Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly construc

    When you go to law school you do not learn what we teach here: strictly constructed natural law jurisprudence. Most of what you learn is procedure, statute (legislation), and case law (examples). Or “How to work the process”. That’s why P makes sense to you. Because its internally consistent.

    Now, once you learn ENOUGH case law, you realize that the court does a pretty good job most of the time. The problem is the lack of jurisprudence (rules of law) in the constitution, and the ‘legislation’ that violates the natural law on top of it.

    Most of the ‘bad stuff’ is procedural manipulation somewhere between the police, the prosecution, the court staff.

    There are very good lawyers and not so good lawyers. And you can tell when reading the arguments put before the court which one you’re dealing with.

    Mostly there are waaaaaaayyyyy too many lawyers. And that’s why I prefer the british two stage system. So that a lawyer(customer service representative) and a barrister(presents to the court) are separated. This allows you to get customer service from a lawyer, but a barrister may refuse your case. This savse the judge and jury from legal clown world. That’s the ONLY thing I really prefer about the british system other than the wigs. I really like the wigs. šŸ˜‰

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:40:00 UTC

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: Reciprocity, property in toto, compatibilism, and tri-function

    RT @ThruTheHayes: Reciprocity, property in toto, compatibilism, and tri-functionalism; these continue reciprocity at increasing scales.
    -@cā€¦

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:18:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253735026145013760

  • Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized

    PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum

  • Paternal Rebuke of The Infantilized

    PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum

  • The P Program and Our Purposes

    Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.

  • The P Program and Our Purposes

    Bill Joslin has always been as interested in the application of P to personal philosophy, as I have been interested in religion (mindfulness), politics, and law. This division of labor has helped expand our collective reach – and bill’s role as “the Professor” led to the production of our best people. Likewise, Luke Weinhagen is exploring another avenue, and we have had people spin off into all sorts of other interests -although it’s humorous at how deterministic their attempts to alternative personal and political agendas have been. P is a METHOD. That method completes the spectrum of the sciences because P is to sentient sciences as Math is to Physical sciences: the means of calculation, of constant relations from which we can produce subsequent deduction, inference, abduction, and creativity. Using human logical facility, mathematics, and P we we can articulate the social order that’s least divergent from physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. The least divergent from physical, natural and evolutionary laws, the more advantage we have in maintaining the optimum quality of life as we continue to calculate by market discovery using continuous trial and error, the means of maintaining our advantage, in our race with the red queen and her evolutionary competition in this brief period of geological and astronomical peace. The P-Constitution is constructed by the application of that method, because a universal militia, using sovereignty, reciprocity, rule of law by the common law of tort, and the markets in everything that result, and the production of commons from the surpluses, that was incrementally discovered by accident by our ancestors is the optimum human social order for continuous calculation. Although it comes at a price: increasing demand for mindfulness, increasing demand for intolerance, increasing responsibility for commons, and the suppression of those who cannot maintain cadence with our evolution by success in those markets. We have to know the reasons for western success in the ancient and modern worlds. Knowing them, we have to use them to defeat the second abrahamic attack on our civilization, and renew our resistance to eastern tyranny, as well as our own vulnerability because of our tolerance. And we have to restore our institutions so that we continue our transcendence into the gods we imagine – and be mindful, fit, and prosperous during our ascent.

  • The Economists Loss of Confidence

    [E]conomists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.

  • The Economists Loss of Confidence

    [E]conomists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.

  • Economists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any lon

    Economists talked in bold, confident, nonsense up until 2008. They don’t any longer. For good reason. You can produce and economy as an extension of producing rule of law of reciprocity but you cannot produce an economy directly. You can insure some of an economy by partnership between state and strategic industry. But an economy is an endless competition – war – at slow speed, and there is no way to outwit chaos.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 10:20:00 UTC

  • If we restore strict construction, universal standing in matters of the commons

    If we restore strict construction, universal standing in matters of the commons we will produce class actions in court that make irreciprocal political sector actors pay, and further constrain corporations of scale. Loser pays will prevent abuses. etc. …

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 21:00:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253066090877521925

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253065501489672193

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @judicialist The problem arose during the industrial revolution when our right to defend the commons in court(our ‘standing’) was revoked by the state – we were disintermediated from defense of the commons.This created opportunity for political corruption in our otherwise adaptive common law.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253065501489672193