Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • “If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights mov

    —“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”—

    Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really).

    The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law.

    The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule.

    We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 17:41:00 UTC

  • “If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights mov

    —“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”— Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really). The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law. The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule. We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

  • “If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights mov

    —“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”— Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really). The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law. The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule. We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

  • We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, para

    We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:35:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975410409468583936

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975058733133778944

    IN REPLY TO:

    @sapinker

    I’m often compared to Peterson–Canadian psychologist, Harvard prof, P in-C, takes evolution seriously–but our styles and philosophies couldn’t be more different. We’ll explore them in a dialogue at some point soon.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975058733133778944

  • The result of truth and sovereignty: the only possible conflict resolution is re

    The result of truth and sovereignty: the only possible conflict resolution is reciprocity, and the result is markets in all aspects of life. And markets calculate and adapt constantly and minimize the rents that can prevent adaptation that stultified the rest of the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:27:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975408268850946049

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975407514475954176

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @sapinker If you understand this single principle you will understand what separated the west from the rest: the sovereignty of individual men (warriors) in a kin group, who compete against others by the use of empirical truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975407514475954176

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @sapinker If you understand this single principle you will understand what separated the west from the rest: the sovereignty of individual men (warriors) in a kin group, who compete against others by the use of empirical truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/975407514475954176

  • HOW DO WE TEACH MORALITY IF WE DISAGREE WHAT IS MORAL? Because if we disagree, t

    HOW DO WE TEACH MORALITY IF WE DISAGREE WHAT IS MORAL?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong.

    There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity.

    The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above.

    The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments.

    The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so).

    It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy.

    That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 16:25:00 UTC

  • How Do We Teach Morality If We Disagree What Is Moral?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong. There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity. The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above. The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments. The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so). It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy. That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

  • How Do We Teach Morality If We Disagree What Is Moral?

    Because if we disagree, then one, the other, or both, are wrong. There is (both logically and empirically) only one moral law, and it is the basis for all law from the common law to international law : reciprocity. The only question is, given the demographics, economy, norms, and institutions, and traditions, whether the current order provides reciprocity, free riding, parasitism, predation, or all of the above. The only reason we can ask this question today is because we have gained sufficient wealth that we desire to specialize in self fulfillment rather than cooperative survival, and with our specialization, form many more smaller more specialized groups. But this is impossible under large diverse governments. The optimum solution is to divide into groups with shared moral biases (and pay the price and gain the reward for doing so). It is trivial to teach morality. The silver rule: do not unto others as you would not want done unto you, and do unto others ONLY what they wish done to them. The golden rule merely amplifies the silver rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you – but do not expect reciprocity. You are merely trying to encourage them to prefer cooperating with you rather than someone else more rewarding. The value of the golden rule is that exhaustion of attempts at cooperation tends to (in all cases) produce more cooperation than any other strategy. That’s it.That’s all there is. The rest is just techicalities of achieving some form of voluntary cooperation in any set of circumstances.

  • There is a difference between obeying THE law (reciprocity) independent of regul

    There is a difference between obeying THE law (reciprocity) independent of regulation, legislation, and command, and obeying regulation, legislation, and command that violates that law. If we obey THE law we are sovereign. Otherwise, prisoners, serfs or slaves.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:44:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975382542428901376

    Reply addressees: @capital_matter @JordanPeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

    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/975377498396659713

  • There is only one law: reciprocity. Everyting else is either findings of law(com

    There is only one law: reciprocity. Everyting else is either findings of law(common law), contract(legislation), warranty (regulation), or command(discretion). There is only one possible means of rule of law rather than discretion. The perfect decidability of reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:34:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975379929100619776

    Reply addressees: @capital_matter @JordanPeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

    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/975377498396659713