Theme: Cooperation

  • PROPORTIONALITY: If in any given reciprocal exchange the benefit I obtain in pro

    PROPORTIONALITY: If in any given reciprocal exchange the benefit I obtain in proportion to your benefit is insufficient to continue cooperation – ie: disproportionate – then my incentive is to defect to a different individual group or polity with which to cooperate.
    Proportionality is a limit beyond which one’s interests to defect increase, until defection by disassociation, emigration, crime, resistance(sedition), rebellion(treason), or revolution(war).

    #NLIglossary

    Reply addressees: @JohannNetram @TheAutistocrat


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 16:25:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679527584432832514

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679524187050786816

  • Same issue, but much larger scale. At some point you’re pooling assets. We just

    Same issue, but much larger scale.
    At some point you’re pooling assets.
    We just don’t think of transactional customers as pooling assets, like ordinary cooperation, contractual, investment, or political relationships are pooling assets.
    They are.
    So the ‘law’ so to speak is just…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 15:00:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679506100297641984

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679504833546448898

  • ADD-ON Think of families as means of training us to prosocially compromise. If a

    ADD-ON
    Think of families as means of training us to prosocially compromise. If a family can’t live together then it’s doing something wrong, that will propagate into economic, social, and political behavior.
    Single > single parent > two parent one child > two parent 3+ children >…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-11 18:17:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678830829466710018

    Reply addressees: @LukeWeinhagen @miner49er236 @TheAutistocrat @WerrellBradley @bryanbrey @ThruTheHayes @StevePender

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678598496310501387

  • ON THE UK VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW, BY “DEBANKING” POLITICAL FIGURES #uk #ban

    ON THE UK VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW, BY “DEBANKING” POLITICAL FIGURES
    #uk #banking #canceling

    The purpose of the State’s “insurance of cooperation” (keeping the king’s peace) is to limit us to private behavior that is reciprocal, limit public behavior to fulfillment of rights, obligations(duties), and inalienations necessary for the production of intergenerational families of citizens, and political behavior to the production of concurrency, and court behavior to the resolution of conflicts by crime, tort, contract, and property, producing commonality.

    And yes, there are some ‘big words’ in there that you might need to understand. So let’s simplify it a bit:

    In other words, we are prohibited from interference in occupation, business, employment, family, access to the market of goods services, and information, the provisioning of utilities, and yes, the provisioning of financial services (banking). We may only resolve disputes by boycott, debate or argument, ‘duel’ (fighting) in defense of honor or commons, appeal to the hierarchy of courts, including that court we call parliaments.

    The US court is restoring the obligation of the people to use the legislature to produce changes by tests of concurrency (agreement between regions and classes). This is achieved by reversing lawfare through the courts, and limiting activism in the private sector, where both are simply means of bypassing the democratic process of legislating by successful concurrency, and never by mere majority, and certainly not by authority.

    As such, one may not interfere with ‘banking’ for political reasons, and arguably political affiliation demands as high protection as religious affiliation because fundamentally, under majority democracy, the natural outcome is for political parties to represent feminine left and masculine right factions, whose difference is feminine irresponsibility and masculine responsibility. And these biases are largely genetically determined.

    I will, at some point, have the organization take this issue to court and try to push it to the supreme court. For the same reason, the court is reforming now: the private sector does not have the right to engage in negative coercion, especially for political ends, and that applies doubly so to institutions that provide necessary utilities for ordinary life.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-09 22:18:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678166849412816897

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: RELIGION IS PRO-SOCIAL; ANTI-SOCIAL RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR IS ADDI

    RT @ThruTheHayes: RELIGION IS PRO-SOCIAL; ANTI-SOCIAL RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR IS ADDICTION

    The religious following good religion live deliberat…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-05 22:57:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676726990890577921

  • Natural religion is necessary for mindfulness (reduction of neuroticism and anxi

    Natural religion is necessary for mindfulness (reduction of neuroticism and anxiety due to uncertainty in social animals).

    Organized Religion was necessary to create a standard of weights and. measures for behavior as trade and cooperation increased, and the importance of cooperation and trade at scale increased.

    All our living religions evolved in response to the Bronze Age Collapse and the restoration of civilization during that ‘dark age’.

    Just as our modern religions (humanism, marxism, tc) emerged in response to modernity as we evolved in response to recovery from the Abrahamic dark age.

    Reply addressees: @PepeFisher


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-04 19:27:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676311915897712644

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676310358779129860

  • The origin of religion as provoking a social debt response by imitating the hunt

    The origin of religion as provoking a social debt response by imitating the hunt-feast-(sex)-rest cycle. The purpose of religions is to provide a group strategy that requires no reason, only instinct and intuition, by satisfying very basal stimuli. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1676309024055128077

  • “WE MUST COMPROMIZE BETWEEN SEXES ON REALS NOT FEELZ” His Criticism: –“It’s not

    “WE MUST COMPROMIZE BETWEEN SEXES ON REALS NOT FEELZ”

    His Criticism:
    –“It’s not delayed gratification it’s overall prioritization. On the right, they value, surplus/patience, and well on the left they see the comparison/competition game zero sum. Different priorities, and group dynamics equals priority polarization, polity, polarization. Patience is a virtue but instinct is what saves your life in a pinch. Being reactionary, in the sense that you would be willing to throw, the first punch is why this trait would be adaptive. Being calculated is not smart if you are surrounded by insurgence and your only hope for survival is to put on the warpaint and start collecting scallops. The salmon in left field surrounded. They feel patriarchical oppressed. Femininity is acting out of instinct. Femininity is acting out of instinct and calling that behavior irrational is just stupid. When you have to impose rule of law, by force it is not natural law. You can’t have natural selection without sexual selection. You can’t have order without achieving a consensus of the sexes. The constant demonization of the feminine is so childish.”— Scott

    My Response:

    As usual, I’m using the terms from the sciences: psychological research, behavioral economics, and law. And how we must develop maturity by developing maturity (agency, responsibility) by self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-determination to engage in reciprocity (cooperation), and how to preserve reciprocity at social, economic, political, and strategic (international) scale.

    You are confusing the meaning of terms:

    1) prioritization (rational) with time preference and delayed gratification (instinctual).

    2) reasonableness (justification of impulse, instinct) with rationality (rational agency)

    3) infantile non-rational instinctive impulse in time vs mature, mindful agency over time (time preference).

    4) Natural Selection by Instinct and Impulse (in time) vs Natural Selection by evidence and prediction (over time).

    5) And you are doing so to avoid the responsibility of maturity (agency, responsibility)

    6) And by doing so, demonstrating that if true (impulsive, non-rational, infantilized, irresponsible), then these are not people competent for participatory government, participation on juries, or bearing responsibility for regulation of behavior in the commons.

    7) And you’re evading the difference between the sexes as evolutionary exchange between men responsible for defense, territory, resources, and attention (priority in resource allocation) in exchange for sex, care, the work of food preparation, affection, and the resulting sex differences in instinct: males responsible for defense, order, hierarchy (speed of action and coordination), space, resources, and yes their ‘women’, and female’s responsibility for herself, herself when vulnerable during pregnancy in particular, herself when vulnerable because of her children, and the vulnerability of her children, and the disproportionate caloric demands between men versus women and their children. The result is that males and females differ by systematizing over time, responsibility and risk for defense, order, resources, scarcity, and intuition to model and predict space-time-resources-tools over time, vs female irresponsibility for those political assets and limiting herself to responsibility in-time to care for her (50% or higher death rate) children, by the extension of her (non-rational) intuition to cover that of her children. So the sex difference is reducible to differences in responsibility in time.

    8) Justification of the feminine is the justification of the infantilized, and justification of the infantilization is advocacy for degeneracy, and leftism (the feminine) is the political means of advocating degeneracy and devolution – because what is leftism?

    Leftism is feminine: the evasion of responsibility for self-regulation and other-regulation, for the purpose of avoiding the conflict that arises from attempting to ‘adult’ (mature) others sufficiently for advanced civilization, and in particular for participatory government. The feminine vote left more than the masculine precisely because they seek evasion of responsibility for private and common. And the crisis of the age, like the crisis of the ancient world, is due to the introgression of a feminine cult (Christianity (Abrahamic sequence) -> Marxist-to-woke Sequence), which denies the four sets of laws of nature: the physical (scarcity), the behavioral (acquisition, self interest, envy), the evolutionary (mutation, load, regression to the mean, class hierarchy, and necessity of natural selection), and formal Sciences (the logics we use to explain each of the other three sciences).

    So quite the opposite. The crisis of the age is the ongoing attempt to integrate women, immigrants and semitic (slave, Jewish) civilization’s philosophy into aristocratic European civilization’s maximization of individual responsibility – just as Rome(aristocratic, European) did attempt to integrate women, immigrants, and slaves, using Jewish civilization’s philosophy: a religion of false promise of freedom from responsibility by claiming virtue in that irresponsibility, to be awarded after death.

    We will, (and my work serves this purpose) modify our law to end female antisocial, anti-economic, and anti-political behavior and those who will prey on it by offering false promises of freedom from responsibility and ignoring the four domains of the laws of the universe. Or we will suffer the fate of every other civilization that has granted women the opportunity for political participation: extermination, or every other civilization that has adopted the feminine (Islam) – which has destroyed the seven great civilizations of the ancient world, their arts, letters, technology, wisdom, and reduced them to dysgenic stagnation unable to adapt to modernity.

    So not only don’t I err. I’m explaining the cause of the crisis of the age as a failure to domesticate women into responsibility necessary for a participatory economy and government – both of which require responsibility and the demand for responsibility regardless of our instincts and intuitions to avoid responsibility and remain ‘children’ at all times.

    I don’t make the laws of nature. I do, however, write the laws that prohibit lying about them.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-04 16:38:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676269339526275075

  • “Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”- (Our agenda is to produce a universally co

    -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA?”-
    (Our agenda is to produce a universally commensurable value-neutral science and logic of decidability, applied to the spectrum of human cooperation from ethics to economics to politics, producing a constitution of ‘menu items’ that allows groups to produce governments that will function in their interests by suiting their needs, but prevents the government, public intellectuals, the academy, a priesthood and all those others with political interests from lying about the possibilities, costs, and benefits. So in most reductive form our agenda is a science of law that that mandates “No More Lies” in public policy.)

    RULE OF LAW CONSTITUTIONALISM (REPUBLIC) WITH ADAPTIVE ECONOMICS
    There is a tendency to interpret the institute as pursuing a specific political agenda – usually, one that is favored by whichever one of the Institute Fellows that you follow. And while our work gravitates to the classical liberal – meaning modern, rule-of-law constitutional republic – that’s not the only solution we provide. It’s just the one that we give the most attention to because we’re operating in an anglosphere country. And our political activism is directed to use of the courts to bring about change in anglosphere and continental european countries, beginning with the USA.

    OUR JOB
    We have a job, that job is the science, the resulting logic, and the constitution of that science and logic. This allows us to defeat lying in government and those who would undermine governments as well. But that means we have to satisfy everyone’s need for a polity that suits their interests.

    In other words. We work to create a constitutional template with a set of menu choices. Because as I explain often, demographic composition determines agency, and agency determines demand for institutions and resulting economies.

    RESTORING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
    Why? Enlightenment and Marxist ideology – as revolts against the anglo innovation of classical liberal empiricsm – has permeated education with the false promise of equality other than under the law, leading many to fail, while the government, using this false claim of equality, can escape responsibility and accountability for the success of citizens due to this lie. Where instead, a responsible and accountable government and it’s employees and contractors and all those under its regulatory domain, can, should, and must (if legitimate) bear responsibility and accountability for success of individual citizens within the limites of their ability and will. This is the best possible outcome because it works to assist each person in maximizing his or her potential in life – but in the context of everyone else also doing so – producing a distribution and a hierarchy of competency that is in everyone’s interest.

    In fact, our democratic governments when not limited by constitutions of empirical, formal, natural law, are LESS accountable for success of the polity while claiming democratic voting makes them accountable. And its evidently not true.

    OUR POLICY
    So the “institute” policy is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’. It isn’t ‘do this or that’.

    If you ask me (us) what’s the ‘best’, the answer is ‘for whom?’. If you mean for Europeans, we can state that. If it’s for non Europeans, that set of menu choices might be different – and the group will pay the cost for those differences. That’s all we say.

    But, we also present a solution for the united states: to return it to a federation as originally constituted, and as was Europe was under the church and holy roman empire – instead of the empires of Centralized DC or France(pretending Belgium). And that solution would restore all choices to the states and restore state control and state boundaries etc. This lets a thousand nations bloom domestically, ending the conflict between the nine or eleven or how many nations that make up the USA, because of the ethnic and cultural differences that settled and conquered the USA.

    Now if you ask, ‘Well, Curt, all that aside, what’s the optimum?’

    I’ll say the truth, that a small ethnically homogenous nation-state is the optimum for a demographic group, or all demographic groups. If you were to say ‘How do we even improve on that?” I would say you have to create another Monaco and give the super competent a place to retreat to because they need the least government and need pay the least taxes because they have the least ‘dependents’.

    Now, if you come and ask me “Well, Curt, what’s the opposite? for the poor and least competent demographic?”

    I would say it’s still a rule of law under a natural law constitution, but you’d organize the economy as if it were a military with assigned duties, but give people access to courts to sue for corruption that will absolutely positively emerge under that hierarchical system of governance.

    That said, most people DO prefer to be serfs. And most people will be better off as serfs. And what does that mean? The state (or manor or however you break it up) assigns you work (as did unions) and you do that work in exchange for basic shelter, food, medical care, etc. And then you earn money for entertainment and ‘joy’ from market participation in your off time.

    This eradicates the stress, at the cost of market efficiency, high risk of corruption, and the tendency of the political system to degrade into clientelism or gangster corruption, supplemented by black markets and people doing the minimum work possible for their subsidies.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-04 10:47:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1676180935975264257

  • “Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA? IDEOLOGY?”- (a universally commensurable val

    -“Q: WHAT IS THE INSTITUTE’S AGENDA? IDEOLOGY?”-
    (a universally commensurable value-neutral science and logic of decidability, applied to human cooperation including economics and politics, producing a constitution of ‘menu items’ that prevents lying but allows groups to produce governments that will function in their interests by suiting their needs.’)

    There is a tendency to interpret the institute as pursuing a specific political agenda – usually, one that is favored by whichever one of the Institute Fellows that you follow. And while our work gravitates to the classical liberal, meaning modern, rule-of-law constitutional republic, that’s not the only solution we provide. It’s just the one that we give the most attention to because we’re operating in an anglosphere country in the northern European tradition in the European civilization’s tradition: the USA, UK, CA, AUS, NZ. And our political action is directed to use of the courts to bring about change in those countries, beginning with the USA.

    OUR JOB
    We have a job, that job is the science, the resulting logic, and the constitution of that science and logic. This means we produce a science of cooperation through economics and politics. This allows us to defeat lying in government and those who would undermine governments as well.

    But that means we have to satisfy everyone’s need for a polity that suits their interests. In other words. We have to create a constitution with a set of menu choices. Because as I explain often, demographic composition determines agency, and agency determines demand for institutions and resulting economies.

    OUR POLICY
    So the “institute” policy is ‘let a thousand nations bloom’. It isn’t ‘do this or that’.

    If you ask me (us) what’s the ‘best’, the answer is ‘for whom?’. If you mean for Europeans, we can state that. If it’s for non Europeans, that set of menu choices might be different – and the group will pay the cost for those differences. That’s all we say.

    But, we also present a solution for the united states: to return it to a federation as originally constituted, and as was Europe was under the church and holy roman empire – instead of the empires of Centralized DC or France(pretending Belgium). And that solution would restore all choices to the states and restore state control and state boundaries etc.

    This lets a thousand nations bloom domestically, ending the conflict between the nine or eleven or how many nations that make up the USA, because of the ethnic and cultural differences that settled and conquered the USA.

    Now if you ask, ‘Well, Curt, all that aside, what’s the optimum?’

    I’ll say the truth is a small ethnically homogenous nation-state is the optimum for a demographic group, or all demographic groups. If you were to say ‘How do we even improve on that?” I would say you have to create another Monaco and give the super competent a place to retreat to because they need the least government and need pay the least taxes because they have the least ‘dependents’.

    Now, if you come and ask me “Well, Curt, what’s the opposite? for the poor and least competent demographic?”

    I would say it’s still a rule of law under a natural law constitution, but you’d organize the economy as if it were a military with assigned duties, but give people access to courts to sue for corruption that will absolutely positively emerge under that hierarchical system of governance.

    That said, most people DO prefer to be serfs. And most people will be better off as serfs. And what does that mean? The state (or manor or however you break it up) assigns you work (as did unions) and you do that work in exchange for basic shelter, food, medical care, etc. And then you earn money for entertainment and ‘joy’ from market participation in your off time.

    This eradicates the stress, at the cost of market efficiency, high risk of corruption, and the tendency of the political system to degrade into clientelism or gangster corruption, supplemented by black markets and people doing the minimum work possible for their subsidies.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation


    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-03 19:31:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675950349310390272