Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • On baiting into moral hazards

    —“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—

    0) A woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, which she will never deliver. 1) I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (abrahamism) 2) I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system (marx) 3) I promise you equality if you undermine men (feminism) 4) I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism) 5) I lend you money at usurious prices that will entrap you. 6) I lend you money or extend you credit to gamble. 7) I lend you money or extend you credit to buy alcohol or drugs. 8) I appeal to your morality and pass the hart cellar immigration act. How long do you want this list to go on? Because those are just the easy ones. These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss).

  • On baiting into moral hazards

    —“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—

    0) A woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, which she will never deliver. 1) I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (abrahamism) 2) I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system (marx) 3) I promise you equality if you undermine men (feminism) 4) I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism) 5) I lend you money at usurious prices that will entrap you. 6) I lend you money or extend you credit to gamble. 7) I lend you money or extend you credit to buy alcohol or drugs. 8) I appeal to your morality and pass the hart cellar immigration act. How long do you want this list to go on? Because those are just the easy ones. These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss).

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • The Golden Rule Explained

    THE GOLDEN RULE EXPLAINEDby Luke Weinhagen [T]hose of us living in high trust societies recognize the importance of The Golden Rule. We understand its value and the benefits we derive from it. It is one of the first formal lessons in social interaction we teach our children. But when you stop there at the Golden Rule alone, we too easily take it for granted. What we seem to miss is that rather than the Golden Rule being the First Rule of a high trust society – it is the last. THE FOUNDATIONS And so we often take for granted the other foundational rules:

    1. Via Positiva: ……. The Golden Rule.
    2. Via Negativa: ….. The Silver Rule.
    3. Via Logica: ……….The Natural Law of Reciprocity.
    4. Via Existentia: …. Rule of Law,
      ………………………….. … The Jury, and
      ………………………….. … Markets in everything.
    5. The Iron Rule: …. Might Makes Right.

    These are Foundational rules – rules that form the foundations of interaction upon which we build the functions of our society – the closer you get to the Golden Rule the more trust you can support. But High Trust, absent vigilance, allows one to make the mistake of standing on that foundation seeing nothing but the immaculate Gold and stop looking – ignoring the layers below that must be there to support each ascending layer. But these other rules can not be ignored. They are active. Starting from the Iron Rule each rule supports the next, making each possible in turn. The next rule in sequence can not exist without the previous rule being applied and maintained. Today someone is out there applying the fifth rule so that you have access to the fourth. Today someone is out there applying the fourth rule so that you have access to the third. Today someone is out there applying the third rule so that you have access to the second. Today someone is out there applying the second rule so that you have access to the first. “BE THAT SOMEONE” Be willing and able to be that someone. All the way down. If you can not be that someone, be grateful that someone is there. If you can not be grateful, at least do not try to knock that someone down – Trust is valuable and we really want to keep the Golden Rule. These are the rules. They are not complicated, but they are demanding. They are not hard to understand, but they so often seem easy to forget. -Luke Weinhagen

  • Unite The Right

    SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC

    —“Unite the right by natural law. We don’t have to agree on where the law comes from, just on what it is.”—Martin Štěpán

    The result is the same, only the why differs.

  • Unite The Right

    SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC

    —“Unite the right by natural law. We don’t have to agree on where the law comes from, just on what it is.”—Martin Štěpán

    The result is the same, only the why differs.

  • Demarcation

    Demarcation https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/demarcation/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:38:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179858213895839746

  • Demarcation

    [I] think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Demarcation

    [I] think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent

    Anything other than RECIPROCITY isn’t internally consistent https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/anything-other-than-reciprocity-isnt-internally-consistent/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:34:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179857236669161473