Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Putin more so than the rest of the government made a profound mistake by using t

    Putin more so than the rest of the government made a profound mistake by using the military rather than money to obtain ukrainian territory that ukrainians themselves would have happily ‘sold’ off to RU before the 2014 invasion. THe problem is Putin is excessively paranoid, he will not talk honestly to the american people (and his people won’t to him), and he depends too much on talking to peers, instead (of like israel) appealing to the american people. This is inconcievable to Putin – so he screwed up.

    You are incorrect that RU is working to survive. Instead, as far as I can tell, and I am not ignorant of these matters, they are dying and trying to find a way to conquer so they don’t die.

    The west will be fine as long as we continue our trajectory and (a) end or reverse islamic immigration and (b) separate female and male voters and equally suppress female natural antisocial and antipolitical behavior that is their nature.

    Reply addressees: @hollowconkers @entelechhhy

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 19:49:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737560755820511233

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737559769521754523

  • Kind of hard to see Russia winning. Ever. Because it’s a nothing but a competiti

    Kind of hard to see Russia winning. Ever. Because it’s a nothing but a competition of political will. RU has more, the west has less. The west is much stronger than RU. And RU is too weak and continues to weaken. Mean while the NATO strategy is to exhaust RU no matter how long it takes.

    This is partly because russians, even more so that europeans, do not see american political infighting and chaos as a virtue of our system’s ability to adapt to any crisis or stress. So unless the US has a civil war – which isn’t impossible at this point – RU can’t win.

    Part of putin’s strategy is to redirect the blame for the decline and end of russian eurasian power and reduction to it’s western heartlands, is to keep this war going so that he can blame the west rather than he and his government take the blame for their political and economic and now geostrategic failure.

    Reply addressees: @entelechhhy

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 19:37:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737557938238074880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737556595158962186

  • Fascism is a means of conducting war. All states do it, the french modernized it

    Fascism is a means of conducting war. All states do it, the french modernized it, the monarchies practiced it, the church practiced it, the romans invented it with dictatorship in times of war. All that has changed is that the cult of the abrahamic religions whether supernatural or pseudoscientific marxist-sequence, were used to hide behind pretense of morality in order to conduct social and political sedition from within.

    Fascism is a rational reaction to social, politica, and religious warfare, and is the norm under conditions of military warfare.

    And I do not err. You do. You do because you presume the existence of human behavior that does not exist, and you presume the good intentions of the abrahamic religions and the marxist-socialst cults.

    Reply addressees: @MoMothra54 @RealMichaelKee @RBReich

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 17:44:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737529520217866240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737528448791224470

  • IQ OF LEBANESE CHRISTIANS? LOOKS LIKE CHRISTIANITY, NOT IQ. We have pretty good

    IQ OF LEBANESE CHRISTIANS? LOOKS LIKE CHRISTIANITY, NOT IQ.

    We have pretty good (not volumnious but sufficient) data on IQ by Denomination. But I don’t find any measures of lebanese christians (~35% of the population) vs the others.

    The lebanese, and christian lebanese in particular, evidence is that chrsitianity is what makes a working polity and that islam is the means of undermining that working polity.

    Lebanon also demonstrates why you NEVER let islam into your polity under any circumstances, and in particularly by tolerance – because it is not a religion but a political system and method of warfare by social means.

    With a small population of 4.7M, Lebanese Genetics are over 90% the same as ancient Caananites who lived at the crossroads of many civilizations and benefited dramatically from it. (the geography and geographic location isn’t bad either).

    –“there is a lack of specific studies addressing the IQ differences between Lebanese Christian and non-Christian populations.”– Perplexity

    That said, given the genetics of Lebanon, it is unlikely that the christians possess european IQ which is a genetic contribution. Instead, the success of the lebanese is due to the christian ethnic and subsequent social and political morality that gives rise to middle class majorities who double down on that christian majority – because under christiantity (don’t laugh, it’s true) everyone is a potential customer. and that one sentence explains the success of chrisitan doctrine in producing high trust societies over every other society.

    If there is an IQ difference between christians and other sects just as there is an IQ difference between christian sects, then it is do to various selection processes just as classes are due to selection processes.

    Genetics: Religiously Diverse, and Genetically Homogeneous.

    Y-DNA haplogroups
    In a 2011 genetic study by Haber et al. which analyzed the male-line Y-chromosome genetics of the different religious groups of Lebanon, revealed no large genetic differentiation between the Maronites, Greek Orthodox Christians, Greek Catholic Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, and Druze of the country in regards to the more frequent haplogroups. Major differences between Lebanese groups were found among the less frequent haplogroups.

    Autosomal DNA
    In a 2020 study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, authors showed that there is substantial genetic continuity in Lebanon and the Levant since the Bronze Age (3300–1200 BC) interrupted by three significant admixture events during the Iron Age, Hellenistic, and Ottoman period, each contributing 3%–11% of non-local ancestry to the admixed population. The admixtures were tied to the Sea Peoples of the Late Bronze Age collapse, South or Central Asians, and Ottoman Turks, respectively.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @tim86975973 @shasha2711 @RzAz_Yemen @Yampeleg

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 17:41:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737528657000689665

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737511223711670564

  • WHAT DO WE DO WITHOUT A SUPERNATURAL CHURCH? Yes. And if you were unlucky enough

    WHAT DO WE DO WITHOUT A SUPERNATURAL CHURCH?
    Yes. And if you were unlucky enough to follow me for any period of time 😉 you would have noticed that I criticize churchianity across time, and the criticize Church after Aquinas less, and only substantially in the time of Darwin for not totally converting to natural law, and claiming the church had been correct all along – at least metaphorically – the science had demonstrated so.

    We can’t practice faith any longer. Or rather, the capacity to hold faith in the supernatural. We can have belief and confidence in the evidence of the hand of a creator and that science seeks the laws of that creator. and then have faith in a creator that we CAN never know anything about other than what he has left for us to discover in the laws of the universe, and in my work, our organizatin’s work, the natural law of cooperation.

    Now, while that approach is effectively deism. And while we have the hero of jesus and the saints on one hand, and many heroes of military, arts, and science on the other, we still need rituals that Church provided us.

    Stoicism (masculine) and Epicureanism (Feminine) provide the training and environment for the non-false indoctrination into the mindfulness that the church and social construction of the experience of church, provided.

    We have a Solution to religion and it’s not false.

    We may need then the fundamental supernatural, the deist and philosophical , and the wonderous and scientific unified under natural law of cooperation to reproduce the moral training that we all require (obviously).

    The question is only the institution to do so. I feel teh churches will continue to collapse until some churches, perhaps the catholic that is already exceptional at it, and the state can unite in producing an education system that trains the whole person.

    Is that still a church? Is it an academy? I don’t know. I know that science, philosophy, religion, and military service have been unified. Does that mean we should unify the teachings of them?

    It surely seems so.

    -Curt

    Reply addressees: @MeMawChatterBox

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 16:49:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737515675373998080

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737512481780572484

  • WHO THE POWERFUL ARE PHOTOGRAPHED WITH TELLS US NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT THEY HAV

    WHO THE POWERFUL ARE PHOTOGRAPHED WITH TELLS US NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT THEY HAVE INFLUENCE
    And they have that influence because they are acting on behalf of others – and often carrying the burden of distasteful contexts in order to do so.

    (Areez: I enjoy your comments most of the time. But if you’ll forgive this teaching moment – you’re making a common mistake of false equality – and that mistake is emotional and beneath your potential.)

    The more significant the consequences of outcomes, the less personal moral opinion has merit, and even more importantly, the irrelevance of symbolism produced by the preservation of manners with people whom you have disparate group interest, even if as politicans or generals or financieers, you have similar occupational interests in serving your constituencies.

    Powerful people in the world must talk to powerful people whether friend, ally, distant, or enemy, because it is only other powerful people that powerful people can be influenced by – and moreover, as you just illustrated – understood.

    For example, Kings, Generals, and Diplomats are often seen socializing with one another despite being enemies of one type or the next.

    Yet, in order to resolve conflicts and prevent conflicts they must preserve the ability to talk to one another, so that if all else fails then may speak to one another and negotiate on behalf of all those people who give them the power and influence they possess.

    I am just an entrepreneur, and a marginal public intellectual. But in both those roles, I can get access to people you can’t. And there are people I cannot get access to because I am marginal.

    So climb the ladder of important people and you discover that (a) there are many venues where these people come together despite their differences.

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Areez22 @Richard_0292 @BobbyBrisket @Rasterdingus @FuryForth

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 15:57:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737502421742399488

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737491087625732367

  • THE FUTURE OF MORALITY REQUIES EDUCATION AND TRAINING – HUMANS OVERSIMPLIFY OTHE

    THE FUTURE OF MORALITY REQUIES EDUCATION AND TRAINING – HUMANS OVERSIMPLIFY OTHERWISE

    In the future, under NLI’s Natural Law of Cooperation, we would expect children to learn and adults to practice asking questions seeking to undersetand moral differences and decide accordingly rather than asserting opinions – and moreover opinions – as presumptive truths.

    And moral differences in what context? To yourself? Or a mate, or a family member, or a close friend, or someone in your workplace, or someone in interpersonal commerce, or someone in the general commons of society, or someone in politics, or someone who is an ally, or a potential ally, or a new introduction to an alien context, or even an anemy?

    Humans try to simplify morality as they try to simply everything so that they don’t have to think and can just react from intuition and emotion. But this is the morality of the hunter gatherer band – of proto-humans not modern humans.

    Instead, to train ourselves to not oversimplify, especially the moral, we require education and repetitive practice, so that we categorize circumstances accordingly.

    The most simple among us confuse the moral wants of their own (solipsism), or those of the family (lesser solipsism) with the moral wants and needs of contexts where each of us has less value to one another and less want and need of compromise with one another.

    So moral obligations differ with proximity of the releations between us.

    That does not mean we cannot alway start from treating all others as kin (near relations) which is the most optimistic relation possible – it’s the foundation and nearly the sole purpose of christian religion.

    However, that does not mean we should expect reciprocity in that optimistic relation, or that others share that optimism.

    Instead we should recognize that such optimism is merely a pragmatism that our civilization has discovered, and that all people in all cultures ac pragmatically according the the pragmatic mmorals of their civilizations, cultures, and classes.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-20 15:29:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1737495327404376064

  • THE CORRECT ANSWER (a) europeans apply the terms philosophy and law to other civ

    THE CORRECT ANSWER
    (a) europeans apply the terms philosophy and law to other civilizations when they are unequal in practice. European traditional law is almost five thousand years old – beginning on the steppe. It is, in practice, a prohibition on authority, including a prohibition on arbitrary discretion, and a demand for consent of the people – or at least the warriors, and the aristocracy. So instead, there are rules by which different polities, states, empires, federations, and civilizations limit the behavior of both public and private people. We only call these other systems ‘law’ by analogy because they serve the same purpose of establising RULES the violation of which may incur costs of restitution and punishment. This same ambiguity applies to the term Rule of Law – where, at least until the europeans (greeks formalized it).

    PART I – CRITERIA FOR RULE OF LAW (vs Rule by Discretion)

    Under Rule of Law, there are several criteria that legislation, regulation, and findings of the court must meet to be considered legitimate.

    While different legal scholars might enumerate these criteria differently, here’s a comprehensive list that captures the essential elements:

    Legality (Process Legitimacy) : Laws must be properly enacted through recognized legislative processes and in compliance with existing legal frameworks.

    Publicity: Laws must be made public, ensuring that citizens are aware of the legal requirements and can comply with them.

    Prospective Application: Laws should apply to future actions, not retroactively. This means laws cannot penalize actions that were legal at the time they were committed.

    Clarity: Laws must be clear and precise, providing citizens with an understandable guide to their rights and obligations.

    Consistency: The legal system should be coherent, with laws being consistent with one another and not contradictory.

    Non-Contradiction: A law should not require people to do something that is simultaneously forbidden or forbid something that is simultaneously required.

    Possibility of Compliance: Laws should be realistic and feasible, allowing people the ability to comply.

    Stability: Laws should be relatively stable and not subject to frequent changes, ensuring legal certainty.

    General Application: Laws should apply generally, not targeting specific individuals or groups unfairly.

    Equality Before the Law: All individuals should be treated equally under the law, without discrimination.

    Due Process: Legal processes should be fair, with individuals having the right to a fair hearing, representation, and an appeal.

    Proportionality: Penalties or legal consequences should be proportionate to the offense, not excessively harsh or lenient.

    Protection of Fundamental Rights: Laws must respect and protect fundamental human rights and freedoms.

    Accountability: Lawmakers and enforcers (government and judiciary) should be accountable under the law.

    Separation of Powers: A balance and separation between legislative, executive, and judicial powers to prevent the concentration of power.

    Judicial Review: There should be mechanisms for reviewing the legality and constitutionality of laws.

    These criteria are designed to ensure that the legal system is just, accessible, and effective in maintaining order and protecting rights within a society. They are fundamental to upholding the Rule of Law in democratic societies.

    PART II – HIERARCHY OF STRICTNESS OF RULE OF LAW

    To assess claims about the Rule of Law, it’s important to understand the different ways this concept is defined and interpreted. Here, we’ll contrast several prominent definitions of the Rule of Law, which should help in evaluating whether such claims hold true within each framework:

    1. Formalist (or Procedural) Definition
    Essence: Emphasizes the way laws are made and applied rather than the content of the laws themselves.
    Key Features: Laws should be general, public, clear, stable, and applied evenly. This definition stresses the importance of legal processes, procedural fairness, and equality before the law.
    Assessment: Claims of the Rule of Law are true if laws are procedurally sound, consistently applied, and administered through an impartial and competent judiciary.

    2. Substantive (or Material) Definition
    Essence: Focuses on the content of laws and whether they uphold certain principles, such as justice, rights, and morality.
    Key Features: Laws should protect fundamental rights, including property rights, personal liberties, and political freedoms. The Rule of Law is not just about procedures but also about the fairness and justice of the laws themselves.
    Assessment: Claims of the Rule of Law are true if laws are not only procedurally fair but also substantively just, respecting and protecting individual rights and freedoms.

    3. Rule of Law by Natural Law (Local)
    Essence: Based on the philosophy that laws should reflect certain universal moral principles inherent in human nature.
    Key Features: Laws should align with moral principles that are discernible through human reason and empirical evidence of societal cooperation.
    Assessment: Claims of the Rule of Law are true if laws are derived from and consistent with Natural Law principles, reflecting moral and cooperative norms universally applicable to human societies.

    4. Rule of Law with Concurrency and Commonality (Scale)
    Essence: Extends the Rule of Law by Natural Law to include mechanisms ensuring broad-based consensus (Concurrency) in legislation and consistency (Commonality) in judicial decisions.
    Key Features: Laws should be the product of agreement across different societal segments (Concurrency), and judicial decisions should be based on common principles derived from court findings (Commonality).
    Assessment: Claims of the Rule of Law are true if laws are made with wide-ranging societal agreement and if judicial decisions are consistent and based on common legal principles, both reflecting empirical evidence of societal consent.

    Conclusion
    Evaluating claims of the Rule of Law requires an understanding of the specific definition being applied. Each definition has distinct criteria for what constitutes the Rule of Law. The Formalist definition focuses on legal processes, the Substantive definition on the content of laws, the Natural Law definition on the moral basis of laws, and the Concurrency and Commonality definition on empirical evidence of societal consensus and judicial consistency. Understanding these nuances is key to assessing the validity of Rule of Law claims within different legal and philosophical contexts.

    PART III – DEFINITIONS

    Concurrency in Legislation
    Concurrency refers to the requirement for multiple classes and regions, representing different polities within a geographical area, to reach agreement for legislation to pass. This concept is evident in bicameral or multicameral legislative systems, where different houses of government represent various classes or regional interests. The goal is to ensure that legislation (via-positiva) reflects a broad consensus across different segments of society, including the aristocracy, nobility, middle class, working class, and other demographics.

    Concurrency is the reason for houses for states, and a house for the property owners (business), and we failed to add a house for the common man and woman that had previosly be provide representation in the state by the church clerisy.

    In effect, Concurrency is a prohibiton on majority democracy as much as Rule of Law is a prohibition on discretionary authority. Concurrency protects the rights of minorities from the will of the masses.

    Commonality in Judicial Decisions
    Commonality involves ensuring that formal codes, laws, and legislation used in courts for dispute resolution (via-negativa) are derived from a common agreement reflected in the findings of the courts. This principle ensures that judicial decisions are not arbitrary but are based on a shared understanding and application of legal principles across different cases and contexts.

    Natural Law and Empirical Evidence
    Natural Law is understood as the empirical evidence that successful cooperation within a society requires adherence to certain behavioral laws of nature. Under the rule of law in a Natural Law framework, both legislation (via-positiva) and judicial decisions (via-negativa) must be grounded in empirical evidence of the consent of the governed, as demonstrated through their behavior.

    Narrowed Rule of Law By Natural Law
    As such, the Rule of Law encompasses not only the procedural fairness and consistency of laws but also their legitimacy and alignment with the constraints set by the constitution of the state. In a republic grounded in Natural Law, the constitution should reflect both the empirical principles of Natural Law and the mechanisms of obtaining consent through demonstrated behavior (empirical evidence) in both legislative (via-positiva) and judicial (via-negativa) processes.

    This understanding places a significant emphasis on empirical evidence and broad-based consent as foundational to the legitimacy and effectiveness of laws and governance structures in a republic. It highlights the importance of ensuring that laws and legal decisions are not only procedurally sound but also substantively representative of the will and cooperation of the diverse segments of society.

    PART IV – GOVERNMENT AS AN APPLIED SCIENCE OF COOPERATION

    Rule of Law in the Context of Natural Law, Concurrency, and Commonality
    Foundational Principles: The Rule of Law, underpinned by Natural Law, asserts that laws should be based on empirical evidence reflecting the natural behavioral laws necessary for societal cooperation.

    Concurrency in Legislation: This aspect involves the requirement for broad consensus in the legislative process, ensuring that laws (via-positiva) are agreed upon by various social classes and regional representations. This consensus is critical for the legitimacy and acceptance of laws, reflecting the diverse interests and perspectives within the society.

    Commonality in Judicial Decisions: Commonality requires that judicial decisions and dispute resolutions (via-negativa) are consistent and based on common principles derived from the aggregated findings of the courts. This consistency ensures that legal interpretations and applications are uniform and not subject to arbitrary judgment.

    Empirical Basis of Consent: Both legislative and judicial processes must be grounded in empirical evidence of the consent of the governed. This evidence is demonstrated through behavior, ensuring that laws and legal decisions align with the will and cooperative norms of the society.

    Constitutional Constraints: The Rule of Law mandates adherence to a constitution that reflects Natural Law principles and the empirical consent of the people. This constitution sets limits on the discretion of the government, aligning it with the Natural Law and the empirically demonstrated will of the people.

    Legitimacy and Representation: The legitimacy of laws under this framework is not solely derived from procedural correctness but also from their substantive representation of the consent and cooperation of the governed, as evidenced by empirical measures.

    In summary, the Rule of Law, in this context, is a principle that goes beyond procedural fairness and legal consistency. It emphasizes the importance of laws being grounded in Natural Law (as empirically observed in the construction of legislation and decisions of dispute resolution), validated by empirical evidence of societal consent, and shaped through processes that ensure broad-based agreement across different societal segments. This approach seeks to guarantee that laws are not only legally sound but also legitimately reflect the cooperative spirit and diverse interests of the populace.

    SO NO:
    Issuing arbitrary COMMANDS and calling them laws by analogy does not equal discovering dispute reolutions (negativa) and producing legislation and regulation (positiva).

    Discretionary rule that is unlimited is not anything close to rule of law (Russia, China etc)

    So no, there are very few instances of rule of law.

    In fact, even among europeans, only americans have a constitution of natural law under concurrency and commonality where the people are soverign. In the UK and Canada the Parliament is soverign – but sovereign by commonality and concurrency. In the continental system of law (started by napoleon), the government is sovereign.

    This is why, if you read constitutions around the world most of them are wish lists and the american is instead a set of prohibitions against the state and a system the state must follow.

    Apologies for cutting this long post short but I’ve already written chapters on this subject and I feel this should be enough for an educated audience.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @TheWorthyHouse

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-18 01:54:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736565540892688384

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736524004943446036

  • Robert, (all): I would argue free ‘truthful, reciprocal, testifiable speech’ – w

    Robert, (all):
    I would argue free ‘truthful, reciprocal, testifiable speech’ – where truthful requires that truth and reciprocity claims are ‘testifiable’, is the hole in the law.
    And that this hole in the law exists becuause until the past decade or so, we could not test, in the constraints of the court, whether a statement was truthful and tesifiably so.
    Plugging that hole in the law would effectively eliminate all leftist speech, since it always and everywhere consists of violations of truth,reciprocity, and testifiability.
    As for the moral questions, if we acknowldge that the intergenerational family is of higher policy and law priority than the individual’s personal fulfillment of their instincts, intuitions, and desires – then all the two socially offensive questions positied in the graphic: satan worship and trans story hour that you posted would be crimes, but the rest would not.

    Reply addressees: @BobMurphyEcon

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-17 14:02:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736386388768014336

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1736262317791137887

  • Either statemetns are true, partially true, false, or irrelevant. You have yet t

    Either statemetns are true, partially true, false, or irrelevant. You have yet to demonstrate that I am stating anything false (and you won’t be able to unless you attempt to misstate or misrepresent something I’ve said).

    Truth requires we engage in exchanges and limit ourselves…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-13 17:48:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734993655390151048

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734992894094889221