Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • RELIGION IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MILITIA As far as I know the criteria for a cul

    RELIGION IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MILITIA

    As far as I know the criteria for a cult (religion) is that one take oath to a falsehood in exchange for group membership, group limitation on political coercion, and group emotional insurance, and the promise of some future (utopian) good.

    As far as I know, taking an oath to sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty for the promise of continuous goods and future transcendence for the self, kin, nation, and mankind is not a falsehood.

    As far as I know the militia and the polity, under sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty provide all those insurances.

    As far as I know the an oath of reciprocity requires nor tolerates a falsehood.

    The difference is we pay real costs for the militia, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty, and we pay no costs for the other than recitation of falsehoods for cults and religions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-11 12:39:00 UTC

  • I would prefer outlawing all charities that did not convey 100% of donations to

    I would prefer outlawing all charities that did not convey 100% of donations to the target. and I would demand warranty of that fact. This forces volunteers to produce goods through direct action and eliminates the profit incentive for virtue signaling.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 21:52:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1005568259326914560

  • DOGMATISM ISN’T IN ITSELF A CRITICISM. Dogmatism isn’t a criticism. One can be d

    DOGMATISM ISN’T IN ITSELF A CRITICISM.

    Dogmatism isn’t a criticism. One can be dogmatic about the truth, theft, parasitism or predation – and there isn’t any criticism one can levy at that. One can be dogmatic about (a) a stated preference (b) a hypothetical good (c) an arbitrary definition, conclusion, narrative, or theory. The question is only whether one is dogmatic about a truth and theft or the arbitrary and utilitarian.

    DOGMA: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

    Well, sorry, but truth and theft are natural laws just as every other law of nature. It’s not a matter of opinion. The fact that one STATES these laws does not mean they are imposed by authority, or are arbitrary, but that they simply incontrovertibly exist.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 13:39:00 UTC

  • Ethical Ai? Yes Its Solvable and Trivially so

    1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty. 2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software. 3) There is nothing ethical or moral about war. That war exists defines the limit of ethics and morality. There will be killing machines just as there are machine guns and nuclear weapons, and the first people to invent them will dominate war, politics, economics, for a century. 4) The military incentive always DEFINES the political order. Not the other way around. You cannot stop this technology. This tech means greatest manufacturing capacity and engineering capacity will dominate all future wars – and therefore politics and therefore economics. 5) However, it is entirely possible to protect citizens from criminal uses the same way we do from nuclear weapons. However, the cost of AI will be in the billions today and dependent on vast infrastructure. But this price will decrease while the cost of refining n-weapons won’t.

  • great. there is only one law: reciprocity, and if you need more than that its to

    great. there is only one law: reciprocity, and if you need more than that its to justify parasitism. so not all sets of lies are neutral. all are thefts.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 12:22:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004700234671419392

    Reply addressees: @klivanophoros

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1004699522923155461

    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/1004699522923155461

  • ETHICAL AI? YES ITS SOLVABLE AND TRIVIALLY SO 1) Ethical AI is a trivially solva

    ETHICAL AI? YES ITS SOLVABLE AND TRIVIALLY SO

    1) Ethical AI is a trivially solvable problem in (a) hardware (b) software design (c) requirement of insurance, and (d) extremely harsh punishment of violations of that law, applied to every person in the chain of decidability. (d) international treaty.

    2) We have solved this problem for thousands of years among humans with one single rule. All civilizations and all law is based upon that one rule. That politicians, philosophers and theologians ‘skirt’ that rule does not mean we cannot apply it to software.

    3) There is nothing ethical or moral about war. That war exists defines the limit of ethics and morality. There will be killing machines just as there are machine guns and nuclear weapons, and the first people to invent them will dominate war, politics, economics, for a century.

    4) The military incentive always DEFINES the political order. Not the other way around. You cannot stop this technology. This tech means greatest manufacturing capacity and engineering capacity will dominate all future wars – and therefore politics and therefore economics.

    5) However, it is entirely possible to protect citizens from criminal uses the same way we do from nuclear weapons. However, the cost of AI will be in the billions today and dependent on vast infrastructure. But this price will decrease while the cost of refining n-weapons won’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-07 09:43:00 UTC

  • Voluntary Disassociation – Trade vs Market

    Voluntary Association and Disassociation Must be Restored (its loss was a product of the unconstitutional 14th amendment). It is one thing to deny human beings commodities, water, and air. It is another thing altogether to force someone to engage in craftsmanship of any kind whatsoever. Ergo, if you package flour for distribution that’s one thing. If you make custom cakes thats something else. That is what separates a MARKET (production), from TRADE (craft). Unfortunately that is not (currently) recognized in the constitution, because it’s ASSUMED by the authors of it. The idea that we would be compelled to serve people against our will would have been an anathema. Secondly, it is one thing to fail to serve someone needs regardless of their biology, and another to choose not to serve someone for their beliefs, preferences, or choices, or behaviors due to that biology. Gasoline is a commodity produced for a market. Wheat is a commodity produced for a market. A box of corn flakes is a commodity produced for a market. All Markets are Produced by Commons. Cooking you a meal is a personal service. (trade) Making you a cake is a personal service (trade). Driving you from point a to point b is a service (trade). Direct and personal, vs indirect and impersonal.

  • Voluntary Disassociation – Trade vs Market

    Voluntary Association and Disassociation Must be Restored (its loss was a product of the unconstitutional 14th amendment). It is one thing to deny human beings commodities, water, and air. It is another thing altogether to force someone to engage in craftsmanship of any kind whatsoever. Ergo, if you package flour for distribution that’s one thing. If you make custom cakes thats something else. That is what separates a MARKET (production), from TRADE (craft). Unfortunately that is not (currently) recognized in the constitution, because it’s ASSUMED by the authors of it. The idea that we would be compelled to serve people against our will would have been an anathema. Secondly, it is one thing to fail to serve someone needs regardless of their biology, and another to choose not to serve someone for their beliefs, preferences, or choices, or behaviors due to that biology. Gasoline is a commodity produced for a market. Wheat is a commodity produced for a market. A box of corn flakes is a commodity produced for a market. All Markets are Produced by Commons. Cooking you a meal is a personal service. (trade) Making you a cake is a personal service (trade). Driving you from point a to point b is a service (trade). Direct and personal, vs indirect and impersonal.

  • ORGANIC EUGENICS NOT INDUSTRIAL You cannot force evolution on a people. you can

    ORGANIC EUGENICS NOT INDUSTRIAL

    You cannot force evolution on a people. you can merely build it into the incentives, and let it occur naturally. This requires only the gradual limiting of the underclass rates of reproduction until the middle class is large enough to carry the body of the polity, and the upper classes able to lead the polity without reliance upon corruption. We must GROW our people. They are not machines.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-06 12:21:00 UTC

  • VOLUNTARY DISASSOCIATION – TRADE VS MARKET Voluntary Association and Disassociat

    VOLUNTARY DISASSOCIATION – TRADE VS MARKET

    Voluntary Association and Disassociation Must be Restored (its loss was a product of the unconstitutional 14th amendment).

    It is one thing to deny human beings commodities, water, and air. It is another thing altogether to force someone to engage in craftsmanship of any kind whatsoever.

    Ergo, if you package flour for distribution that’s one thing. If you make custom cakes thats something else.

    That is what separates a MARKET (production), from TRADE (craft).

    Unfortunately that is not (currently) recognized in the constitution, because it’s ASSUMED by the authors of it. The idea that we would be compelled to serve people against our will would have been an anathema.

    Secondly, it is one thing to fail to serve someone needs regardless of their biology, and another to choose not to serve someone for their beliefs, preferences, or choices, or behaviors due to that biology.

    Gasoline is a commodity produced for a market.

    Wheat is a commodity produced for a market.

    A box of corn flakes is a commodity produced for a market.

    All Markets are Produced by Commons.

    Cooking you a meal is a personal service. (trade)

    Making you a cake is a personal service (trade).

    Driving you from point a to point b is a service (trade).

    Direct and personal, vs indirect and impersonal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-04 12:45:00 UTC