Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING (Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilt

    DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING

    (Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilton)

    Degree of failure of due diligence determines severity.

    Example:

    … Murder > Homicide > ???

    … Lying > Deceiving > ???

    We don’t have via negativa terms for crimes, but P-law is a via negativa logic.

    So, in P, we call a failure of due diligence “Lying”, because we can’t determine intentions only whether you in fact did the due diligence, and whether you stated a falsehood, or irreciprocity.

    Lying by intent and Lying by failures of due diligence.

    This definition mirrors “Truth”:

    Truth means satisfying the demand for infallibility.

    We satisfy the demand for infallibility by due diligence.

    So, is it correct to use Falsehood(error) or Lying(failure of due diligence)? Well, how do we know the difference? 😉

    DEGREES OF HOMICIDE

    Murder first and second

    -vs-

    Voluntary, Constructive, and Involuntary manslaughter

    -vs-

    Negligent Homicide (esp. vehicular)

    -vs-

    Excusable Homicide: by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.”

    -vs-

    Justifiable Homicide (self or other defense)

    -vs-

    State Licensed Homicide (military, law enforcement)

    The key phrase being “with usual and ordinary caution”

    Again, I am (we are) stating that in public, to public, in matters public, one must use ordinary caution. We are are increasing the requirements for ordinary caution.

    We are increasing the burden on public speech such that by failure of due diligence you do not guard against the spreading of falsehood (lying) because we cannot judge your intent, we can only determine whether or not you enaged in due diligence.

    It works just fine. We do it every day in courts around the globe.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 17:16:00 UTC

  • THE TEN CANONICAL PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS. 1. Commensurabili

    THE TEN CANONICAL PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS.

    1. Commensurability: Definitions by Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization

    2. Truth: Satisfaction of demand for infallibility.

    3. Testimony: Due diligence against perceivable dimensions.

    4. Reciprocity: Due diligence against incentive to retaliate.

    5. Property In Toto: Measurements of Demonstrated intersets

    6. Compatibilism: Gender and class division of perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, and cooperation.

    7. Trifunctionalism: Three possible means of coercion, produces three competing specializations of elites.

    8. Perfect Government: rule of law, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for regions, classes, genders, with one family one vote – adapting to authority under threat, markets under peace, and redistribution during windfalls.

    9. Transcendence: Evolutionary necessity ‘to become the red queen’ – we may never stop nor never rest.

    10. Western Group Evolutionary strategy is “OODA” meaning technology, maneuver and initiative. This strategy is created by excellence and beauty, heroism and duty, truth and oath, sovereignty and reciprocity, rule of law and jury, and markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war – while suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, and devoting the surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples for all that result.

    That’s the core of P.

    The rest is application.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 14:23:00 UTC

  • A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson] If you ever wan

    A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE

    By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson]

    If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle.

    If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying.

    So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.Updated Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:46:00 UTC

  • HALF TRUTHS ARE SOURCES OF IGNORANCE Yes I know of the seven laws of Noah. 😉 Th

    HALF TRUTHS ARE SOURCES OF IGNORANCE

    Yes I know of the seven laws of Noah. 😉

    They are too primitive.

    They start with god (submission) rather than sovereignty ( responsibility).

    They don’t include truthful speech regardless of cost.

    They don’t prevent the great crimes of history (sophistry, false promise, baiting into hazard, fraud)

    Instead they are the origin of the license for the great crimes of history.

    They aren’t the source of good. They are the source of evil.

    Why? Because any half truth spreads ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:53:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF MORALITY IF NOT XXXX? Very simple logic. Why should the st

    WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF MORALITY IF NOT XXXX?

    Very simple logic.

    Why should the strong not conquer, rape, pillage, and murder the weak?

    Because cooperation and numbers can be more rewarding over the long term.

    When are cooperation and numbers more rewarding than conquest, rape, pillage, and murder?

    When behavior is reciprocal.

    What does reciprocal mean?

    Do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly – and conquer, rape, pillage, and murder anyone who does.

    And how do I do nothing that imposes costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly, or indirectly?

    Limit your display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality,

    The consequence: the most moral condition humanity can possibly create.

    Such men are the gods among men.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:53:00 UTC

  • MORALITY: THERE IS NOTHING COMPLEX TO UNDERSTAND. The use of morality outgroup i

    MORALITY: THERE IS NOTHING COMPLEX TO UNDERSTAND.

    The use of morality outgroup is only one of utility.

    The only moral imperative ingroup is reciprocity

    The only moral choice ingroup is christian tolerance and charity within the limits of that tolerance.

    Nothing else need be said.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:52:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION) The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity,

    RECIPROCITY (FULL VERSION)

    The natural law is (+)Sovereignty and (-)Reciprocity, in display word and deed, including reciprocity in speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost to the status(dominance, competence hierarch), within the limits of proportionality (in group defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (out groups).

    “Within the limits of the utility of cooperation.”

    There is no ideal. There are no ideals.

    There is only what satisfies demand for infallibility.

    FULL VERSION

    Limiting our display word and deed to:

    – Fully informed (truthful and complete);

    – Regardless of cost to the status, competence, or dominance hierarchy.

    – Productive and;

    – Voluntary transfer (or exchange, or imposition of costs upon);

    – The Demonstrated interests of Others;

    – Either directly or indirectly (by externality)

    – Within the limit of incentive for in-group defection;

    – Within The Limit of the Utility of future out-group Cooperation;

    – And liable and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability;

    – Eliminating the incentive of retaliation and retaliation cycles,

    – And imposition of costs upon the commons of trust by which others cooperate.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:36:00 UTC

  • “Curt. So what does your utopia look like? And upon what moral axiom is it const

    —“Curt. So what does your utopia look like? And upon what moral axiom is it constructed? The materialized Doolittle system, not the P methodology of coexistence.”—Gideon Green

    1. I don’t do utopia. I do the incremental improvement of the group strategy of the european peoples: sovereignty, reciprocity tested by the natural law of tort (demonstrated interest).

    2. Axioms are arbitrary. Laws are identified. Reciprocity is the natural law necessary for any creatures that can voluntarily cooperate and choose from fields of opportunities for voluntary cooperation, within the limits of survivability.

    3. The natural law is Sovereignty and Reciprocity, including speech (truthful speech) regardless of cost, within the limits of proportionality (ingroup defection) within the limits of the utility of cooperation (outgroups). This is the counter-intuitive reduction of western civilization.

    4. The extension of the natural law of reciprocity is the exhaustion of forgiveness (optimum solution to the prisoner’s dilemma) before retaliation, restitution, punishment, and prevention, with prevention escalating to extermination. (this is the counter-intuitive reduction of christianity).

    5. The resulting markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, elites, and war. With the competition between elites maintained by tripartism: judge law, aristocratic military, and faith.

    6 The hierarchy of institutions the Law, the monarch as a judge of last resort, the cabinet, the house of nobility(territory), the house of industry (commons), and the house of the family (church), and the universal militia of every able bodied man.

    7. The principle enhancements of the P-constitution, are amendements to the English, British, American constitutions, that correct the weaknesses of those constitutions under the industrialization of lying of the 20th, by the marxists, postmodernists, feminists, and HBD-Denialists (political correctness) that are a revolt against the darwinian revolution that explained the reason for western success: rapid, adaptive excellence and the suppression of the reproduction of the underclass for the purposes of directing surpluses to the production of commons instead – because of the disproportionate returns on commons, including heroism, excellence, beauty, discipline, trust, truthful speech regardless of cost – and of course the institutions of sovereignty and reciprocity regardless of status assuming one does his duty of preservation of all of the above.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-30 20:38:00 UTC

  • Parasitic. We are apex predators, apex innovators, apex producers, and in partic

    Parasitic. We are apex predators, apex innovators, apex producers, and in particular, apex producers of commons. They are apex parasites on the commons. It’s an easily fixable problem by reforming the law to prohibit their means of parasitism – not just by them but by anyone.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 14:25:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244269411030138882

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244268764591542272

  • NO, MORALITY ISN’T SUBJECTIVE PER SE – JUST MINOR VARIATION IN IT IS. —“…JFG

    NO, MORALITY ISN’T SUBJECTIVE PER SE – JUST MINOR VARIATION IN IT IS.

    —“…JFG claimed that morality is subjective entirely…”—

    Well, I corrected him. Personal moral bias is subjective. We compete with others in a market of moral biases. We converge to reciprocity within our local geographic, demographic, familial, social, economic, and political organizations, and we absolutely converge on reciprocity in international affairs where there is no means of enforcement other than boycott, trade war, or war.

    Personal Moral Bias > Local Market Moral Bias > World Market Moral bias.

    We rarely if ever find people who do not engage in reciprocity within the limits of proportionality who are not outcast or imprisoned or worse.

    SO it’s false that we do not practice reciprocity. We just limit the scope of reciprocity that we take to market to avoid others, cooperate with others, or prey upon others.

    But the differences in our scopes of reciprocity narrow as we approach the global BECAUSE THE UTILITY OF OF OUR CHOICE DECLINES WITH SCALE.

    Sociopaths often practice reciprocity just fine. Because it’s useful. Empathics practice reciprocity just fine, because they intuit it. The difference is that the first is by experience and reason, the second is by biological intuition.

    A cooperative species – meaning one that can select whether to cooperate or not – cannot survive without moral intuition.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 11:44:00 UTC