Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • Because you MUST obey a law under threat of violence, but it is not possible any

    Because you MUST obey a law under threat of violence, but it is not possible any longer to get even a majority to ‘believe’ in a fantasy parable for the purpose of obtaining mindfulness given their lack of status ad agency in the existential world -which is the reason for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 18:45:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180192213936087040

    Reply addressees: @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite You can argue we need binding narrative. You can argue it needs legal, rational-moral,and occult-emotional contents, because many people do need the sedating effect of the illusion of control provided by a common values and strategy. But not pilpul,critique,false promise,hazard.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite You can argue we need binding narrative. You can argue it needs legal, rational-moral,and occult-emotional contents, because many people do need the sedating effect of the illusion of control provided by a common values and strategy. But not pilpul,critique,false promise,hazard.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

  • So you can clutch at straws but the only ACTIONABLE means of defeating the enemy

    So you can clutch at straws but the only ACTIONABLE means of defeating the enemy is through a market for suppression of their means of undermining and parasitism by means of the law in all walks of life.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 18:44:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180191928689795073

    Reply addressees: @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite You can argue we need binding narrative. You can argue it needs legal, rational-moral,and occult-emotional contents, because many people do need the sedating effect of the illusion of control provided by a common values and strategy. But not pilpul,critique,false promise,hazard.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite You can argue we need binding narrative. You can argue it needs legal, rational-moral,and occult-emotional contents, because many people do need the sedating effect of the illusion of control provided by a common values and strategy. But not pilpul,critique,false promise,hazard.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180191602784002054

  • Why? Because we know people lie and why. In fact, the majority of work in legal

    Why? Because we know people lie and why. In fact, the majority of work in legal cases ( like the majority of work I do counter lies by sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism) is lie detection by the incremental disambiguation of context and deduction of incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 01:16:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179928186605461504

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize (intellectual), of course, that’s why we are able to cooperate. Do juries test consistency, correspondence, rational incentive, and reciprocity, means, motive, opportunity, and intent? Yes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize (intellectual), of course, that’s why we are able to cooperate. Do juries test consistency, correspondence, rational incentive, and reciprocity, means, motive, opportunity, and intent? Yes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387

  • Well courts do so every day in governance of human actions. You cannot make a tr

    Well courts do so every day in governance of human actions. You cannot make a truth claim about that which you cannot Testify. It’s simply not possible. You can find meaning, utility, satisfaction, sedation, you can find faith, but without demonstration you don’t know either.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 00:45:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179920475046268928

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179916639413792769

    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/1179916639413792769

  • Nope. It’s not testifiable. Can you submit it in court as evidence? Nope. Then i

    Nope. It’s not testifiable. Can you submit it in court as evidence? Nope. Then it is indistinguishable from lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:45:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179905226263937024

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179904833949585409

    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/1179904833949585409

  • So there is a point of marginal indifference – a practical limit – as we approac

    So there is a point of marginal indifference – a practical limit – as we approach the ideal limit (reciprocity).

    Requires some thought as to how to put that into law…

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:15:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179897807672680448

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite @BrianTakita @JohnMarkSays @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179891768403398656

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @BrianTakita @JohnMarkSays @curtdoolittle @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes For any category of shenanigans “X” the general answer is there’ll be SOME extent to which people will get away with X, though it costs others, if it doesn’t cost them enough to want to retaliate against it, but there’ll be some extent to which the others organize to suppress X.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179891768403398656

  • Law as A Solution

    Law as A Solution https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/law-as-a-solution/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:48:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179891078008332288

  • Law as A Solution

    —“One of the common themes we see from some people who countersignal us is often they seem to pooh-pooh law as a solution and think that everything can be solved with some sort of aesthetic or spiritual movement. These guys are often young. I see them as just looking for a solution within a frame they understand and that is intuitive to them. In contrast to some of the more mature people who have a spiritual bent but also recognize the importance of punishment (law) and that not everything can be accomplished only with persuasion.”— John Mark

  • Law as A Solution

    —“One of the common themes we see from some people who countersignal us is often they seem to pooh-pooh law as a solution and think that everything can be solved with some sort of aesthetic or spiritual movement. These guys are often young. I see them as just looking for a solution within a frame they understand and that is intuitive to them. In contrast to some of the more mature people who have a spiritual bent but also recognize the importance of punishment (law) and that not everything can be accomplished only with persuasion.”— John Mark

  • Can We Create A New Federalist Papers?

    Can We Create A New Federalist Papers? https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/can-we-create-a-new-federalist-papers/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 21:20:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179868963624357888