Interesting.
Demonstrated Interest = Fact
Legitimate Interest = Insured.
Insured = by (people, organization, institution)
Law = System of measurement
Yes?
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-15 19:58:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691539959327395840
Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691538735064580097
Got it.
So, judicial tests, court tests, standard measures, … Something in that category.
And Voluntary cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-15 19:56:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691539398628700161
Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691509536778022933
Yeah. I hate to say this because it might come back to haunt me, but the chance that a female judge will grasp the depth of the adversarial competition – and in my case even grasp what I’m saying – is low enough that I try to change judges by any means possible, assume she will be against me if I’m male, and try to figure out how to dumb down the case for her. And I’m part of the generation that tried to advance women into these roles. It’s not that there aren’t any women (barret is competent). It’s just less statistically likely.
Reply addressees: @AnthonyBrink_SA
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-14 21:04:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691194060537565184
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691184101540134912
OUR REFORMATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Q: Curt: “Should The First Amendment be [insert idea here]?:
All,
Our reformation of the first amendment consists of:
a) The requirement for testifiable, truthful, and reciprocal speech in public to the public in matters public (including commerce) to prevent false promises deception and lying; This ends the left forever, because all leftists promises are those of a removal of responsibility by social construction of denial of the four categories of the laws of nature: lying.
b) The prohibition on suppression of testifiable, truthful, reciprocal speech. This ends the suppression of uncomfortable truths so that we may find solutions to problems that exist rather than ignore them.
c) The prohibition on conspiracy to cancel constraining us to courts for the negativa, and legislature for the positiva thus not evading due process – ending all variations on cancel culture and social construction by bypass of the legislature and the people (including lawfare).
d) The restoration of defamation by libel and slander to whether it’s true or not instead of whether the harm is material or not to end undermining.
e) To provide a special exception for Christian religion if necessary – given that fundamentalism is an untestifable claim and therefore violates truthful reciprocal speech.
Note that, we would prefer that we license Christian deism and natural law since it’s at least analogistically not-false, it’s closed to misconstruing, and compatible with natural law. But that might not be possible given it’s tolerable by secularists, humanists, Catholics, mainstream protestants, but not so by evangelicals. This keeps the state out of the religion but encourages the Christian sects to reform.
Note that, It’s increasingly clear that we must very likely limit religions and in particular their manifestation in public in any form, to the Christian secular to evangelical, and only tolerate other religions – including the mass prosecution of religions for the behavior of their individuals adherents. This forces integration or departure. And as we know, the hostiles hide under religious protection.
I would never have thought this reasonable in the past, but my study of religion as the foundation of group evolutionary strategies, the incompatibility of those strategies, and the use of religions as a means of sedition, treason, and warfare changed my opinion – l like many opinions I’ve changed once I’ve done the work (despite that I don’t like some of what I’ve discovered.)
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @tysonmaly
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-14 17:05:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691133943767093266
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691119879665909760
–Q: Curt: Please Contrast Norms and Laws Regarding Alcohol with Other Drugs.”–
(1) Europe is organized around the principle of producing maximum individual responsibility by the production of the maximum possible agency, because Europeans distribute responsibility for governance of the commons down to the individual (at least adult mal). This is why Europens have high trust commons.
(2) drugs reduce the capacity for agency and therefore, responsibility. And the loss of responsibility produces externalities. (disease, injuries, drunk driving, fighting, murder)
(3) alcohol has a long tradition despite it’s externalities because (a) it has always been a store of high concentrations of calories, (b) is self-purifying despite the rising impurity of water in populated areas (c) tends to be a ‘truth serum’ in social and political contexts (d) mediates stress and induces sleep given the hardships of agrarian age life and in particular, war.
(4) Ergo, Alcohol had somewhat necessary utility (40% of calories from whiskey for example, possibly as many or more from archaic beer) across the personal social and political spectrum – and we had developed norms, traditions and institutions to compensate for the externalities.
Other than Caffeine, we can’t say the same for the rest of the ‘drugs’, which have almost entirely sedating, responsibility-reducing, self-destructive, and externality-producing tendencies.
So it’s not so much what groups care about, but whether the accumulation of negative and positive externalities to the COMMONS – and not to the individual, results in regulatory norms and laws that constrain use of behavior modifying drugs to he positive externalities.
So the ‘commons’ consist of positive and negative externalities and has nothing to do with the individual.
And (as I’m sure Martin will chime in here) the decision requires full accounting of benefits and externalities. IMO the experiment with legalization of pot is ongoing. And as far as I know “prohibition worked”. Given the range of prescription drugs today that sedate emotions without incapacitating agency and responsibility – and given the utility of alcohol. And given the consequences of legalization of pot, I’m not sure we aren’t doing something akin to a light version of opium in asia. But time will tell. And no individual can testify to the consequences of this experiment despite the justifications from either side.
I’m not sure why there should be a lack of understanding of the constitution of commons by anyone since it’s one of the most thoroughly articulated parts of the work, and has been for a decade. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-14 14:34:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691095832995483648
The Layering of Laws
Had an insight this morning on constitutional ‘layering’ of rights obligations and inalienations (ROIs), such that we begin with individual self determination, sovereignty, and reciprocity but then climb the ladder of markets of production stating and explaining each layer’s ROIs, thus preserving decidability when goals conflict. The most important of course is that the family is more important than the individual. Because in fact, the family is the most important institution of all, because the famiily produces the humans that are the repository for the human capital that determines the condition of all in the polity, nation, civlization and man.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-13 14:42:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1690735657767829505
RT @costelloe_w: More of this, please. Woke as we know it was born in Law School. Before that formulated in the Frankfort School, Tavistock…
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-11 18:42:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1690071195276693504
You’re right Charlotte. End marriage, common property, alimony, and child support. The child only exists because of the choices of the mother. Only exists because she birthed the child. Is almost entirely dependent upon her for the first five to seven years of life. Because of men’s efforts, women are now capable of economic self-support. As such women may certainly take full possession and ownership of all children, and have no need of the caretaking of men.
Yes as a consequence the single parent household has radically reduced household incomes, driven up the cost of living, produced the most mentally unstable generations in history, below replacement rate reproduction, caused reproductive collapse in all developed countries, rendered our population insufficient for social insurance of unemployment, medicine, and retirement, reduced the quality of education and higher education, limited our international competitiveness to the point where we are dependent upon foreign students for sciences
are the result will be ending the advantage of our military and the dollar, starving investment in infrastructure, causing political divisiveness and conflict, and advancing the relative certainty of political instability and likely civil war.
You can’t keep expanding selfishness when the entire reason for female privilege is the western paternal hierarchical and institutional mass production of individual responsibility for the private and common, reducing costs for all.
We are painfully aware of sex differences in cognition, with the feminine cognition favoring empathizing in-time (feels), verbalizing and social construction, hyperconsumption, hypergamy, attention, seeking status through all of the above, and evasion of accountability and evasion of responsibility for the commons, and male cognition favoring systematizing over time (reals), physical world transformation, and political organization, hypercapitalizing, production, seeking status by all of the above, and accumulation of accountability and responsibility for the commons.
All you have done with the present generation is convince men that all of history is correct – and if anything, norms, traditions, values, and institutions have been far too generous in their criticism of the selfishness, shallowness, novelty-seeking, and impulsivity of women.
We used to try to make one another happy by becoming one together. We didn’t succeed as often as we desired, but we tried. You took women off the pedestal. Destroyed our convenient mythology. The incentive for that reciprocity. And the counter-revolution isn’t going to be kind or pretty.
All market failures result in either extinction or restoration of equilibria.
Reply addressees: @DrProudman
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-11 02:17:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689823405422288896
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689326476502474776
Yes well, I have to use a more judicial tone in my own work because after all, I work in the formal logic of the construction of law. But I certainly appreciate the ‘clarity’ of your accusatorial directness and can enjoy it along with everyone else. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 17:53:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689696586387886080
Reply addressees: @DjangoMcLaren
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689696034065166336
Exactly. Just to save you some time: turns out that the spectrum of dictate-to-democracy of the court, like the government, is dependent upon the geography and means of production, the availability of weaponry to the citizenry; the relationship between the upper and other classes (our own, us vs them); the order of development of the primary institutions: (religion/pedagogy, production/trade, and military/state); and the resulting market of trifunctionalism (depending upon law), or monopoly (depending upon religion or state).
Reply addressees: @colevossler
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-08 20:40:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689013717986426880
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689011385785782275