Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • “I think some of the people who identified as right wing libertarians assumed th

    —“I think some of the people who identified as right wing libertarians assumed the libertarian ideology was about reciprocity (at least thats what i thought), but realized some point after Ron Paul’s campaign that it wasn’t the case. Libertarianism just doesn’t give you all the tools you need to resolve western civilization’s current threats. Ironically enough, it doesn’t even give you the tools you need to build a model “libertarian” society, so the ideology is self refuting.”–Jacob Liam Youngman

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 08:11:00 UTC

  • BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER N

    BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW

    Inalienability means you can’t give up certain rights even ifyou want to, because by doing so you give up obligations to others. This means that the cowardly, weak, unable, and those lacking agency can defect and destroy ‘natural rights under natural law’.

    —“John Mark discusses lying to the public in his videos. but web search manipulation and subconscious/subliminal programming is much more vague. deceiving ppl by encouraging people to put themselves in harms way is discussed, like for example the message to give up your 2A rights, but what if that encouragement is subtle and subliminal? are you familiar with how it works in advertising?”—Brian Avran

    It’s called (a) false promise (b) baiting into hazard. And there is a reason why the tribe specializes in comedy, script writing, gossiping, and undermining, INSTEAD of offering a competitive solution.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-27 05:54:00 UTC

  • IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1

    IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD

    When you’re testing for reciprocity ask:

    1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not?

    2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete.

    3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests?

    4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others?

    5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality?

    6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution?

    For example:

    WHEREAS;

    Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms.

    WHERE;

    1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms.

    2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth.

    3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise.

    4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation.

    5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other.

    6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self.

    7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests.

    THEREFORE

    9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits.

    This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 16:41:00 UTC

  • “I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the curre

    —“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—

    Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity.

    it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it.

    “can you warranty my life? No only I can.”

    “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.”

    “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.”

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 16:25:00 UTC

  • by Alain Dwight The ability to use reciprocity, commons, and agency to rule out

    by Alain Dwight

    The ability to use reciprocity, commons, and agency to rule out all other versions of ethics as self contradictory takes separating fact from value to another level.

    Separating emotional loading from operations at that deep of a level is a super power.

    Takes all the power away from ORRGSM.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-26 09:54:00 UTC

  • PASSIVE MORALITY ISN’T MORAL IT’S IMMORAL – FREE RIDING by Luke Weinhagen Passiv

    PASSIVE MORALITY ISN’T MORAL IT’S IMMORAL – FREE RIDING

    by Luke Weinhagen

    Passive morality isn’t. Conflating docility (submissive to morality, passive) with morality is like conflating helplessness (being incapable of violence, passive) with being peaceful. Both may describe your behavior but not your character nor your potential for reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-25 16:23:00 UTC

  • Rights(weak) vs Demands(strong). Demands aren’t overrated. 😉

    Rights(weak) vs Demands(strong). Demands aren’t overrated. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-25 16:13:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221103720076922880

    Reply addressees: @MartianHoplite @ClownBa73413423

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221103290710208512

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartianHoplite

    @ClownBa73413423 @curtdoolittle I think the right needs to realize that rights are overrated, and especially giving them away for free is a sucker move.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221103290710208512

  • “Nature is the mother of reciprocity. Cold, brutal and uncompromising. Pay its p

    —“Nature is the mother of reciprocity. Cold, brutal and uncompromising. Pay its price or cease existing.”—Eric Bumpus

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-24 11:52:00 UTC

  • (True but a bit more precision: disciplining falsehood and irreciprocity:good, v

    (True but a bit more precision: disciplining falsehood and irreciprocity:good, vs avoiding truth and reciprocity: bad..)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-24 02:41:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220537093853798407

    Reply addressees: @BlameMaxSand @anon12376301335

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220512448312217600

    IN REPLY TO:

    @BlameMaxSand

    @anon12376301335 @curtdoolittle Well it’s not about the means or the end, it’s that bullying, as a broad concept, comes about organically as society’s natural mechanism to correct abberant anti social behaviors. The problem is when the same tactics are used to try and correct normal behaviors.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220512448312217600

  • (the state’s *evidence* across all of human history, is that people demonstrate

    (the state’s *evidence* across all of human history, is that people demonstrate the LEAST morality(reciprocity) and the most immorality (free riding, parasitism, rent seeking), that they can get away with – and that taxes were enforced because immorality must be suppressed.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-23 15:04:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220361785708044291

    Reply addressees: @HliosX @Ozpin_88

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1220352940042530818

    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/1220352940042530818