Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Reason for Laws Against Child Abuse

    THE REASON FOR LAWS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE

    —“Raising a family is an act of patriotism and sacrifice. After all… Children are commons. They affect the entire polity. And they are the most feasible, concrete way for we mortals to transcend. So let’s give them a reason to be proud of us once we get to infinity.”—José Francisco Mayora —“Which is the reason why we we have any laws against child abuse. It’s not just family insuring the children and the polity from the children, but polity also insures children, even from their own families.”—Martin Štěpán

  • The Reason for Laws Against Child Abuse

    THE REASON FOR LAWS AGAINST CHILD ABUSE

    —“Raising a family is an act of patriotism and sacrifice. After all… Children are commons. They affect the entire polity. And they are the most feasible, concrete way for we mortals to transcend. So let’s give them a reason to be proud of us once we get to infinity.”—José Francisco Mayora —“Which is the reason why we we have any laws against child abuse. It’s not just family insuring the children and the polity from the children, but polity also insures children, even from their own families.”—Martin Štěpán

  • Responsibility vs Insurer, Warranty, and Liability

    Responsibility vs Insurer, Warranty, and Liability https://t.co/FO54IjCpbN

  • Responsibility vs Insurer, Warranty, and Liability

      Subtle point Martin just hinted at, is that under P-law you don’t have to ‘take’ responsibility. You either insure or you don’t, and you insure because there is no alternative, or you insure because it is a choice. But “responsibility” under P, such that it’s a choice, is very limited. In almost all cases you are insure, warranty, and are liable whether you choose to be or not. And this is what will offend the free riding left most of all.

  • Responsibility vs Insurer, Warranty, and Liability

      Subtle point Martin just hinted at, is that under P-law you don’t have to ‘take’ responsibility. You either insure or you don’t, and you insure because there is no alternative, or you insure because it is a choice. But “responsibility” under P, such that it’s a choice, is very limited. In almost all cases you are insure, warranty, and are liable whether you choose to be or not. And this is what will offend the free riding left most of all.

  • Human Needs Aren’t Human Rights

    Human Needs Aren’t Human Rights https://t.co/C8YhlOEowQ

  • Human Needs Aren’t Human Rights

    HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS

    —“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have a right to eat.”– JWP

    There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial. But one cannot POSSIBLY exercise a right that was not created by others, and one cannot possibly exercise a positive right that places demands upon others. As such all existentially possible rights are only via negativa: freedom from harm by others. There are many desirable GOODS that we might work together to obtain. There are however no existential rights no matter how much we pay wish there work (or lie that there are).

  • Human Needs Aren’t Human Rights

    HUMAN NEEDS AREN’T HUMAN RIGHTS

    —“I can’t have a right to food, but I can have a right to eat.”– JWP

    There are no pre-existing fundamental rights. Only a natural demand for certain necessary rights. We can and do work together to produce those rights. What you mean is that it is beneficial. But one cannot POSSIBLY exercise a right that was not created by others, and one cannot possibly exercise a positive right that places demands upon others. As such all existentially possible rights are only via negativa: freedom from harm by others. There are many desirable GOODS that we might work together to obtain. There are however no existential rights no matter how much we pay wish there work (or lie that there are).

  • 2020-06-01

    https://t.co/Cd2NwE6Lws

  • Because “Responsible” is a moral term in which one has choice, and “Insurer” is

    Because “Responsible” is a moral term in which one has choice, and “Insurer” is a legal term in which one has no choice.