Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • FWIW: 1) The present wiki article on classical liberalism isn’t bad. 2) Doing th

    FWIW:
    1) The present wiki article on classical liberalism isn’t bad.
    2) Doing the right thing isn’t an opinion, it’s science:
    Reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means, by tests of sovereignty in demonstrated intersts, reciprocity in display word and deed, limiting us to cooperative markets for the private (the market) and common (legislature), and argument, the duel, and the court of the common concurrent natural law by these criteria for the resolution of our differences, thus producing the most cooperation at the largest scale,with the greatest rewards, at the greatest velocity, at the lowest risk, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest cost that is possible for mankind.

    3) Leftism is an attempt to violate responsibility for all of the above, by generating conflict that these set of criteria is oppression rather than the domestication of the human animal for it’s own good and the betterment of all in a pareto distribution of competency and a nash equilibrium of rewards.

    4) The child and in large part the female, and in lesser part the male, evade responsibility because either they are incompetent, or can obtain privileges by claims of oppression, or because the cost of responsibility for policing the private and common exposes them to conflict over conflict resolution that they fear becaus of their relative physical weakness. This is why women fail in voting – they are disinclined to take responsibiilty when a vote is a proxy for the violence needed use the state for the suppression of irresponsibility and the maximization of individual responsiblity.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-11 14:19:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645793626927124480

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645457477410988032

  • 1) Correct. Because only classical liberalism (rule of law, of the empirically d

    1) Correct. Because only classical liberalism (rule of law, of the empirically discovered natural law of individual sovereignty, reciprocity, and responsibility(duty)) is non-arbitrary (scientific), and sufficiently precise to describe a set of criteria (formula) for outlawing the behavior, when that behavior(undermining, reputation destruction, social construction, sedition, institutional destruction, treason) is natural to humans, because ‘indirect crime by social means’ is profitable for groups but hasn’t been outlawed yet.

    2) european civ is and always has been trifunctional with military(force/defense), legal(exchange/boycott), and religious(exclusion/inclusion) elites. So it is more tolerant of competition between elites – adjudicated by the natural common concurrent law. This means the law must keep relative pace with evolution in the criminality of human behavior. For a variety of reasons, we failed to keep pace in the postwar period, because of the combination of the winfall of industrialization, the introduction of women into voting, the capacity of debt expansion, and the replacement of the right-church and morality with leftist-academy and economics as as substitute for morality, plus the rez-kelsen-dworkin attack on the law itself and the rise of lawfare during the 1960s.

    Reply addressees: @junkodama10 @ConceptualJames @TheLaurenChen

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-11 13:55:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645787741073072129

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645556423743422464

  • 1) Correct. Because only classical liberalism (rule of law, of the empirically d

    1) Correct. Because only classical liberalism (rule of law, of the empirically discovered natural law of individual sovereignty, reciprocity, and responsibility(duty)) is non-arbitrary (scientific), and sufficiently precise to describe a set of criteria (formula) for outlawing the behavior, when that behavior(undermining, reputation destruction, social construction, sedition, institutional destruction, treason) is natural to humans, because ‘indirect crime by social means’ is profitable for groups but hasn’t been outlawed yet.

    2) european civ is and always has been trifunctional with military(force/defense), legal(exchange/boycott), and religious(exclusion/inclusion) elites. So it is more tolerant of competition between elites – adjudicated by the natural common concurrent law. This means the law must keep relative pace with evolution in the criminality of human behavior. For a variety of reasons, we failed to keep pace in the postwar period, because of the combination of the winfall of industrialization, the introduction of women into voting, the capacity of debt expansion, and the replacement of the right-church and morality with leftist-academy and economics as as substitute for morality, plus the rez-kelsen-dworkin attack on the law itself and the rise of lawfare during the 1960s.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-11 13:55:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645787741215682560

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645556423743422464

  • RT @TheMcMullan: @ConceptualJames Whether private property, common property, lib

    RT @TheMcMullan: @ConceptualJames Whether private property, common property, liberty or responsibility, the limits to all must be reciproci…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-11 09:06:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645714932296560641

  • RT @MartianHoplite: @ConceptualJames Individual rights to anything can’t exist w

    RT @MartianHoplite: @ConceptualJames Individual rights to anything can’t exist without the performance of collective duties and the bearing…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-11 09:05:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645714803611123713

  • James Not sure how you’re defining liberalism in this context. If you mean rule

    James
    Not sure how you’re defining liberalism in this context. If you mean rule of law by the natural law, then yes.
    As you’ve come to understand (and any of us who are competent eventually do) the marxist-to-woke sequence is just a set of crimes we can outlaw if and only if we…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 20:34:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645525698008809505

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645440146605572096

  • Again, desirable falsehoods spread in pseudoscience also. And again, without lia

    Again, desirable falsehoods spread in pseudoscience also.
    And again, without liability, and restitutability, we cannot correct this problem.
    The general claim is that we would suppress research.
    That’s false. We would suppress bad research and concentrate investment in research… https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1645225704236150787

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:24:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645417406104317953

  • ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the pr

    ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
    Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.

    My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.

    The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.

    In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.

    The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    #libertarian @mises

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428013604864

  • ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the pr

    ROTHBARD-HOPPE vs DOOLITTLE
    Hans hoppe’s argumentation ethics begins with the premise that if we forgo violence then we recognize the demonstrated interests (property) of one another. This idea is via habermas (marxist), and both Hoppe and Habermas are Kantian (verbal) Rationalists.

    My work is based entirely on the science and resulting operational (not verbal) logic of the first principles of the universe. As such, we always have choice of violence, exchange, or boycott. So, violence is never off the table, and all ethics and morality are constructed from avoiding, minimizing, and prohibiting providing incentves for violence that is always present.

    The principle difference is in Hoppe/Rothbard’s use of intersubjectively verifiable property – a near prohibition on commons, and a license for free-riding, versus my use of demonstrated interests – which is any investment humans have made, including the common.

    In both cases all behavioral science both psychology, sociology, economics, and politics, are reducible to statements of demonstrated interest. But the Hoppe-Rothbard seeks to avoid responsibility for the commons and my work seeks to maximize responsibility for the commons.

    The result is Rothbards via-positiva Jewish Pilpul and Critique of no-responsibility separatists, Hoppe’s via-positiva German Rationalism and Critique limited responsibility (free cities), and my (Doolittle’s) via-negativa science and operational logic of maximum responsibility of anglo rule of law of the empirical common concurrent natural law, and our three differences in scope of interest and responsibility.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers
    #libertarian @mises

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-10 13:20:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645416428206542849

  • EVIDENCE WE CAN TEACH P-LAW TO YOU From Elsewhere: –“To summarize and make sure

    EVIDENCE WE CAN TEACH P-LAW TO YOU
    From Elsewhere:
    –“To summarize and make sure I have this right… Everyone desires to minimize risk: – the masculine minimizes uncertainty (natural world) – the feminine minimizes liability (social world). Women undermine people’s perceptions of the autonomy chain (agency -> responsibility -> accountability; before, during, after) to minimize potential liability. They engage in agency cloaking (false promise of non-aggression), responsibility offloading (prevaricating, s**t testing, etc), and blame denial to construct the pretense of their own goodness so they can avoid liability. This is why and how they engage in social construction with the resulting pretense of female moral virtue.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 02:20:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643438464799584257