You asked. I served. That’s my job. If only more people asked with equally good manners and respect. 😉 -hugs
(Yes I”ll think about a longer piece.)
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-28 19:21:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784664217678659625
Reply addressees: @artus9010
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784663058855383313
WOMEN’S VOTE VS NATURAL LAW?
Q: CURT: –“… does this imply that the pressure which (disastrously) gave women the right to vote was a legitimate pressure to advance cooperation rather than a degrading entropic effect over time? Does Natural Law demand that eventually one or the other must be provided to women, either the general vote or a house of their own?”– @WalterIII
No.
TLDR; The right of juridical defense must be equal for all regardless of merit, but the privilege of legislative offense must be unequal as is demonstrated responsibility for private and common at scale.
Setting aside that it’s not at all clear that voting for or against anything other than the monarchy and cabinet’s raising of funds has any value at all, and instead may in fact be foolish vs the use of courts that limit activism and demands to the adversarial competition in court bound by truth, evidence, and liability for both. At present it certainly appears that universal democracy is, as ancients warned us, no matter how much catharsis we feel from our vote, a race to the bottom. This is not to say that a subset of the population with demonstrated competency, responsibility, and loyalty should not vote – if for no other reason than to prevent violent conflict when the monarchy and cabinet and bureaucracy have betrayed the interests of the responsible and the people by proxy. There is only one scientific means of testing for responsibility and competency and that’s trough demonstration of it at scale.
That said, let’s answer the question:
1) We must all insure one another’s via-negativa defense in court under the common natural law. In other words meritocracy is irrelevant in there resolution of disputes over demonstrated interests. Conversely, the via positiva production of commons under that common natural law is dependent upon demonstrated capacity for responsibility not only of the self, and family, but economy and polity – as such depends upon meritocracy. A meritocracy that has largely been removed from all our branches of government other than perhaps the presidency and what conservatism remains in the supreme court.
2) However, have we done our due diligence in training women in education and expanding our laws against feminine intuition to mother – meaning encourage irresponsibility and independence and variation instead of discouraging them and facilitating the extension of childhood, immaturity, and irresponsibility, and the parasitism upon men that has resulted? No we have not.
3) The conservative approach to problems is to solve them quickly, decisively, and if necessary, harshly, in order to prevent the harms that arise from human behavior’s tendency to the short term parasitic whenever possible. However, the aristocratic and the most evolutionary approach, is to use the power of the manor, education (church), the government, monarchy if you’re lucky enough to have one, and if necessary the military and militia, to impose training (education), regulation (law), and and discipline (courts) to eradicate a behavior that even if it ‘feels’ just and right to the individual, is in fact, a violation of the natural law.
4) Why? Because it is the natural law alone, and our responsibilities under it, that ameliorate the majority of our differences, by demanding we all carry those responsibilities, regardless of our preferences, such that we produce sovereignty for one another – and that is the only equality that is possible whatsoever: the sovereignty, liberty, and freedom to self determination by self determined means, free of imposition of costs on the same, by the freedom of imposition of costs on one another’s demonstrated interests.
There is more political science and philosophy in these four points than you will find in many combined works. Because it really is just that simple. 😉
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @WalterIII
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-27 14:42:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784231593097191425
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784216174265586112
CURT WHY DO YOU ATTRIBUTE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE TO KEYNES AND RAWLS?
Great Question:
TLDR; The Conversion of economics from the science of cooperation over the long term (capitalization) to the science of manipulation of the public in the short term (consumption) – under the presumption that the industrial revolution and it’s consequences had produced a horn of plenty that would lead to eternal growth.
Context: I was educated in science, engineering, computer science, economics, and law. So I have an engineers perspective on problems in social science.
As such I have maintained a foundation in the Austrian school of economics as the study of economic science, compatible with the empiricism of western common law, and concurrent legislation, with a cautious acceptance for the Chicago “freshwater” school which seeks to insure economies and facilitate the production of such commons as education, and a disdain for the Keynesian, New York, “saltwater” school of economics, that seeks to maximize consumption and debt at the consequence of cumulative risks: kicking the can down the road. These three fields all claim the title of economics but they are instead economics, it’s insurance against shocks, and it’s manipulation.
Now, that said, in economics I consider Keynes (as did my mentor Hayek) a disaster for economics and policy, and
I consider John Rawls a disaster for both law legislation and economic policy – because it is their collective efforts that have brought about the present economic crisis in the west: their pretense of endless growth and endless risk, has come to roost.
So, my critiques of Keynes and Rawls emphasizes their roles in baiting ignorant legislators and willing financiers into economic and legal policies that have led to unsustainable growth, increased debt, and extraordinary economic risks.
CRITIQUE OF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES:
Short-term focus: Keynes advocated for government intervention and increased spending to stimulate economic growth during recessions. However, critics argue that this short-term focus on boosting consumption and aggregate demand neglects the long-term consequences of accumulating debt and the potential for creating economic bubbles.
Disregard for savings and investment: The Keynesian approach often involves lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing and discourage saving. This can lead to a misallocation of resources, as the artificially low cost of capital may encourage investments in projects that are not economically viable in the long run.
Inflation and currency devaluation: Keynesian policies, such as expansionary monetary policy and deficit spending, can lead to inflation and currency devaluation over time. This erodes the purchasing power of money, disproportionately affecting savers and those on fixed incomes.
Crowding out of private investment: When governments borrow heavily to finance spending, they compete with the private sector for available funds. This can lead to higher interest rates and reduced private investment, hindering long-term economic growth.
Ignoring the role of prices: Keynesian economics often focuses on aggregate demand and overlooks the crucial role of prices in allocating resources efficiently. This can result in market distortions and a misallocation of resources.
CRITIQUE OF JOHN RAWLS:
Disregard for individual rights and property: Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” and “difference principle” prioritize redistributive policies over individual rights and property ownership. This can undermine incentives for innovation, risk-taking, and wealth creation.
Encouragement of rent-seeking behavior: Rawls’ focus on redistribution can encourage rent-seeking behavior, where individuals and groups lobby for special privileges and transfers rather than engaging in productive economic activities.
Centralized decision-making: The implementation of Rawlsian principles often involves centralized decision-making and government intervention, which can lead to inefficiencies, unintended consequences, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few.
Disregard for the knowledge problem: Rawls’ theory assumes that a central authority can gather and process all the necessary information to make optimal redistributive decisions. However, this ignores the inherent complexity of economic systems and the dispersed nature of knowledge, as highlighted by the Austrian school.
Conflict with the rule of law: Rawls’ emphasis on redistributive justice can come into conflict with the principles of the rule of law, such as generality, predictability, and equal treatment. This can lead to arbitrary and discriminatory policies.
In summary, my criticism of Keynes and Rawls emphasizes their role in promoting short-term thinking, unsustainable policies, and the erosion of individual rights and market efficiency.
They are the innovators and justificationists of policies whose short term goals produced unintended consequences and long-term risks associated with their ideas, which are seen as contributing factors to the current economic crisis in the West.
Reply addressees: @cowcow8237465
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 22:19:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783984320111079424
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783975871272927609
RT @bryanbrey: He’s not a cryptobro, nor a macroguy… but he’s one of best Natural Law guys who science decidability and cooperation. He e…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 22:00:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783979458778599601
I try to exhaust opportunities for cooperation before giving up, even if it means more work. So, countering female antisocial behavior which they wrongly intuit is prosocial (but it’s anti-responsibility instead), requires three initiatives: first, education and training, second outlawing female antisocial behavior as thoroughly as we have the male, and providing women who demonstrate agency and competency a house of government (class), so that while they can participatte they cannot produce a majority that undermines male prosocial behavior: responsibility production, productivity, meritocracy, and capitalization over consumption. It sounds like a tremendous amount of work but the alternative is … well, removing the vote altogether, while still engaging in the training and legal reforms.
Reply addressees: @BanninYaqoobi @WalterIII
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 20:35:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783958105975402496
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783935790549999834
Whiteness is hard, so we have to help each other do it. Everyone else does something easier so they don’t have to help each other do it. Whiteness is just responsibility for all: both private and common. And it’s hard. Hence the high trust society and all it’s benefits compared…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-25 16:01:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783526738506522867
No it is no high trust society nor dos it practice truth before face or duty to commons.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-20 04:16:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781537454618538426
Reply addressees: @JaredAberach
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781520179673129141
RT @AutistocratMS: @FatherIsTalking @LucasBotkin @curtdoolittle @NatLawInstitute Rights are a mutual insurance of members of the group agai…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-19 22:31:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1781450598077841665
Largely because christianity produces the desired social and familial behavior even at the intellectual cost of supernatural beliefs and their consequences.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 07:19:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780496406949634491
Reply addressees: @partymember55
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780495122116813088
EUROPEAN ARISTOTLE VS SEMITIC ABRAHAMISM
(prelude to understanding the natural law of cooperation absent semitic superstition and primitivism)
Abstract:
Aristotle in proper greek tradition is seeking to advise already good people on how to live better lives, while the abrahamic theology in proper semitic tradition is seeking to advise people who are not good on how to live good lives. You may not like this observation but that does not mean it isn’t true. Why? Sovereign Aristocratic civilization in Europe and Subject Peasant Civilization in the middle east. As such the wisdom literature of each needed to solve the problems distinct to each.
–“The Greek focus on improving the good towards the excellent, and the Abrahamic focus on uplifting the general populace towards goodness”–
Explanation:
The philosophical and theological differences between Aristotle’s ethics and Abrahamic moral teachings reflect the distinct societal structures from which they emerged. Aristotle, addressing a relatively small, elite segment of Greek society, assumes a baseline of rational and ethical competence. His philosophy aims to refine virtues and enhance personal and civic excellence, suitable for an environment where participation in public life and intellectual debate is expected of free citizens.
In contrast, Abrahamic religions developed within more hierarchical and diverse societies, encompassing a broad socioeconomic spectrum. These religions provide explicit moral codes to guide a varied populace towards righteous living, establishing a standardized conduct that can apply universally, irrespective of individual moral starting points. This approach ensures widespread accessibility and applicability, critical in societies with significant variations in education and moral development.
Thus, the Greek tradition is designed for an aristocratic context where the focus is on enhancing existing virtues towards optimal civic and personal function. The Abrahamic tradition, however, operates within a context aiming to elevate a broad population to a basic threshold of righteous behavior, critical for maintaining order and unity across diverse and extensive communities. Each system’s moral guidance is tailored to the specific needs and structures of its society, using laws and ethical teachings as tools to shape and stabilize the community and guide individual conduct.
Detail:
So, there is a profound contrast in philosophical and theological traditions that reflect different social structures and cultural needs. The distinction between the Greek (particularly Aristotelian) and Abrahamic approaches to moral and ethical guidance indeed mirrors the societal and governance systems predominant in their respective regions and historical contexts.
Greek Philosophical Tradition
In Ancient Greece, especially in the works of Aristotle, philosophy was often directed towards a relatively small, educated, elite segment of society. These individuals were typically already engaged in a life where personal virtue and excellence were seen as attainable and desirable. Aristotle’s philosophy assumes a base level of moral competence and rationality, focusing on the refinement of virtues and the pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing or happiness). The concept of being a good person was tied to being a well-functioning person according to one’s rational nature and social role.
Aristotle’s ethics, therefore, cater to those who are already on the path of moral contemplation, aiming to provide them with the intellectual tools to perfect their virtues. This approach is characteristic of a society where the individual’s role in the polis (city-state) was paramount, and where civic participation and personal excellence were closely intertwined.
Abrahamic Theological Tradition
In contrast, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) arose in contexts where societies were more diverse and included a wide range of socio-economic statuses and levels of education. These religions often spread among populations that included large numbers of individuals with limited access to formal education and philosophical training. As such, the religious teachings needed to be more universally accessible and applicable to everyday life.
Abrahamic theology typically focuses on laws, commandments, and moral codes that are designed to guide adherents from a broad range of moral starting points towards a life of righteousness and divine obedience. This includes explicit prescriptions and prohibitions intended to manage a diverse populace comprising varying degrees of moral rectitude.
Cultural and Social Implications
The differences can be viewed through the lens of the social and political structures of these civilizations. Greek philosophy often reflects the ideals of a sovereign, somewhat aristocratic society where the free male citizenry engaged directly in civic life and philosophical debate. The focus is on advising those who are already considered good on how to excel further in their moral and intellectual endeavors.
In contrast, the Abrahamic traditions emerged within and addressed more hierarchically structured societies, where the masses were often subjects rather than participants in the sovereign functions of the state. The moral and legal codes provided by these religions served to unify and regulate a wide range of individuals, including many who might not have had the initial moral or intellectual formation that Greek philosophy presupposed.
Conclusion
Thus, the “wisdom literature” of each tradition developed to address the specific needs and challenges of their respective societies. The Greek focus on improving the good towards the excellent, and the Abrahamic focus on uplifting the general populace towards goodness, both serve the goal of social cohesion and individual improvement, but they do so in ways that reflect their distinct social structures and historical contexts.
My Work
So, I work from the aristocratic position trying to lift people from bad to good, and if possible from good to excellent – if ever possible. In other words I do not provide a compromise or presumed good for the moment, but the science of excellence for eternity.
The peasants may need their solace and sedation but for those of us able, we seek excellence not just good enough.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 17:59:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779932460123385856