns out to be the optimum government for man, with the optimum incentives for man. Who would have imagined that other civilizations would exhaust their institutional choice of religion or state or culture over contract by the year 800ad, and stagnate or decline?

While humans group into four personality types, and a predictable distribution of a third, third, and third between the biases of the sexes, and while needs are determined by demographic distribution in a given geography, as environmental limits on our search for preferences are lifted by trade, knowledge, and technology, and as resulting hierarchies and anonymities evolve, we all need Liberty for custom social orders, custom economies, and custom status signals in order to obtain mindfulness. 

And at present, we don’t have a choice to satisfy those wants or oppress the wants of others. Wealth has freed us from the need for agrarian compromise (and possibly from the marriage compromise). Instead, at present we have deep desires to sort (speciate?) into groups that fulfill our increasing ability to satisfy instinctual preferences instead of food and defense needs as then. 

Once we have the science of cooperation, a constitution of that cooperation, a law of that cooperation, and institutions of cooperation under them, then all that remains is selection of preference to satisfy the group. And human beings, as simple as we are, evolved two first principle instincts from which all our biases, preferences, choices and decisions emerge: one selfish and one social: first to acquire, and second for status to improve our acquiring. Even if that acquiring is limited to mindfulness that we share the same instincts sentiments and wants as the group. This is what causes mindfulness, mindfulness suppresses neuroticism, and leaves us open to the greatest tolerance of one another, and the greatest willingness to help care for and redistribute to one another. Unfortunately, we tried to sedate everyone with personal consumption while destroying socialization and creating such personal demand for self-satisfaction that we ended thousands of years of agrarian progress in creating mindfulness through norms traditions, institutions, histories, myths, legends, religions philosophies and all that derived from them.

Now you might think this requires childhood indoctrination, but it doesn’t. Instead, it requires NOT indoctrinating humans into something that conflicts with the laws of nature. In fact, I’m not sure this takes more than a contemporary version of Schoolhouse Rock, codification of the change to law and policy, and the usual decade it takes for legal changes to propagate through a population until they develop into niche norms for every case and application. 

We could of course toss the archaic education system out the window and return to teaching manners, ethics morals, contract law, constitution, human and natural rights, and how this is consistent with the laws of the universe for the betterment of all humans regardless of their genetic determinism expressed as their preferences. After all behavioral and micro economics, a vague understanding of macro, and then of natural law natural rights and law would better prepare the population for cooperation than the DIVISIVENESS that was the purpose of marxist education in order to bring about demand for authority to solve that division, with of course, marxist authoritarians in charge – in violation of natural law and natural rights.



It’s not so much role.

If we list the means of human cooperation, we discover a hierarchy of:

Association, cooperation, production, reproduction(family), commons (society), economy, polity, and war (defense).

If instead of romanticizing the family we see it as the organization of production of generations. Romanticizing it’s nicer but the fact is it’s an organization for production of human beings. However, there are some incentives to creating families as we see them and those are the result of agrarianism and the importance of inheritable capital under agrarianism, combined with the end of the economic viability of the hunter gather tribe, thereby reducing dependence for survival on family and clean, and the intergenerational labor of family necessary for long term individual survival.

Marriage and long term mating requires at least one of two thing: either a desire to put a mate’s preferences equal or above yours (exchange), or simple necessity of survival by the division of labor between production of present consumption and capital, vs production of children as future capital. But human instinct isn’t familial it’s tribal and in favor of serial monogamy because men will kill over access to mates more so than any other. The value of long term relationships (marriage) is largely capital on one hand and limited sex, affection and care options while fertile enough to ‘trade’ another. 

However, one household and a division of labor produces higher quality of life and concentration of capital for mutual use (a commons), whereas individual homes are extremely costly for the same reason. Hence individual homes (present condition) generally revert to maternal family and social networks, and male political and economic networks. Thereby restoring the historical tendency for the sexes to almost exclusively associate with one antoerh

Ergo we cannot ‘depend’ on the family unless we incentivize the family.


1) We have made the individual the purpose of policy rather than the family. This is the reason the world is so hateful of the west – because they correctly understand it as dysfunction and immoral. Ergo we would have tor store the primacy of the family over the individual.

2) The origin of marriage in public is the insurance of the couple from non-interference by outsiders, thereby preventing the internalization of the cost of the care for children and mothers onto the community. We would have to end community property. Restore fault and liability in marriage. Restore Fault and liability for interference in marriage. And end alimony and child support. The effect on the polity would be immediate and profound. 

3) We would have to end common (involuntary, habit) marriage.

4) We would have to provide financial incentives for married couples, and disincentives for unmarried individuals -at present it’s backward.

5) We would be best supported by trying to expand (or return) working from home, bringing capital to communities instead of people to urban centers that suppress reproduction by raising the cost of families.

There are a dozen other changes to the economy, finance, credit, and of course, converting to the Singapore method of service provision that maintains positive human incentives while providing public subsidies. There is a significant problem of the church-vs-school institution, and while independent of religion, addressing that conflict for the sake of modernity needs addressing as well (which I’ve handled elsewhere.)



(I know that this is my profession but the fact that this is even a question is terrifying)

0. There are six holes in the original constitution that assume the reader like its authors are bound by Blackstone’s commentaries on the common law of england. And that this work connects the common law with the natural law, which meant the law of the science of cooperation that resulted from the empirical analysis of the history of dispute resolutions. These holes are easily fixed. I have written them elsewhere. Aside from those six, there are two subsequent holes that complete the anglo natural law rule of law project. I have also written them elsewhere. There are a series of minor reforms to clarify natural rights obligations and inalienations. And there are some additional requirements to the legal and legislative process to ensure the reforms started by departed Justice Scalia. In other words, the common law is like an accounting ledger, with words as systems of measurement by the definition of the measurement at the time of writing. His purpose was to restore the requirement for concurrency (legislative approval) of reforms of and expansions to the law thus preventing legislation from the bench and activism by lawfare against the requirement for concurrence in legislation and commonality in dispute resolution. 

1. THE STATE: By design, the common law rule of law requires that every law, legislation, and regulation must apply to individuals equally or it is a violation of the rule law. This administrative ‘organized crime’ has been incrementally abused for the past few centuries and has accelerated even more so. There are no conditions under which anyone in any chain of responsibility or command should or must be isolated from prosecution. Conversely, there is no reason that false accusation or failure of suit isn’t bound by loser pays AND judgment with penalties for doing so. YOu might think there is an alternative to ‘the market for suppression of ir-reciprocity in all its forms but you’d be wrong. It’s just wishful thinking.

2. COMMONS: There is no reason that we lack the common law appeal to the legislature as a court (or an administrative court as in France) for crimes by the state against the commons. In other words, the class action system was created for this purpose to counter the commercial sector. But we would also need to restore it to the political sector. Right now it is almost impossible without conducting organized “lawfare” to find ‘standing’ and move a case through the court hierarchy to obtain a judgment.

3. MARKETS: There is a difference between free markets and moral markets, and that is rather simply solved, by the question of whether we are engaging in arbitrage at the cost of our people or we are engaging in comparative advantage to the benefit of our people. This might sound technical outside of economics and law, but it’s not difficult to decide.

4. CREDIT: There is no need for ‘consumer banking’ since the credit system is purely statistical and is borrowing from ourselves. In other words, there is no reason for the conflation of consumer, commercial, and state banking. It preys upon our people and If I wrote how many trillions it’s cost us since 1980 on a billboard Washington would be on fire in days. 

5. TAXES: There is no need for commercial income tax or other games we play if it’s externalizable to owners and investors. And worse it distorts our economy on the world market. Likewise, there is no need for the bottom 50% to pay income tax or endure the process (especially small business owners and independent craftsmen) because they pay only 3%, and it costs multiples of it. There are a few dozen changes here that won’t be noticed at all that drastically affect people’s lives. Especially preventing the IRS from seizure without juridical defense, when aside from process abuse by agencies, it’s the most common abuse of our people we know of.

There are about thirty other topics we can cover here. But the reality is that the governments in the industrial revolution allowed people and organizations and the state to commit what had previously been crimes, because the wealth and tax revenue of industrialization was too tempting for states to forgo. So the state allowed abuses of the people and the commons. So, it’s not that we need new law to protect the environment. It’s that the people were intentionally disintermediated from the defense of the commons on purpose by the state.

The signature problem in our law is judicial activism that accompanied the Marxists, by Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin and their followers, attempted to convert natural, common, concurrent law, to authoritarian elite law in the French Napoleonic and the Jewish rabbinical traditions. This amounted to a systematic attack on the foundations of western civilization that were handed down by tradition. But not preserved through common education of the population.

This ‘positive’ law, and the use of organized activism “lawfare” against our constitution in the postwar period is overwhelmingly responsible for our present condition AND our inability to defend against the ‘intengional destruction of western institutions of cultural production by the propagation of conflict between sexes, classes, identities, and races.’

Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.


I missed the copy-pasting two econ answers somehow 🙁

Leave a Reply