The first question of ethics is “Why should I not kill you and take your things?”
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
The better advice is “Do not unto others what you do not want done unto you.”
The better advice is “Do not unto others what you do not want done unto you.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-01 12:00:00 UTC
-
The better advice is “Do not unto others what you do not want done unto you.”
The better advice is “Do not unto others what you do not want done unto you.” -
The better advice is “Do not unto others what you do not want done unto you.”
The better advice is “Do not unto others what you do not want done unto you.” -
“I reserve the ability to resist your dominance by demonstrating your incompeten
–“I reserve the ability to resist your dominance by demonstrating your incompetence. If I can demonstrate your incompetence, but you insist I submit to your dominance, then sorry – I’m gonna gonna use my competence to develop more efficient methods to kill you.”–Nick Heywood
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 14:29:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968855563667943426
-
In general, I make painfully accurate sense. It’s my job. Now, we have rights of
In general, I make painfully accurate sense. It’s my job. Now, we have rights of reciprocity – sure. Just as we have the right to boycott, sue,and prosecute people who commit fraud in the distribution of goods,services, and information. And that was my argument: reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 14:00:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968848421191933953
Reply addressees: @Anon_OMouse @paulkrugman
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968846718707163141
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/968846718707163141
-
yes – that’s the origin of property (really). The intergenerational transfer of
yes – that’s the origin of property (really). The intergenerational transfer of assets.
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-20 20:15:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/966043541586825221
Reply addressees: @johann_theron
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965991149788909568
IN REPLY TO:
@johann_theron
@curtdoolittle Wasn’t meant as a criticism. But your graph initiated a further question in my mind. A. Family obtains property rights for their home. But the home only lasts 20 years. Why should property rights be permanent? So only one child can inherit it without working for it?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965991149788909568
-
My answer to What would you consider as basic human rights that should be enforc
My answer to What would you consider as basic human rights that should be enforced on everyone without exception? https://www.quora.com/What-would-you-consider-as-basic-human-rights-that-should-be-enforced-on-everyone-without-exception/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv
Source date (UTC): 2018-02-19 18:17:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965651521961684992
-
The problem with “Human Rights” is in the determination of who in fact is ‘human
The problem with “Human Rights” is in the determination of who in fact is ‘human’, and who remains some degree of domesticated animal. (humor) -
Curt Doolittle’s answer: All human rights are just property rights. That is all
Curt Doolittle’s answer: All human rights are just property rights. That is all that they can be. Why we should not force property rights upon people is very hard to imagine. Of course, the communists would say that their last few articles that were forced into the international declaration in o…