Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Free Speech? – We don’t allow ‘free’ violence: extortion, retaliation, punishmen

    Free Speech?

    – We don’t allow ‘free’ violence: extortion, retaliation, punishment, enforcement.

    – We don’t allow ‘free’ remuneration: blackmail, bribery,

    – So, why should we allow free speech: libel, slander, defamation, violation of privacy?

    Instead:

    – We allow constructive violence: self-defense, defense of the commons, citizens arrest, deputizing, military service.

    – We allow constructive remuneration: payment for goods and services that produce productivity for the commons.

    – We allow constructive speech: that one speaks the truth, and that when speaking the truth one defends a commons or individuals from parasitism and predation.

    Why?

    Becuase the only actions we must tolerate are those that consist of

    – Productive

    – Fully Informed

    – Warrantied

    – Voluntary Transfers

    – Limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    – Or at a minimum, productive externalities (increases in capital).

    Where:

    – that which we tolerate is defined as those words and deeds that might cause another to retaliate against an imposition of costs by others.

    Reversal:

    But are not forgone opportunities for reward a cost?

    – Of course they are – to one party. But they are not lost opportunities to BOTH parties. And that is what cooperation requires: reciprocal benefit. Unless benefit is reciprocal, productive, fully informed, and warrantied, and limited to externalities of the same, then the action is not a benefit to both parties. Man under threat from torture, blackmail, or defamation, libel and slander, may consent, but it is not voluntary. Why? because he does not have the option to refuse. And no deal in which a man has no option to refuse without harm, can be voluntary. He can refuse and forgo a gain, but he cannot refuse and be subject to harm while at the same time claiming the choice was voluntary.

    – It is not rational to grant one the right to unqualified profit or gain – that would allow for parasitism and predation, which renders cooperation irrational and conflict preferable.

    – It is rational to grant on qualified right to profit or gain – where the profit results from productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, transfer limited to externalities of the same.

    Libertine ethics are based upon the falsehood of volition rather than the truth of preventing retaliation. Volition does not limit the actions that cause retaliation. Only volition in favor of production that cannot produce retaliation is a logical and demonstrable criteria for preventing retaliation.

    The purpose of rule of law is to prevent actions that produce retaliations (costs) leaving only actions that produce production (gains).

    The history of the common law consists of the accumulated rules by which we incrementally expand the prohibitions against newly discovered means of circumventing the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-05 05:17:00 UTC

  • Please don’t be stupid. What is correspondence other than pairing? What is mathe

    Please don’t be stupid.

    What is correspondence other than pairing?

    What is mathematics other than pairing?

    Mathematics consists largely of removing properties from (deterministic)reality and constructing deductions with decreasing degrees of information.

    Logic consists of removing properties of from reality and constructing deductions with decreasing degrees of information.

    What is communication other than pairing?

    We use different terms but we pair (compare) and differentiate (remainder)

    We can use the oppposite process as well: we can restore correspondnce with reality in order to test whether our hypotheses can supply the information missing.

    This is how we come to understand BOTH critical rationalism and its complietion with operationalism and morality.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • Free speech, limited libel/slander were granted to ensure truth in government. N

    Free speech, limited libel/slander were granted to ensure truth in government. Not fund Paparazzi and Entertainment.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 07:34:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735735856082739200

    Reply addressees: @fmanjoo @felixsalmon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735692028529369091

    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/735692028529369091

  • We have to understand that Felix a problem also. And that ‘journalists’ abuse th

    We have to understand that Felix a problem also. And that ‘journalists’ abuse the privilege constitution grants them.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-26 07:31:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735735151913664512

    Reply addressees: @fmanjoo @felixsalmon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/735692028529369091

    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/735692028529369091

  • THE POSITIVE AND JUSTIFICATIONARY LAW OF TYRANNY AND COMMAND VS THE NEGATIVE AND

    THE POSITIVE AND JUSTIFICATIONARY LAW OF TYRANNY AND COMMAND VS THE NEGATIVE AND CRITICAL LAW OF LIBERTY AND INNOVATION.

    +THE POSITIVE LAW

    The Soviet Law was not law at all but ideological command, from the superior to the inferior – and dramatically counter to the behavior of human beings.

    The Chinese ‘law’ is not law at all, but ‘moral’ command, from the superior to the inferior, with the unstated purpose of maintaining Han control of the territory and people.

    The Continental Law (the french and germans) separates the law of citizens and the law of government. It is a law of unequals. It is a law of nationalism.

    The english constitution treats all men as unequal and entirely empirical, in an attempt to constrain the discretion of the king and government.

    The american common law, treats all men as equal – it is a law for aristocratic egalitarians, it states only what may not be done.

    Propertarianism (my work) separates Natural Law of all men, from contracts for the commons, which may not transgress natural law. It is a law for preventing the political and legal inequality of men.

    -THE NEGATIVE LAW

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-15 04:16:00 UTC

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • Is Human Rights A Cultural Thing That Simply Does Not Apply To Cultures That Do Not Support Them? Why Or Why Not?

    HUMAN RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND EMPIRICALLY NECESSARY FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION. YET VOLUNTARY COOPERATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IN ALL CULTURES.
    (trigger warning: uncomfortable truths)

    (a) We tend to conflate consumer capitalism and democracy but they have nothing to do with one another other than that they require extraordinary restraint in the behavior of the population. So when we say consumer capitalism we mean ‘the voluntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’, and when we say socialism we mean ‘the involuntary organization of production distribution trade and consumption’. But we rarely say how difficult it is to produce a voluntary organization of any kind. A voluntary order requires individual property rights, money, prices, and a judicial system they can trust to adjudicate contracts in a consistent manner. Yet it is this judicial system (uncorrupted) that is so difficult for groups to evolve.

    (b) We tend to confuse human (property) rights with political rights. They have nothing to do with one another. There is absolutely no reason that an absolute monarch, denying political power to any and all, while applying universal rule of law and universal standing, under natural law (human rights), could not guaranty those rights (except for the last few which were required by the communists and are impossible).

    (c) There is no reason to expect that free speech, which includes false speech, or malicious speech, must be a human right – in fact, just the opposite: we can expect free true and truthful speech as a necessary human right, but not free speech without the constraint of truthfulness.

    (d) The question whether very primitive people can make use of human rights without significant forcible, financial, and moral coercion is still open. Certainly in countries like india (little trust), Russia (low trust), countries like china (no-trust), and most of islam (tribal antagonism), then these rights might be almost impossible to preserve while at the same time preserving order.

    (e) Human rights are a luxury good produced over generations by the incremental suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, corrupt, religious, financial, and military behavior, using rule of law, while at the same time suppressing the reproduction of the lower classes such that nearly all remaining people in the population are of the genetic middle class (in IQ/impulsivity/aggression) through reproductive constraint.

    (f) Islam (the Cairo Declaration) cannot tolerate the western human rights for the simple reason that Islam requires conformity to both the Pillars and Sharia, and as such men must be given respect even if not earned, treated as equals even if they are not, and systemically prevented from enlightenment. This difference between western eugenic and islamic dysgenic law has produced the significant difference in the behaviors of the civilizations, as well as the median IQ, the opposite levels of literacy, the opposite distributions of impulsivity and emotional expression, and the opposite levels of achievement in all fields. Ergo. Be careful what you consider ‘good’, and a ‘right’ for it may not produce a good, and may not be so much a right, but a permanent curse.

    (g) China cannot also tolerate it (and perhaps should not) because the “Mythos” of the Chinese cannot tolerate scrutiny any more than the mythos of the Russians can tolerate scrutiny. China has a very difficult problem preserving the empire and perhaps should not try so hard, but given that she wants to reclaim her ‘status’ in the world (perhaps impossible, perhaps not), and given that the factionalization and civil wars in china have been a problem for so many centuries, and that the consequence for a power struggle would be so great for at least the Han, then it is somewhat understandable. The primary problem for the Chinese remains the inability to tolerate the truth in public discourse, in order to preserve ‘harmony’, while at the same time suppressing any desire for democracy (which has proven a unique western cultural luxury and not in fact a political good).

    My recommendation for both China and Russia has been to just outlaw democracy and communism both as children of the same evil western minds, and focus instead on the empirical improvement of people’s lives, and the empirical reduction of corruption, and to ask the population and reporters to assist in the suppression of corruption, deceit, fraud, and crime.

    But in countries where people either save face to lie (asia) or lie for tactical advantage (russia), it’s nearly impossible to fight corruption because it is the people themselves that are the problem. A government is just people.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-human-rights-a-cultural-thing-that-simply-does-not-apply-to-cultures-that-do-not-support-them-Why-or-why-not

  • Given that we know that even the very stupid fool, the well meaning ignorant, we

    Given that we know that even the very stupid fool, the well meaning ignorant, well intentioned educated, the messianic, sociopathic, and psychopathic, do not always know that they are in fact doing ill, or even if doing evil, then how do any of us know we are good or evil?

    In my mind I try to do good. But how do we know?

    According to Montaigne, we never know we have lived a good life until the moment we die – since we can reverse it with a single action. Worse, he argues that we are most often criticized for the unintended consequences of our moral ambitions, but rarely for those evils we intend. Worse yet, the greater ambition you attempt the more spectacular can be the failure. (The Nazis, Napoleon and the Bolsheviks the most obvious examples.)

    I take bigger risks. most of them work. some of them don’t.

    How does one know?

    We cannot trust the opinions of others. We cannot trust our own opinions. How do we know?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-07 09:51:00 UTC

  • If the Europeans can ban Nazis They can ban Islam

    If the Europeans can ban Nazis They can ban Islam.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 12:52:00 UTC

  • WE MUST RULE We must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule n

    WE MUST RULE

    We must rule. We must restore our tradition of rule. We must rule not because we are right, or best, but because everyone else is demonstrably worse. We must rule because without our rule, humanity has no example to draw from that is not the cancer of the muslims or the chinese or the chaos of the africans/

    The world today is dependent almost entirely on western example in science, law, contract, trade, engineering, medicine, and even arts. And none of the emerging cultures show even a modicum of interest in following the aristocratic tradition of truthfulness that is the reason that we developed these consequential technologies.

    The western enlightenment was a lie. A decline. A failure. Because escaping mysticism was an act of truth, but imposing unearned enfranchisement was an act of deception in order to obtain power. And when we were beset with the global consequences of our success, we failed to expand the discipline of truth – taking it, like our heroism, as a given: a natural inclination of man.

    But man has only one natural inclination: to acquire all he can using his limited reason and knowledge by either good or ill. That is all.

    We domesticated man and raised mankind out of ignorance and poverty in the ancient and modern worlds.

    We must end all our fantasies of man’s nature.

    And we must rule mankind.

    Or the next dark age will be worse than the last.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-04-22 03:01:00 UTC