Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • THE LAW OF RIGHTS 1. No rights are intrinsic. Even if they are intuitively desir

    THE LAW OF RIGHTS
    1. No rights are intrinsic. Even if they are intuitively desired, a want must be brought into existence. (Need for Non Aggression to permit Cooperation.)
    2. A right always consists of agreement with others, to produce insurance and responsibility to enforce that insurance – as such rights are a always and everywhere a political construct. (Informal Contract)
    3. Some rights are necessary for cohabitation and cooperation – self determination by self determined means by insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity in our demonstrated investments. (Natural Rights)
    4. Some rights are utilitarian in the collective search for scale, and the returns on scale. (Commons)
    5. Some rights are arbitrary. (Privileges that impose on the returns from the production of commons.)
    6. Some rights are violations even if we don’t recognize them as such. (Violate Sovereignty and Reciprocity)
    7. Some rights are harms and we do recognize them as such, but the rights that come before them inhibit our ability to revoke them. (Undermine responsibility for insurance of the sovereignty, reciprocity,, and produce incentive for non-cooperation, non-cohabitation, separation, and if necessary war.)

    Political, social, and economic orders form when the wants of individuals are sufficient to produce an agreement for non aggression against demonstrated investments and responsibility for reciprocal insurance against aggression, rather than the state of avoidance, parasitism, or predation and the costs of that defense.

    Political social and economic orders collapse when the arbitrary, the violations, and the harms accumulate sufficiently to terminate the incentive to cooperate and thus generate demand to separate, or defeat, or decimate.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 15:17:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798011171074723840

  • THE LAW OF RIGHTS 1. No rights are intrinsic. Even if they are intuitively desir

    THE LAW OF RIGHTS
    1. No rights are intrinsic. Even if they are intuitively desired, a want must be brought into existence. (Need for Non Aggression to permit Cooperation.)
    2. A right always consists of agreement with others, to produce insurance and responsibility to enforce that insurance – as such rights are a always and everywhere a political construct. (Informal Contract)
    3. Some rights are necessary for cohabitation and cooperation – self determination by self determined means by insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity in our demonstrated investments. (Natural Rights)
    4. Some rights are utilitarian in the collective search for scale, and the returns on scale. (Commons)
    5. Some rights are arbitrary. (Privileges that impose on the returns from the production of commons.)
    6. Some rights are violations even if we don’t recognize them as such. (Violate Sovereignty and Reciprocity)
    7. Some rights are harms and we do recognize them as such, but the rights that come before them inhibit our ability to revoke them. (Undermine responsibility for insurance of the sovereignty, reciprocity,, and produce incentive for non-cooperation, non-cohabitation, separation, and if necessary war.)

    Political, social, and economic orders form when the wants of individuals are sufficient to produce an agreement for non aggression against demonstrated investments and responsibility for reciprocal insurance against aggression, rather than the state of avoidance, parasitism, or predation and the costs of that defense.

    Political social and economic orders collapse when the arbitrary, the violations, and the harms accumulate sufficiently to terminate the incentive to cooperate and thus generate demand to separate, or defeat, or decimate.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @Homeschool_LLC @forgeoffreedom


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-04 15:16:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798010981597016064

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1798005801438880062

  • Funny reversal you have there. ‘There are lines around us that we prohibit peopl

    Funny reversal you have there. ‘There are lines around us that we prohibit people from crossing unless they’re bringing something to trade’ because otherwise they’re imposing costs upon us.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 17:20:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797679756177277034

    Reply addressees: @garydunion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796995345982816709

  • DELIVERING NLI’S PAINFUL TRUTHS –“A good point to remember: So once you deliver

    DELIVERING NLI’S PAINFUL TRUTHS
    –“A good point to remember: So once you deliver a potentially offensive truth, and deliver it without emotional loading shaming and moralizing, bring it back to the goal being the truth enables us to discover ways to compromise and cooperate, and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-02 23:48:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797415134245142961

  • DELIVERING NLI’S PAINFUL TRUTHS –“A good point to remember: So once you deliver

    DELIVERING NLI’S PAINFUL TRUTHS
    –“A good point to remember: So once you deliver a potentially offensive truth, and deliver it without emotional loading shaming and moralizing, bring it back to the goal being the truth enables us to discover ways to compromise and cooperate, and lying only makes cooperation so impossible, that we must devolve our governments and separate.”–Rob McMullan ( @TheMcMullan )

    Always bring it back to the fact that the truth allows us to discover compromises but lying only drives us further and further apart into greater and greater conflict, until we must separate instead of cohabitate.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-02 23:48:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797415134144475136

  • Behavioral Economics(Psychology) > Propertarianism (Ethics) > Natural Law (Polit

    Behavioral Economics(Psychology) > Propertarianism (Ethics) > Natural Law (Politics)

    hugs. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-02 02:29:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797093174030045345

    Reply addressees: @DBorewood @platypoo7 @RokoMijic

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797083166769021143

  • I’m not saying we agree upon standards. I’m saying that regardless of standard t

    I’m not saying we agree upon standards. I’m saying that regardless of standard the matter is decidable or not as to whether one has engaged in reciprocity and a benfit to both or irreciprocity that provokes a retaliation. Because people always retaliate against irreciprocities…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 20:09:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796635230423458100

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796633369050071062

  • 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

  • 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