Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • We have a moral vision, and we have the science of moralit now. So the best thin

    We have a moral vision, and we have the science of moralit now. So the best thing to do is recognize that Aquinas was mostly right, but aristotle was more right, and the founding fathers were more right — and it’s sounds arrogant, but I’m more right. Only because we have the science.
    This makes it difficult for theology because we have the science and it can be taught, and the theology is iffy across the board.

    Reply addressees: @DaHistories @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-14 18:22:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713259106335633408

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1713188684936208799

  • RT @NatLawInstitute: @curtdoolittle “Everything else is a private matter” Well,

    RT @NatLawInstitute: @curtdoolittle “Everything else is a private matter”
    Well, there’s the issue. Privacy is something only possible becau…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-14 00:09:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712983991005905033

  • Overview Outlines We work live online

    Overview
    https://naturallawinstitute.com/books/
    Outlines
    https://naturallawinstitute.com/docs/

    We work live online.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-13 12:21:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712805742917337133

    Reply addressees: @Ubersoyence

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712800665183896030

  • RT @Logos_Elect: “Our law requires responsibility. Women evade it at all costs,

    RT @Logos_Elect: “Our law requires responsibility. Women evade it at all costs, judaism evades all responsibility for the host & the common…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-13 01:37:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712643594371158443

  • HADIT’S MORAL FOUNDATIONS AS PROPERTY RIGHTS (repost from 2014) [O]f Haidt’s evo

    HADIT’S MORAL FOUNDATIONS AS PROPERTY RIGHTS
    (repost from 2014)

    [O]f Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:

    1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)
    2. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)
    3. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)

    And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

    4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
    5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
    6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

    It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe.

    As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction).

    When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication.  Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.”  These rules are genetic in origin.  They are necessary and immutable.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-11 18:47:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712178017189900288

  • It’s not benevolence but justice within the limits of reasonablness. If that’s p

    It’s not benevolence but justice within the limits of reasonablness. If that’s present benevolence is just a status signal. Conversely benevolence in the absence of justice does not accomplish the same end.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-11 18:11:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712169045485617266

    Reply addressees: @Jake385719

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1712168413530116289

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: THE LAW OR WAR These are the only two choices. The natural sta

    RT @ThruTheHayes: THE LAW OR WAR

    These are the only two choices.

    The natural state of nature is amoral; homo sapiens sapiens are amoral c…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-09 21:47:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711498636364804422

  • DEFINITIONS: “BAITING INTO HAZARD” (Seduction) Defining a Hazard – “In old Engli

    DEFINITIONS: “BAITING INTO HAZARD” (Seduction)

    Defining a Hazard – “In old English law an unlawful game at dice, those who play at it being called ‘hazardors’. In modern law, any game of chance or wagering.”

    Creating a Hazard – A failure of due diligence in defending others against a hazard you are either aware of or have created. i.e. a failure to cover a well-hole that a child can fall into. Old but common one: refrigerators with locking doors left at junkyards with the door on, so that children can get inside, suffocate, or starve, and die.

    Moral Hazard – When a party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave against the interests of the other party with less information. Usury, Prostitution, and Drugs are the most common moral hazards. The most common topic on law involves insurance schemes, where one is incentivized to commit arson or murder simply because one has insurance on the building or person.

    Defining A Moral Hazard

    The lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences

    In Insurance. The risk, danger, or probability that the event insured against may happen, varying with the circumstances of the particular case.

    In Fire Insurance. The risk or danger of the destruction of the insured property by fire, as measured by the character and interest of the insured owner, his habits as a prudent and careful man or the reverse, his known integrity or his bad reputation, and the amount of loss he would suffer by the destruction of the property or the gain he would make by suffering it to burn and collecting the insurance.

    In Economics. Moral hazard occurs when an entity has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk.

    In Tort Law – “A tiger trap presents a hazard not only to the tiger, but to man.”

    In Politics … the entire leftist corpus of freedom from responsibility for scarcity, behavior, and evolutionary consequences.

    Examples of Moral Hazard
    1) If I entice you into buying drugs, I’m baiting you into a hazard, since addiction is a spiral. (Pushers)
    2) If I lend you money or extend you credit to buy alcohol or drugs, creating a vicious cycle of debt and addiction.
    3) If I suggest you might win at gambling (you can’t), that’s baiting you into hazard. (Gambling houses)
    4) If I lend you money or extend you credit to gamble. (Bookies)
    5) If I lend you money at usurious prices that will entrap you in debt cycles. (Loan Sharking)
    6) If I offer you a loan to get what you want under impulse or duress, but I can extract interest from you, and then seize your property in restitution.
    7) If a woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, in exchange for goods services favors opportunity – which she will never deliver.
    8) If I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (Abrahamism)
    9) If I promise you salvation in heaven if you rebel against the government that is trying to create order and prosperity over the next few decades, that is baiting you into a hazard.
    10) If I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system (Marx)
    11) If I promise you equality if you undermine men (feminism)
    12) If I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism)
    13) If I appeal to your morality and pass the hart cellar immigration act. (frankfurt school)
    14) If I promise you equality or socialism when it’s genetics that cause our differences, and you act to destroy your civilization, then that’s all baiting into hazard.
    15) If I promise you the end of whiteness and whites will improve your condition when it is only under whiteness –  meaning sciences – and their rule that has improved your condition, and that your condition reflects that of your ancestors.

    In other words, you are entering into a voluntary exchange that is not in your interests, simply because for whatever reason you are vulnerable to the trap. These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss).

    Reply addressees: @PsychoPsmith


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-09 18:50:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711454221436887041

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711451548784746545

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @ThruTheHayes @Chargerfryar @randomal974199 @NatLawInstitute

    RT @curtdoolittle: @ThruTheHayes @Chargerfryar @randomal974199 @NatLawInstitute No one owes anything to anyone other than equal defense of…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 20:58:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710399235047227830

  • No one owes anything to anyone other than equal defense of what they have earned

    No one owes anything to anyone other than equal defense of what they have earned by means of reciprocal cooperation. You nor anyone else has a claim on anyone else other than defense against those who would harm you and what you have demonstrated an interest in through reciprocal exchagne.

    I don’t owe you. “Society” is another word for “me and him and him”. And so we don’t owe you anything. Instead if you do not like the terms, you are, like any other, welcome to depart and find people you prefer to cooperate with on your terms.

    Your access to the polity is granted only by not imposing costs upon the demonstrated interests of others obtained by reciprocal exchange.

    In other words you have access to a polity in exchange for avoiding crimes.

    Those who contribute to a polity for the purpose of producing public capital of course, then logically, in defense of their i nterests, have say in how it is used for the benefit of all who have access to the commons.

    No on is responsible for you. Period.

    Reply addressees: @ThruTheHayes @Chargerfryar @randomal974199 @NatLawInstitute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 20:58:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710399220790738945

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710397806320431361