Author: Curt Doolittle

  • (I certainly interpret our exchanges as curious discourse.) 😉

    (I certainly interpret our exchanges as curious discourse.) 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 20:08:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796634835387113955

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796633656855003334

  • TO: PETER ZEIHAN, (All): RE: –“Trump is a FELON,”– (a) Upgrading a misdemeanor

    TO: PETER ZEIHAN, (All):
    RE: –“Trump is a FELON,”–

    (a) Upgrading a misdemeanor to a felony through artifice will not survive appeal.
    (b) Selective prosecution under it will not survive an appeal.
    (c) I will be surprised if the political prosecution survives appeal – at least in the comment on the ruling.
    (d) And I’m curious if the high court will insert a phrase in a decision that suggests very subtly ‘this better not happen again’.
    (e) And I might even suggest a non-zero chance that the court will extend protections to at least presidents, that are limited to high crimes proper.

    There is nothing Trump did in this context that isn’t done by everyone of any degree of wealth and responsibility that runs a complex organization, especially one that works with government officials and employees, unions, construction, and service workers.

    EXAMPLES
    I have on multiple occasions spent entire days signing documents, with law firms from multiple countries, for complex transactions, that I have negotiated verbally, given a bullet point list to my legal team and financial team, told them the structure I want at the outcome – and then all I do is sign documents. And shake hands.
    I’ve been in endless lawsuits accused of nonsense, delivered my and other executives entire email repositories and drive contents.
    I’ve worked as an economic advisor on two campaigns.
    I’ve seen the government to the most profound immoral and ethical prosecutions (I worked for Justice) with no accountability and total abandonment of the principle that “the purpose of the government in any administrative action is to maintain the individual, the family and the company as viable going concerns.”
    I’ve participated in Intel operations (as a consultant and contractor) that were both virtuous and more than highly questionable, and one of my companies has built and configured complex software for tens of millions to one of the armed forces that made their complex contemporary logistics possible.
    I’ve bought and run companies or done business in thirty countries.
    I see exactly what you see, but instead from ‘the plumbing’ so to speak.
    And if you prosecute a man for the classification of hush money to a hooker, when there is ‘no harm no foul’ then “trump up” the charges to a felony by creative lawyering, and use that for political purposes, when you would do neither for other citizens, then you’ve just proved trump’s point about the illegitimacy of at least the Justice department.

    THIS PROSECUTION
    This prosecution was, like much of the action by the justice department, extremely questionable. And while I deeply understand the work the “Yale-ies” have done with the Federalist Society to populate the high court bench with jurists who actually comprehend the constitution, the common law, and the purpose of both, the question is, whether it is too late.

    THE CONSEQUENCES
    It’s likely too late. We have exhausted debate. We have exhausted the capacity to vote. The military has been as politically eviscerated of it’s world war traditions as the first world war eviscerated them of their pre-industrial aristocratic traditions of duty and loyalty. We have no king to appeal to by a suit of common law as did the founders. We have only the court remaining. And even on that court a thin majority.

    So your estimation of population risk is the same as my estimation of internal risk. And any acceleration of htat internal risk will leave those empires left standing when the world wars ended the age of empires and eschewed in the age of nation states and federations,

    FEEDBACK WORTH CONSIDERING
    I love you Peter, and you’re one of my favorite public intellectuals who I respect the most, but your depth of comprehension of economics and geostrategy is not matched in your understanding of politics and certainly not law.

    And as much as I would like to constructively interview you given your very deserving rise to such worldwide influence, and because of my deep appreciation for the value you’ve provided the world, your introgression into areas you repeatedly fail to predict correctly due to this lack of understanding the herding of endless clients in power politics at least in the short and medium term, and when you talk of political process and of such terrifying statements as “Our government was built to debate not to govern”, and of the consequences of your understanding, then it’s something you could understand with a little effort, but yet don’t.

    And while I promote you quite a bit, and I defend you quite a bit, especially from “the lost boys” of the right, whose daily discordant symphony of cat wails, poisons not only their own well, but the wells of others, I’d ask you to consider the value of not pouring gasoline on the bonfire of the attempts to undermine you and the influence you have so thankfully created, until you grasp the costly utility of our governmental design, and it’s recognition of human nature far more accurate than all others combined.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @PeterZeihan


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 19:57:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796632039296319488

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796587432395014363

  • Like many things the simple imitations we do within our groups are evolved utili

    Like many things the simple imitations we do within our groups are evolved utilitarianisms. When we cooperate with outgroups our ingroup morals are irrelevant since it is violation of the outgroup’s morals that causes retaliation. When we predict outcomes of any group, all groups, the moral standard of weights and measures (universals) are how we both distinguish between groups and resolve conflicts between them.

    Ingroup morality: the set of via positiva rules we live by.
    Outgroup morality: pure pragmatism
    Universally Decidable Morality: the set of via negativa rules we must live by to avoid retaliation, conflict, and war.

    Conflict between groups is universally decidable (via neutral)
    Conflict within groups is decidable by variation from positivas.
    Conflict across groups is predictable by variation from universal decidabily (via negativa)

    I am not sure why this is hard to understand but it seems to be challenging for a lot of people.

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 19:09:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796619922023272449

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796618485738410070

  • If you think morality is a positive assertion then it’s meaningless. If you thin

    If you think morality is a positive assertion then it’s meaningless. If you think moralilty is a negative assertion, then it’s universally decidable.

    But you know, …. my job is hard. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 19:00:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796617644868554823

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796615913673736333

  • BTW: This is an other time for an “FU” with a smile, my friend. 😉 You don’t giv

    BTW: This is an other time for an “FU” with a smile, my friend. 😉 You don’t give yourself enough credit. You’re the real deal. I’m a fan.
    -hugs 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:33:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796610964969734171

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796610473485537724

  • Ingroup morality, (necessary) … outgroup morality, (pragmatic) … … univers

    Ingroup morality, (necessary)
    … outgroup morality, (pragmatic)
    … … universal morality (moral decidability as a standard of measurement of variation from the the zero point.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:29:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796610058496741588

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @platypoo7 @TheHammurabi

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796609520111653105

  • Yeah. But the flip side is that people say ‘Doolittle, why do you talk like that

    Yeah. But the flip side is that people say ‘Doolittle, why do you talk like that?” and saying “So I’m either understood or not, but at least not misunderstood.” lol


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:26:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796609122865172825

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796607118407311850

  • Correct. The way I frame it is that there is rule of law of natural law (recipro

    Correct. The way I frame it is that there is rule of law of natural law (reciprocity) and under that free trade is moral trade. And there is the absence of that rule of law and that is immoral free trade. You can guess which culture put forward the latter.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:16:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796606690214940775

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796605840973259117

  • Well, of course. But they are better at capture of language than we are and they

    Well, of course. But they are better at capture of language than we are and they will always be, so it is better to use operational langauge that is unambiguous and cannot be manipulated than to merely modify terms which can then be re=appopriated.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:08:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796604727616221605

    Reply addressees: @radiofreenw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796604337000771795

  • That is different from accusing them of failure or malintention. They had absolu

    That is different from accusing them of failure or malintention. They had absolutely moral intentions for all humanity. That they were only half right still meant that they were half right. That means we must fix what they didn’t. Then hopefully we’ll be more right than they were. And we know how to do that. We just need enough people to understand that solution so that we can bring it about – the same problem they faced.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @platypoo7 @TheHammurabi


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:07:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796604459339915264

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796603960247378284