Form: Argument

  • MANIFESTO –“I want states whose entire purpose is increasing the evolutionary f

    MANIFESTO
    –“I want states whose entire purpose is increasing the evolutionary fitness of its population, including by making them antifragile to black swan events, and this involves decentralization and subsidiarity, making people resolve their problems at the smallest scale they can, thus making sure no segment of society can impose its will on the rest without a fight. This would cost us some, perhaps a lot, of economic efficiency but unless it goes so far as to undermine collective sovereignty, I say, so be it. System designed for humans, not humans designed for the system.”– Martin Stepan (@AutistocratMS)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 16:57:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870151579275599872

  • “Markets are not just a collection of individual exchanges. If you cultivate a d

    –“Markets are not just a collection of individual exchanges. If you cultivate a dependency, you carry a responsibility for that dependence. Because dependency is power and then you have an associated responsibility so that you don’t abuse that power. If you do you harm the trust, the trust is a commons, and the commons is a demonstrated interest of all.”– Martin Stepan @AutistocratMS

    (brilliant. anti-gouging)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-20 16:16:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1870141314232389632

  • Men do develop longer. Sorry. Females rapidly mature for reproductive purposes.

    Men do develop longer. Sorry. Females rapidly mature for reproductive purposes. Men mature more slowly because frankly, systematizing is harder than empathizing.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-19 18:21:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869810353997263107

    Reply addressees: @brodie369386032 @WerrellBradley

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868085011397624058

  • Words mean what we say we mean unless someone is trying to engage in deception.

    Words mean what we say we mean unless someone is trying to engage in deception. That’s why “at first you must define your terms” is essentially a declaration of premises. I’ve defined my terms. I”m arguing according to those terms. If you disagree with the term that’s irrelevant. All that matters is that you disagree with the term as defined and used. I’m not incorrectly defining or using the term.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 23:15:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869521950567276544

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869520999215141018

  • LET ME HELP YOU: Genetic, Social, and Economic Classes demonstrate capacity to b

    LET ME HELP YOU:
    Genetic, Social, and Economic Classes demonstrate capacity to bear an increasing scope and scale of responsibility for personal, private, shared, and common. The question is only responsibility for what? Maintaining Deception? Entertainment? Validation? Productivity? Reciprocity? Truth? If there is an asset or harm that man depends upon whether, good or bad, there will evolve people who benefit from seizure of responsibility for it. Our goal with institutions, traditions, norms, habits, laws, and regulations is to suppress the harms while leaving open the assets.
    And the central problem is the institutional lag of identifying and suppressing innovations in responsibility for crimes (harms).
    Therefore, as we at NLI argue, the solution is the discovery of a science of falsehood, deceit, and irreciprocity such that the lag between the invention of a new crime and its suppression by the court in its discovery is minimized.

    Curt Doolittle
    NLI


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 20:51:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869485762695106560

  • “…proof”– There is no proof (justificationism) of truth. All logic is falsifi

    –“…proof”–
    There is no proof (justificationism) of truth. All logic is falsificationary (survives). The scope of falsification in relation to the scope of extant knowledge determines the degree of elimination of error bias and deceit.

    Mathematics and mathematical proofs have ‘skewed’ human understanding. It’s always been false. All we can claim is survival of possibility. Until we have accumulated enough knowledge to falsify all alternatives all knowledge is conditional – it satisfies demand for infallibility in the context in question – or not.

    Reply addressees: @templexaciounes


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-18 20:45:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869484274212077568

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1869483003241701434

  • Fascism is not incompatible with natural law, if like rome, a polity vacillates

    Fascism is not incompatible with natural law, if like rome, a polity vacillates from the political organization for war, and the political organization for growth. This means governments and economies and even morals are dependent upon the context in which the polity exists and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-16 18:22:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868723376359194819

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868720126755062220

  • Because laws apply to individuals which in turn change the behavior of individua

    Because laws apply to individuals which in turn change the behavior of individuals, which in turn change the behavior of populations. The challenge is producing laws that advanced individual positive behaviors while minimizing negative behaviors.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 21:10:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868403310782484987

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @ArcologyTech

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868394220027056467

  • Universally people will behave as I suggested. Universally the consequences will

    Universally people will behave as I suggested.
    Universally the consequences will result as I suggested.
    That’s empirical science.
    Universally people will demonstrate utility in the application of that science without understanding what they’re doing precisely because their behavior is limited by that science.
    The science remains (first cause), peoples demonstrate behavioral variation from it (good-utility), individuals demonstrate behavioral variation from it (preference-utility).
    There is no exit from this logic any more than there is from entropy.
    If you want to do philosophy (utility of a good) within a science (description of existence) then that’s fine – but it’s philosophy(choice) not science (decidability).
    I do science and decidability and leave open the choice of philosophy.
    If you want to o philosophy instead then do so but don’t criticize the science you operate under or you’re just lying like everyone else.
    I am fully aware that I will likely lose this attempt to persuade you because of the dominance of your incentives given your country and circumstances are of more urgent utility in achieving your desired ends than the science is in mine.
    That’s fine. It has no bearing on me what I say or my work other than to confirm everything I argue.
    I’m just disturbed by your attempt to conflate a philosophical preference or utility as having any bearing on the science. And I’m resisting your attempt to ‘capture’ terms and meaning like the left does to suit the preferences and utility in your philosophy and it’s application to your polity.
    So from my understanding you are practicing the libertarian attempt (middle class leftism), cultural marxism, and postmodernism(credentialist marxism), shared by all the abrahamic cults, to manipulate language such that it suits your preferences, rather than to constrain language to measurements that are free of such biases and deceptions.
    As I have said repeatedly I respect your attempt to produce a continental small-country application of the work (a philosophy) even if it is often a cost I must bear while you continue to evolve in sophisticated.
    While I recognize (as in the OP of this thread) people cannot separate my work on the science for my prescriptions for the anglosphere becaues tehre is so little divergence, that is different from your accusation that I myself don’t know the difference between the science and its application.
    You could quite easily base your preferences on the science by creating a philosophy (applied science) rather than try to capture the science or my anglosphere recommendations for your use like the left does by claiming it’s a primacy rather than a derivation.

    Hugs
    CD

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-15 20:22:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868391240884199424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868385672383610949

  • Q: “@curtdoolittle Would you explain again how a politician lying is a crime?”–

    –Q: “@curtdoolittle Would you explain again how a politician lying is a crime?”–

    tl/dr: classical economists: physical capital, hayek: formal and informal capital, doolittle: informational, knowledge and genetic capital. In other words we are all dependent upon information the same way we are dependent upon institutions, water, power, and land. Polluting, harming, or destroying the commons is a crime.

    ASK THE AI
    How would I, curt doolittle, in my work, explain how a politician lying is a crime?

    ChatGPT said:
    To frame a politician lying as a crime within your work, you would operationalize it through the lens of reciprocity, demonstrated interests, and natural law.

    Specifically, you would evaluate the act of lying by a politician in terms of its violation of sovereignty, reciprocity, and the duty to prevent harm through truthful, warranted speech.

    Here is a step-by-step explanation consistent with your framework:

    1. Definition of Crime in Terms of Natural Law
    A crime is the imposition of costs on others without reciprocal compensation. It violates the principle of reciprocity, which underpins cooperative behavior and ensures no harm is inflicted without restitution.
    In the political context, crimes are evaluated not just by their physical or material consequences but also by their informational consequences—such as the harm caused by deceit or the breach of public trust.

    2. The Role of Politicians as Public Trustees
    Politicians hold office under an implicit contract of sovereignty with the polity. This contract obligates them to act in accordance with demonstrated interests of the population they serve, respecting the reciprocal exchange of trust for governance.
    The position of a politician includes a duty of care in their speech and actions, particularly given the outsized impact of their decisions and public statements.

    3. Lying as a Violation of Reciprocity
    A lie by a politician is an act of informational fraud because it:
    – Misrepresents reality to the detriment of others (those they govern).
    – Obscures the cost-benefit trade-offs of decisions, thereby undermining informed consent.
    – Causes harm by inducing individuals to act against their own demonstrated interests or the common good, based on false premises.
    This deceit violates reciprocity because the polity relies on truthful information to engage in cooperative decision-making, while the politician exploits their trust for personal or factional gain.

    4. Lying as a Breach of Sovereignty
    Sovereignty in demonstrated interests depends on truthful testimony. A lie by a politician deprives citizens of their sovereignty by:Corrupting their ability to make decisions in their own interests.
    Undermining the legitimacy of governance by eroding the truth necessary for reciprocal cooperation.
    A lie reduces the polity’s ability to insure sovereignty and reciprocity at scale, making it a systemic harm.

    5. Duty of Restitution for Harm Caused
    A politician’s lie imposes costs on the polity, such as:Misdirection of resources.
    Confusion, conflict, or division within the population.
    Loss of trust, which is a form of capital critical for governance.
    Like all other crimes under natural law, lying requires restitution to repair these costs. Without restitution, the harm remains unaddressed, perpetuating further violations of reciprocity.

    6. Political Lying as a High Crime
    The harm caused by a politician lying is exponential, given their influence and responsibility. It amounts to a crime of asymmetry, where the costs are distributed widely, and the benefits are concentrated narrowly (e.g., personal gain, factional advantage).
    The scale of harm elevates lying to a high crime, as it threatens the foundational trust and cooperation necessary for a polity to function.

    7. Remedy Through Law
    You would propose a legal framework that categorizes political lying as a breach of fiduciary duty and enforces accountability through:Mandated restitution for costs caused by lies.
    Disqualification from office for violating the trust inherent in governance.
    Criminal penalties proportionate to the scale of harm caused by the lie.

    8. Conclusion: Truth as a Public Good
    In your framework, truth is not merely a moral good but a public utility necessary for cooperation. Politicians, as stewards of public trust, are uniquely obligated to uphold this utility.

    When they lie, they not only commit an ethical breach but also a legal crime under natural law, by violating the reciprocity and sovereignty that underpin civilizational cooperation.

    This explanation operationalizes lying by a politician as a crime using the principles of natural law, demonstrated interests, and reciprocity, tying it directly to your broader framework of preventing systemic harms and ensuring accountability.

    Reply addressees: @ScalyWaggington @MarioNawfal


    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 20:14:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868026915975835648

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867988052322500934