Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • DEFINITIONS OF MORAL, ETHICAL, CRIMINAL Moral: costs imposed by externality. Eth

    DEFINITIONS OF MORAL, ETHICAL, CRIMINAL

    Moral: costs imposed by externality.

    Ethical: costs imposed interpersonally.

    Criminal: costs imposed physically

    Evil: costs imposed for the purpose of imposing costs and causing suffering rather than for personal gain.

    Objective morality: necessary/natural law. (think physical law, and natural law.)

    Normative morality : evolved morality – includes normative contractual provisions. If a moral norm requires the bearing of a cost, and one violates that norm, one imposes a cost upon those who bear the cost. (think contract law)

    Traditional Moral Commands: Religious contract traditions that may or may not be in fact moral. Since a religion requires a contract of one sort or another that causes mass behavior that is usually costly to members, it is a violation of that normative contract that imposes costs upon others to fail to observe it. (think legislation)

    Declining Traditional, Religious, and normative moral rules: changing circumstance has eliminate the value of the prior order’s demand for to forgo an opportunity or bear a cost. Some continue to pay and others do not, but objectively the value of the behavior has declined. (think outdated legislation)

    Abnormal Moral Rules: signal traditions that are objectively immoral but have not been eradicated through competition. (Think ancient traditions that actually cause harm.)

    This is pretty much how it works world ’round.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-11 10:54:00 UTC

  • Hold The Looting Hordes At Bay

    —“One man can’t stand alone against the world. But a few in confederation can hold the looting hoards at bay indefinitely.”—- Eli Harman

  • Hold The Looting Hordes At Bay

    —“One man can’t stand alone against the world. But a few in confederation can hold the looting hoards at bay indefinitely.”—- Eli Harman

  • You are not safe. We will have no mercy.

    “[D]ear Leftists. You are not safe. You never were. You never can be. That is your greatest folly. We have been patient. But we will come for you. And when we come for you, we will have no mercy.

  • You are not safe. We will have no mercy.

    “[D]ear Leftists. You are not safe. You never were. You never can be. That is your greatest folly. We have been patient. But we will come for you. And when we come for you, we will have no mercy.

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND KILLING THE FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS. It is against the

    THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND KILLING THE FAMILIES OF TERRORISTS.

    It is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 06:38:00 UTC

  • pretty sure manorialism, and hanging 1% of the population every year didnt hurt

    pretty sure manorialism, and hanging 1% of the population every year didnt hurt europeans either.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-05 18:55:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/706191366930489345

    Reply addressees: @LibrarianofHate @Amir_SDMG

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/705856488309448704

    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/705856488309448704

  • Dear Leftists. You are not safe. You never were. You never can be. That is your

    Dear Leftists. You are not safe. You never were. You never can be. That is your greatest folly. We have been patient. But we will come for you. And when we come for you, we will have no mercy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-05 13:14:00 UTC