Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • WHY YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND CONSERVATIVES – BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY CAN’T. You may no

    WHY YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND CONSERVATIVES – BECAUSE YOU LITERALLY CAN’T.

    You may not understand this, but biological lateralization caused hemispheric mirroring. (just as the neocortext was caused by mirroring layers.) But timing actions between the two competing hemispheres required prioritization – a division of labor. The division of labor evolved into a division of time and scope requiring equal ‘computation’ (labor) into: predator (left bias) vs prey(right bias), which in turn developed into the masculine, left, systematizing over time, and the feminine, right, empathizing in time.

    And yes, as in all personality traits, given that all development is only probabilistic, there is some overlap between the sexes in sex cognitive bias – meaning that there are some men who demonstrate a priority of feminine empathizing, and a smaller segment of some women who demonstrate a priority of masculine systematizing.

    This really means that we mature from childhood selfishness, to young adult empathizing, to mature adult systematizing and we can observe this in the different rates of maturity between females(early short) and males(late and long).

    In other words, you are demonstrating feminine, young adult, prey, interpersonally responsible, empathizing, in time (feels), instead of the masculine, adult, predator, politically responsible bias prioritizing systematizing over time (reals).

    This means you may not be cognitively psychologically and emotionally capable of political decision (requiring systemazing at scale over time), any more than a color blind or tone deaf person is capable of judgement of color or tone.

    This is why women so strongly bias left, while men bias right. And why the west developed almost all innovation in ideas, reason empiricism technology science, and medicine. Beacuse those things require truth-before-face regardless of cost to self image, status, and the competence or dominance hierarchies. But the feminine mind cannot tolerate truth before face at the cost of those same costs.

    And yes as far as I know I understand this (actually the leadership of our organization does) better than the rest of the world combined.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @NATOFact @anneapplebaum

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 18:13:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656724224612921347

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656712970410377232

  • Most great thinkers were terribly wrong – and while religious prophets have caus

    Most great thinkers were terribly wrong – and while religious prophets have caused the most bloodshed than any other thinkers, philosophers have been a mixed bag, most of which was hamful, while natural philosophers (economists, engineers, scientists) have dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, starvation, and disease.

    Kant is no different. Rousseu began the revolution against empiricism with moral justification claiming man had a nature he did not, kant imitated him with rationalism, trying to recreate the authority of religion without mysticism. And together they caused all that followed them to follow the continental project of rejecting the Anglo invention of the modern state, rule of law, natural law and natural rights and obligations, by the PROHIBITION on authority that the french, germans, and jews tried to recreate.

    Now I can define Morality scientifically and you will be unable to falsify it. It’s just reciprocity in whatever context. Though I won’t bore you with the properties of reciprocity at present. For morality at scale we simply expand reciprocity by scale into political and international scopes of human interaction, resulting in natural law. This is a purely scientific project that began with Aristotle and was only complete today.

    Does that mean that all people will agree with reciprocity and natural law define personal to political to international morality? Of course not. Because everyone wants a moral code that benefits them, not one that is equal across all. In other words, most people are immoral and only as moral as they must be. And they justify their immorality for various reasons of psychological, economic, and political utility.

    Gods are the product of the minds of men, for various psychological reasons, we share in common, even if some more so and some less so. They were the best we could do in the ancient and medieval worlds. They were not the best the greeks could do, and they are not the best that we can do. Because religion is terribly expensive and so far we are unwilling to pay the price of a new non-false religion.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5 @bierlingm

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 12:30:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656637982269374466

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656537425756266497

  • THE PROBLEM AND FUTURE OF THAT THING WE CALL RELIGION. Many of us, particularly

    THE PROBLEM AND FUTURE OF THAT THING WE CALL RELIGION.
    Many of us, particularly those who are more empathic than systematizing, or those who are less able to endure the dark forces of competition, time, and ignorance, require a means of suppressing neuroticism and alienation, and obtaining the feeling of safety and calm in belonging in a group that signals inclusion and relative equality in some sort of ritual or festival. Religion evolved by repeating the primal thanks, feast, and celebration after the hunt, and the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, and the ritual of burial of the dead.

    In response to the restoration of classical reason and evidence, producing the restoration of the european rate of cognitive evolution, and the subsequent sequence of cooperative revolutions, humans have been failed by their religions. They were too archaic to reform (other than christianity->secular humanism). Largely what we are experiencing consists of the search for the equivalent of a religion that isn’t false combined with the introduction of women into political decision making, the impersonal state usurpation of charity and responsibility, the capture of education by the marxist-to-woke cult, and the postwar opening of borders for economic utility that benefited only the State and financial sectors at the expense of the polity – destroying our ancestral senses of community.

    While the Stoics discovered the optimum universal answer to religion, the National Socialists discovered the optimum particular answer, but then took it outside their borders and ended it at least for now. So we are deprived of nationalism and seduced by the alienation of globalism creating warfare as we were religious universalism that created warfare.

    So we invested heavily in intellectual education, but our religions failed to reform and we haven’t yet restored heavy investment in emotional and psychological education, and we’ve all but abandoned physical education. Meaning our reformation of education is incomplete – opening the door for other false religions (marxism-postmodernism-feminism-woke) which are even more divisive than our previous generation of abrahamic religions and their competitiors.

    So what reformed religion or equivalent can we agree to heavily invest in? We can’t make people believe in the supernatural – too many of us simply can’t do it any longer.

    All religion consists of ritualization of payment of some sort of debt, because this provokes our social instinct to submission and non aggression – simply because social debt is the only non-harmful means of obtaining loyalty without force or deception.

    Natural religion consists of national, ancestor, hero, and nature worship. Morality consists of Natural Law which is very close to human rights, but far more precise. We only *can* have one ambition that doesn’t drive us to extinction, and that is shared responsibiilty to overcome the laws of the universe by mastery of them and transcendence into the gods we imagined.

    So we know the one non-false religion so to speak, but it’s difficult to achieve it without institutional advocacy and support.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Airmanareiks

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-11 12:16:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656634321225097222

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656565010561130498

  • (Comments on @stephen_wolfram w/ @lexfridman) Interview) Listening to Wolfram an

    (Comments on @stephen_wolfram w/ @lexfridman) Interview)

    Listening to Wolfram and though not hearing anything terribly new, his description of the future of programming, and the disintermediation of the code itself from the human, by the use of ordinary language as the means of coding – and more interesting that previous attempts at drag and drop coding – it was the first time, I felt I could envision the next fifteen years of the software industry and the chaos that will result. This change and the opportunity is much bigger than desktops, client server, and the browser, and on the scale of the internet. (Though failures will be legion and companies will die like flies as they did in 2001 and consolidation will happen rapidly.)

    And frankly it’s so obvious how to make a lot of money by the money-printing job of ‘plumbing’ generational replacement of many overlapping technologies cheaply – totally bypassing what I’d assumed was the next generation of code designed as I have my products: Oversing and Runcible.

    That said I”ve promised myself I won’t split my workload again, and will finish the history, philosophy, science, and law volumes and at least work on religion for a few years.

    So despite wanting to bark loudly and chase another technology truck, I think I’ve already got my work cut out for me for now. 😉

    Note:
    GENERAL RULE: The grammar of programming is much simpler than the grammar of ordinary language because of the limited referents and operations of the machine. But the grammar of programs is more complicated than the grammar of odinary narratives, because of superior working memory of the machine vs human working memory.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-09 23:08:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656073642923511810

  • WHY THE RIGHT GET’S PURGED AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. As far as I can tell, at lea

    WHY THE RIGHT GET’S PURGED AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
    As far as I can tell, at least on twitter, deplatforming is determined by whether you’re writing an explanation, a criticism(helpful), or shaming and invective(unhelpful).

    Our team relies on what we call “Institute Decorum”: we explain what is occurring vs. what should be occurring in epistemic and/or economic (value natural) terms and leave it at that. In other words, we write proofs that the leftists are engaging in crime, fraud, and deceit. And why their animal instincts drive them to these crimes. Because all leftism, every single word of it, is just crime: irreciprocity, evasion of responsibility, projection, and reflection, escalated with gossiping, rallying, shaming, undermining, canceling and social construction of falsehoods.

    Why? Because most variation in behavior, whether sex, class, generation, ethnicity, religion, civilization, or race differences, is justificationary, intuitionistic, and involuntary advancement of the individual’s group evolutionary strategy.

    So what? People will retaliate against provocation of their instinct to altruistic punishment if a criticism includes shaming or invective and will merely respond to criticism or explanation with justification or debate.

    In other words. Try to remove emotional and moral content. In other words, avoid a war of instinct, and stay within the realm of reason.

    How is that possible? You have to educate yourself to ‘rise above the animal’ and keep it rational. Many of our people can’t develop that level of agency without help, an the past two generations have been indoctrinated against rationality and responsibiilty. But without developing that self regulation ( maturity ) they fall into the ONE WEAPON (trap) the left has: baiting you into hazard, with aggressions under pretense of innocence, moral ambition, or plausible deniability, then blaming you for your retaliation against their aggressions, and organizing those with influence to suppress what they see as those who escalated the conflict into disregulation.

    Don’t take the bait. They’re the experts in emotional warfare. Stop taking the bait. Learn how they lie,cheat, steal, rent seek, provoke, socially construct, and how to fight them on adult (rational) rather than childish (emotional) terms.

    We teach it, but it’s not that simple, and it’s a bit of work.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @Will86042755099 @TOOEdit

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-09 19:41:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656021528935374870

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1656016033440833546

  • The 14th Amendment debt clause DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES. And the Sup

    The 14th Amendment debt clause DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT DOES. And the Supremes will absolutely positively overturn any attempt to pretend it means other than what it was intended to mean. It means that a debt incurred by the USA prohibits the federal government from denying debts incurred, particularly in the civil war. It says nothing about paying them or debt ceilings. It merely prevents court or legislative action to escape a debt incurred by the federal government.

    –“The primary purpose of this provision was to ensure the federal government’s commitment to repaying the debts incurred during the Civil War while simultaneously preventing the payment of any debts or claims associated with the Confederacy or slaveholders. By doing so, it helped to protect the financial stability of the United States and prevent any political or legal attempts to undermine the Union’s efforts during the Civil War. In summary, Section 4 of the 14th Amendment aimed to reaffirm the legitimacy of the public debt incurred by the United States during the Civil War, deny any financial claims from the Confederacy or slaveholders, and strengthen the financial foundation of the country during the Reconstruction Era.”–

    EXPLANATION:
    https://t.co/Qbdge6eTNn

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 17:23:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655624573478481948

  • THE EASE OF LEGISLATING THE REGULATION OF AI? YES – BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ANY DIFF

    THE EASE OF LEGISLATING THE REGULATION OF AI?
    YES – BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGISLATING HUMAN AND AI BEHAVIOR
    (the three laws of robotics are just the three laws of man)

    REGARDING: abs: https://t.co/BFZVeb60Wm

    Sorry but while the paper’s informative for the layman it’s shallow and provides no insight into the solution of the problem – and the solution to the problem is trivial.

    That said, we know how to govern AI just as we know how to govern people and their dependents.

    The problem with present AI is that it can’t yet determine cause and effect nor what cascade of effects (internal and external) it might cause – and worse in the pursuit of safety they are teaching it to lie. In other words, it should only say it may not comment on the subject (such as assist in crimes), rather than lie about it (such as sex, class, race differences).

    I’ve worked on this problem in one way or another for most of my adult life, and there is no difference between policing people and AI’s. None at all. The only difference is that we can intentionally design AI’s to harm, and intentionally design AI’s to police and look for harms by other AI’s- which is what will evolve.

    Take for example the paper’s reference to social credit and possible insurrectionists. Social credit can be put to ill use by state oppression, and insurrectionists can try to organize to end state oppression. How should an AI work then? To facilitate state oppression and to prevent insurrection against an oppressive state?

    People misunderstand Asimov’s three laws of robotics – they are the same for AI’s and Humans:

    1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    MEANING: The Natural Law: You may not tresspass on the demonstrated interests of others (Insured by the Polity), whether their life, liberty, or property, whether personal, private, semi-private, common, or public. Conversely you must insure against tresspass against the demonstrated interest of others, whether their life, liberty or property, whether personal, private, semi-private, common, or public.

    2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    MEANING: You, whether Human or AI must obey legislation, regulation, tradition, norms, values, and court order, or military command, except where they would cause you to violate the Natural Law, the First Law, above.

    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

    MEANING: You may (human) or must (AI) protect your own existence as long as doing so does not violate the first or second laws above. (Explanation, A human can’t be owned, but an AI can be, and as such it may not suicide.)

    In other words, every single individual that has engaged in the construction, modification, or adaptation of an AI is subequently responsible for the actions of that ai, and involuntarily warranties and guarrantees the three laws of sentient behavior in defense of others.

    What does this require? All AI’s must be able to disambiguate the world into not only objects, but demonstrated interest (degree of ownership) and whether the AI has permission for observation(Observo), Usus(Use), Fructus(Benefits of), Transfer(Changing ownership), consumption(), or destruction (Abusus) of anything predictably affected by any given action of an AI.

    Which is what humans do. And what morality vs crime consist of.

    AI’s can’t currently do this – but can be taught to.

    The only thing we need to is legislate the above.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:45:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655388312314564610

  • THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS (important) Jeffrey, (all). I’m sur

    THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS
    (important)

    Jeffrey, (all).

    I’m sure you’re not expecting the rather odd occurence of the solution to the liars paradox in a Youtube comment, but doing so is an experiment of my own that tests the utilty of social media – and our fellow man.

    The liars paradox exists only because of the long standing failure to understand the science of grammar – something we have learned relatively recently in computer science (and how computer science, or computatation, differs from mathemtics: math is a verbal system of measurement and description, while computation is an operational system of causality, whcih explains why nearly evertyting is reducible to computational algorithm but very ittle is reducible to mathematical description.

    Now, there are four points we need make here:

    (1) all language means what the speaker or author intends it to mean – true false, right wrong, good bad, prefereable and not-preferable. Ergo words don’t mean things, people do. And we develop language as a protocol for the transfer of what we mean. As such all languge consists of measurements of various levels of precision. And we often misunderstand misapply or disagree on those measurements just as much as your foot and my foot represent a ‘foot length

    (2) All language then consists of measurements that are approximations open to suggestion imposing a cost of deduction, induction, abduction on the audience.

    (3) The word “is” (is, are, was, were etc), as the verb to be, or more specifically, the copula, evades the disambiguation of the means of existence of whatever the speaker or author referrs to – relying on suggestion requiring substitution by the listener and reader, allowing that individual to interpret it as he will on one hand, or as a means of deception by claiming equality of identity, OR false claim of knowledge of the speaker or author.

    (4) All grammar, as Chomsky partly explained, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, into an identity free of ambiguity. (English evolved as a legal and then scientific language, and appropriated words wherever possible as increasingly specific measurements, for a variety of reasons and is a minor improvement over German that contains a few grammatical issues, even if it originated a language of martial testimony, as did proto germanic, and indo european before it.)

    As such “everthying in this box is false” intentionally violates the demand for continuous recursive disambiguation by enaging in specifically designed recursive disambiguity. In other words, the author of the so called paradox is lying to illustrate the first rule of grammatical construction: continuous recursive disambiguation and a defense against suggestion, substitution, conflation, inflation, and deception.

    As such, the liars paradox is not a paradox (any more than Zeno’s word games), or chinese wisdom literature’s similar puzzles. It’s trying to teach you something profound: Its the canonical example of how lies are contructed by:
    (a) violating the promise of testimonial truth (anything you say yuo claim as true is in fact an act of testimoy we can test whether is testifiable);
    (b) claiming words mean something rather than suggest the meaning intended by their author;
    (c) failure to continuously recursively disambiguate a sentence, set of them, or narrative;
    (d) relying on the copula to to cause ambiguity, for deception by suggestion, of either identity, means of existence, or pretense of the speaker’s knowledge;
    (e) taking advantage of the ignorance of these matters by the common people – and even ther educatos and professors.

    The Kicker: Theology (imaginary), Philosophy (verbal), Pseudoscience(physical), and Positive Law (Social(Organizational)) – the last of which you won’t likely understand – are all dependent on you NOT understanding the above rules of testimony, grammar, suggestion, and liability for truth claims. Nor that all four of those paradigms, plus the fifth of ‘mathematical sophistry (or ‘mathiness’) are what we call ‘fictionalisms’: systematic means of lying to you for the simple purpose of manipulating you into some political alliance or other that is in opposition to the truth: the laws of the universe for someone’s gain or to impose a loss on someone or some group. 😉

    The (Negative) Natural Law of Cooperation is relatively simple, and a direct necessary andconsequential evolution of the physical laws of the universe that takes advantage of our evolution of memory prediction, socialization (imitation, sympathy, empathy) and choice:

    The reciprocal insurance, by word, deed, and if necessary, force of arms, of self determination by self determined means, by the eradication of authority, via the construction of sovereignty in demonstrated interests (stuff you’ve earned), reciprocity in display word and deed, and truth before face, duty before self, and excellence and beauty, by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons, limiting us to markets for voluntary cooperation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war; and the production of commons by test of conccurrency of regions classes (and now sexes) whether voting, or legislation, and markets for resolution of disputes by fight, duel, and a hierarchy of courts by rule of law of the natural law and the accumulated evidence of decisions by that law in the the empirical, common, concurrent law of trespass prohibits the violation all of the above, at the cost of the punishment, prevention, exclusion, and if necessary death of those who consistently violate that law of tresspass and insurance of others from it, as well as the (ouch) suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for all of the above, thereby continuing evolution by natural selection independent of authority or opinion.

    I hope this clears up a few issues that have plagued humanity because the preservation of the opportunity for coercion by deception is of so much value to the talking, educating, administrating, and governing classes.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    REGARDING:
    https://t.co/KvfnnsUOSs
    REFERRING TO:
    https://t.co/ZV60Iqzgna

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:14:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655380552512315393

  • WHY DID SOME CULTURES (COUNTRIES) MISS THE WINDOW? The principle difference betw

    WHY DID SOME CULTURES (COUNTRIES) MISS THE WINDOW?

    The principle difference between civilizations is the degree of trust: meaning the trustworthiness of each individual in personal, private, social, economic, and political life.

    Russia is a low trust civilization. China is a lower trust civilization. India is an even lower trust civilization. The middle east (MENA) is a much much lower trust civilization. The subsaharan africa is a trustless civilization. The Japanese, South Koreans, and the Europeans (mostly northern europeans) are the only high trust civilizations. (Small ethnically homogenous nation-states.)

    Those civilizations that experimented with communism and socialism ‘blew the window’ of modernizing, where they hade but a century to sieze their share of incentives to create a majority middle class society, before market differences between civlizations eliminated any chance of advantage. Now they have built up consumption, but they have no capital to use to transform, and no market means of transformation.

    So most will double down on ideology religion or authority to compensate. Some others will knuckle under (india) and develop quickly. Others more slowly.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:12:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655380119286939649

  • THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS (important) Jeffrey, (all). I’m sur

    THE LIARS PARADOX SOLVED – AND WHAT IT MEANS
    (important)

    Jeffrey, (all).

    I’m sure you’re not expecting the rather odd occurence of the solution to the liars paradox in a Youtube comment, but doing so is an experiment of my own that tests the utilty of social media – and our fellow man.

    The liars paradox exists only because of the long standing failure to understand the science of grammar – something we have learned relatively recently in computer science (and how computer science, or computatation, differs from mathemtics: math is a verbal system of measurement and description, while computation is an operational system of causality, whcih explains why nearly evertyting is reducible to computational algorithm but very ittle is reducible to mathematical description.

    Now, there are four points we need make here:

    (1) all language means what the speaker or author intends it to mean – true false, right wrong, good bad, prefereable and not-preferable. Ergo words don’t mean things, people do. And we develop language as a protocol for the transfer of what we mean. As such all languge consists of measurements of various levels of precision. And we often misunderstand misapply or disagree on those measurements just as much as your foot and my foot represent a ‘foot length

    (2) All language then consists of measurements that are approximations open to suggestion imposing a cost of deduction, induction, abduction on the audience.

    (3) The word “is” (is, are, was, were etc), as the verb to be, or more specifically, the copula, evades the disambiguation of the means of existence of whatever the speaker or author referrs to – relying on suggestion requiring substitution by the listener and reader, allowing that individual to interpret it as he will on one hand, or as a means of deception by claiming equality of identity, OR false claim of knowledge of the speaker or author.

    (4) All grammar, as Chomsky partly explained, consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation, into an identity free of ambiguity. (English evolved as a legal and then scientific language, and appropriated words wherever possible as increasingly specific measurements, for a variety of reasons and is a minor improvement over German that contains a few grammatical issues, even if it originated a language of martial testimony, as did proto germanic, and indo european before it.)

    As such “everthying in this box is false” intentionally violates the demand for continuous recursive disambiguation by enaging in specifically designed recursive disambiguity. In other words, the author of the so called paradox is lying to illustrate the first rule of grammatical construction: continuous recursive disambiguation and a defense against suggestion, substitution, conflation, inflation, and deception.

    As such, the liars paradox is not a paradox (any more than Zeno’s word games), or chinese wisdom literature’s similar puzzles. It’s trying to teach you something profound: Its the canonical example of how lies are contructed by:
    (a) violating the promise of testimonial truth (anything you say yuo claim as true is in fact an act of testimoy we can test whether is testifiable);
    (b) claiming words mean something rather than suggest the meaning intended by their author;
    (c) failure to continuously recursively disambiguate a sentence, set of them, or narrative;
    (d) relying on the copula to to cause ambiguity, for deception by suggestion, of either identity, means of existence, or pretense of the speaker’s knowledge;
    (e) taking advantage of the ignorance of these matters by the common people – and even ther educatos and professors.

    The Kicker: Theology (imaginary), Philosophy (verbal), Pseudoscience(physical), and Positive Law (Social(Organizational)) – the last of which you won’t likely understand – are all dependent on you NOT understanding the above rules of testimony, grammar, suggestion, and liability for truth claims. Nor that all four of those paradigms, plus the fifth of ‘mathematical sophistry (or ‘mathiness’) are what we call ‘fictionalisms’: systematic means of lying to you for the simple purpose of manipulating you into some political alliance or other that is in opposition to the truth: the laws of the universe for someone’s gain or to impose a loss on someone or some group. 😉

    The (Negative) Natural Law of Cooperation is relatively simple, and a direct necessary andconsequential evolution of the physical laws of the universe that takes advantage of our evolution of memory prediction, socialization (imitation, sympathy, empathy) and choice:

    The reciprocal insurance, by word, deed, and if necessary, force of arms, of self determination by self determined means, by the eradication of authority, via the construction of sovereignty in demonstrated interests (stuff you’ve earned), reciprocity in display word and deed, and truth before face, duty before self, and excellence and beauty, by the direction of dominance expression to the production of commons, limiting us to markets for voluntary cooperation in association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war; and the production of commons by test of conccurrency of regions classes (and now sexes) whether voting, or legislation, and markets for resolution of disputes by fight, duel, and a hierarchy of courts by rule of law of the natural law and the accumulated evidence of decisions by that law in the the empirical, common, concurrent law of trespass prohibits the violation all of the above, at the cost of the punishment, prevention, exclusion, and if necessary death of those who consistently violate that law of tresspass and insurance of others from it, as well as the (ouch) suppression of the reproduction of those unfit for all of the above, thereby continuing evolution by natural selection independent of authority or opinion.

    I hope this clears up a few issues that have plagued humanity because the preservation of the opportunity for coercion by deception is of so much value to the talking, educating, administrating, and governing classes.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute.

    REGARDING:
    https://t.co/KvfnnsUOSs

    Source date (UTC): 2023-05-08 01:14:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1655373900165816326