Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • END THE FALSE DICHOTOMY: RULE OF LAW PRODUCES ALL The optimum balance between ma

    END THE FALSE DICHOTOMY: RULE OF LAW PRODUCES ALL

    The optimum balance between market economy and non-market economy is calculated by tests of reciprocity. In other words, good capitalism is the result of rule of law of reciprocity and bad capitalism is the result of failing at rule of law of reciprocity. Just as good combination of market economy(liberty), mixed economy (freedom), state provision (serfdom), and military service (indentured servitude) is calculated by rule of law of reciprocity. The ((())) lie of the left was another monopoly, another idealism, that one way is somehow superior to tri-functionalism and rule of law producing markets in everything INCLUDING consumption (markets for goods, services, and information) and markets for commons (mixed economy), state production (serfdom) and state military servitude (indentured servitude)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 12:06:00 UTC

  • “This nation was not built on free trade.”—Nathan Borup Free trade is a ((()))

    —“This nation was not built on free trade.”—Nathan Borup

    Free trade is a ((())) leftist agenda. We either have fully reciprocal trade or not. If we have fully reciprocal trade we will have the freest trade reciprocally possible – and that is the optimum. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 12:00:00 UTC

  • LAW ENFORCEMENT BE UNDER P-LAW —“How different would the function of law enfor

    LAW ENFORCEMENT BE UNDER P-LAW

    —“How different would the function of law enforcement be under P-law than how it operates in today’s society?”—

    Primary differences are:

    1) adopt sheriff public service model rather than police (corporate revenue generation) model,

    2) to increase the number of officers in each incident so that force isn’t required

    3) coupled with the ability to call large numbers of ‘trained’ citizens (militia) to assist (similar to volunteer fire departments); This increases the chances that someone who knows the individual can talk him or her down.

    4) the population would be trained by continuous pubic service announcements on how to react to police officers.

    5) Restore more discretion by senior officers, and lower the number of people who are put into the system.

    In other words ‘make time for human beings’.

    The acceleration of human behavior into rat-utopia panic is due to alienation, and the consequences. Social pressure and getting attention on one’s ‘ir-reciprocities’ and ‘feeling the social pressure (guilt)’ does not accelerate conflict behavior as does a relationship between an ‘oppressor / opponent / authority” with an officer. Shame is more effective than we think. Which is something we used to know.

    6) We would restore all rights of self defense and all OBLIGATIONS to defend the commons: physical, normative, informational, and institutional. Meaning that a lot more criminals would be shot for ‘starter crimes’ – my favorite being porch-thieves, and within a decade behavior would return to ‘normal’.

    What does this amount to? Restoring the number of people protecting private and common.

    ORIGINS

    Where does this come from? Study of dutch british and german police forces, and study of how french citizens are taught to react to police.

    Source of the problem is distributed us population vs concentrated european population, and associated coverage costs. In effect we are forcing officers into a position where they cannot use numbers to encircle (see italian method) remain calm, and de-escalate, and so must use force to obtain control and bring into the system.

    The ability to storm someone’s home rather than wait to take them in public is another that needs to be changed.

    In effect we are trying to be too efficient with expensive officers, and we are paying the cost in increased distrust of the police courts, and political institutions becasue of it.

    We don’t need wild west sheriffs. We need to encircle, show consideration, de escalate, and if escalation is necessary it’s because there is no other choice, not because of the power ratio between officers and subjects.

    I can write more but in general, Americans suppress more petty crimes than europeans which is important and why we have nicer suburbs – and we want to keep it that way, and we are better at investigation – esp FBI – than european countries, but they are better at civil policing than americans.

    We are a more militarized society

    However, what I’m recommending is that we are a more “MILITIA-ISED” at the local level so that we restore investment in the material, social, political, and informational commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 11:55:00 UTC

  • It’s that they’re fastidious, homogenous, therefore have incentive to be recipro

    It’s that they’re fastidious, homogenous, therefore have incentive to be reciprocal, and wearing masks etc is an ordinary habit regularly practiced.

    Japan still retains imperial, national, martial, responsible-for-commons, familial morality – rather than universalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-21 13:48:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252594999683960835

    Reply addressees: @adamnewsum9 @SiliconEdge

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1252535410577731590

  • EITHER WAY WE HAVE TO OUTLAW SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION BY FALSE PROMISE (worth repeati

    EITHER WAY WE HAVE TO OUTLAW SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION BY FALSE PROMISE

    (worth repeating)

    —So if (((the))) war on western-sensemaking: our realism, naturalism, operationalism, sovereignty, reciprocity, testimony, commons, and eugenics, is a continuation of their ancient world rebellion against the masculine empires, and an involuntary rebellion against evolution-eugenics.

    This means if it’s genetic, as it is in our women,it’s irreparable, and separation is the only possibility. If it’s purely cultural (doesn’t appear to be) then it’s a matter of separating from their culture. Either way we have to outlaw it by requiring truthful reciprocal speech.

    Which is the purpose of my work on the law: to end the repeatedly successful use of abrahamic technique at destroying civilizations from within by false promise, baiting into hazard, selling to vulnerable women and the underclasses, and reversing east and west eugenics.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-21 12:28:00 UTC

  • ^ You’re using GSRRM. The argumentative strategy of the female. Either you can m

    ^ You’re using GSRRM. The argumentative strategy of the female. Either you can make an argument for reciprocity or you can’t. If you can’t then you’re just another postmodern virtue signaling beta. https://t.co/rnNKRH7wgM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 20:15:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251605221387784194

    Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251604351707156480

  • And reciprocity is measurable. Sorry. it is

    And reciprocity is measurable.
    Sorry. it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 17:12:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251559113303171074

    Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251558998890946560

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola No I think we are compatible. Men and Women evolved to specialize in the reproductive and temporal division of sense, perception, memory, advocacy, negotiation, and cooperation in a division of cognitive and physical labor.

    We are either reciprocal – over time – or not.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1251558998890946560

  • We don’t hate. We merely test for reciprocity in display word and deed, includin

    We don’t hate. We merely test for reciprocity in display word and deed, including that reciprocity of truth, and particularly truth before face, regardless of cost.

    Women are less conscious of their instincts and their purpose than men, especially hyperconsumption and dysgenia.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 17:00:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251556138186870786

    Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251547120995352576

  • PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal.

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 11:01:00 UTC

  • GOVERNMENT UNDER P-LAW —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my stro

    GOVERNMENT UNDER P-LAW

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution.

    A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments.

    But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests.

    So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today.

    We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors.

    The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house).

    The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law.

    The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators.

    The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model.

    This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 09:50:00 UTC