Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • ANY SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX THEORY WILL BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC —“Most pe

    ANY SUFFICIENTLY COMPLEX THEORY WILL BE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC

    —“Most people won’t understand the basis for [the Propertarian] legal theory, and it will need explanation in mythological terms. To the people who require this form of explanation it will essentially be a religion.”– Eric Orwoll

    You know, sometimes you just need someone to reframe it for you. Thanks Eric. That’s smart.

    You could ahve told me that three years ago and saved me six months… lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:32:00 UTC

  • REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRI

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfhttps://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfLANGUAGE REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRIVES REGULATION.

    James Santagata just shared an excellent paper, which illustrates the relationship between common law and continental law, language regulation, and economic regulation.

    Well, the conclusions should be pretty obvious (prior restraint vs post resolution) and that all countries pay a trade off between the utility of some regulation to prevent frauds of all sorts, lots of regulation to prevent malinvestment or tax evasion, and post-hoc litigation to encourage experimentation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:09:00 UTC

  • REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRI

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfLANGUAGE REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRIVES REGULATION.

    @[525087895:2048:James Santagata] just shared an excellent paper, which illustrates the relationship between common law and continental law, language regulation, and economic regulation.

    Well, the conclusions should be pretty obvious (prior restraint vs post resolution) and that all countries pay a trade off between the utility of some regulation to prevent frauds of all sorts, lots of regulation to prevent malinvestment or tax evasion, and post-hoc litigation to encourage experimentation.

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdf

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:09:00 UTC

  • REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRI

    https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=675084119021000008105023125118069122024006056079005030120082087022112105009097072123124060121106033007109026005122102031064113107006090023002100029123106099097011040043080069105097094023119094121092126007117028010000096013066030095076126076013106021&EXT=pdfLANGUAGE REGULATION CORRESPONDS TO ALL OTHER REGULATION: FEAR OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD DRIVES REGULATION.

    James Santagata just shared an excellent paper, which illustrates the relationship between common law and continental law, language regulation, and economic regulation.

    Well, the conclusions should be pretty obvious (prior restraint vs post resolution) and that all countries pay a trade off between the utility of some regulation to prevent frauds of all sorts, lots of regulation to prevent malinvestment or tax evasion, and post-hoc litigation to encourage experimentation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-10 09:09:00 UTC

  • Virtue signaling is bad enough. Virtue signaling with your husband’s money is wo

    Virtue signaling is bad enough.

    Virtue signaling with your husband’s money is worse.

    Virtue signaling with other investor’s money is even worse.

    Virtue signaling with taxpayer’s money is worst of all.

    Women, for reasons we understand, demonstrate conspicuous consumption and virtue signaling with other people’s money, for nothing other than psychological gratification.

    It’s an expression of dominance by feminine means.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-09 08:47:00 UTC

  • Sovereignty vs Liberty vs Freedom

    Sovereignty in fact – because a group has enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty over the will or ability of any and all competitors. Liberty by request – because a group does not have enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty, but can purchase liberty with fees (taxes). Freedom by permission – because an individual has too little violence to produce sovereignty, and too little violence to request liberty, but can purchase freedom through non-interference and payment of fees (taxes). Sovereignty is produced as a commons(Polity/Executive). Liberty is produced as a commons(Business/Managerial). Freedom is given to produce commons (Trades/Labor). Serfdom is imposed to produce commons at cost(Labor). Slavery is imposed to produce commons at high cost(labor). Whether one demonstrates a condition of Sovereignty(Aristocracy: Polity/Territory), Liberty(Citizen : capital), or freedom (Freeman: body), the production of such must be constructed top down: from commons to degree of property ownership (responsibility) since while it is most productive to have the greatest distribution of property, it is also most productive to limit the distribution of property to those who produce commons. Since productivity determines the ability for a polity to compete for sovereignty and territory the distribution of property therefore productivity and responsibility is determined by competitive necessity versus the abilities of the population. Hence the need for growth to defeat the red queen of technology and productivity, against men, and to defeat the red queen of evolution (or devolution, or extinction).

  • Sovereignty vs Liberty vs Freedom

    Sovereignty in fact – because a group has enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty over the will or ability of any and all competitors. Liberty by request – because a group does not have enough capacity for violence to produce sovereignty, but can purchase liberty with fees (taxes). Freedom by permission – because an individual has too little violence to produce sovereignty, and too little violence to request liberty, but can purchase freedom through non-interference and payment of fees (taxes). Sovereignty is produced as a commons(Polity/Executive). Liberty is produced as a commons(Business/Managerial). Freedom is given to produce commons (Trades/Labor). Serfdom is imposed to produce commons at cost(Labor). Slavery is imposed to produce commons at high cost(labor). Whether one demonstrates a condition of Sovereignty(Aristocracy: Polity/Territory), Liberty(Citizen : capital), or freedom (Freeman: body), the production of such must be constructed top down: from commons to degree of property ownership (responsibility) since while it is most productive to have the greatest distribution of property, it is also most productive to limit the distribution of property to those who produce commons. Since productivity determines the ability for a polity to compete for sovereignty and territory the distribution of property therefore productivity and responsibility is determined by competitive necessity versus the abilities of the population. Hence the need for growth to defeat the red queen of technology and productivity, against men, and to defeat the red queen of evolution (or devolution, or extinction).

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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