Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • In general, I make painfully accurate sense. It’s my job. Now, we have rights of

    In general, I make painfully accurate sense. It’s my job. Now, we have rights of reciprocity – sure. Just as we have the right to boycott, sue,and prosecute people who commit fraud in the distribution of goods,services, and information. And that was my argument: reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 14:00:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968848421191933953

    Reply addressees: @Anon_OMouse @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968846718707163141

    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/968846718707163141

  • My answer to What would you consider as basic human rights that should be enforc

    My answer to What would you consider as basic human rights that should be enforced on everyone without exception? https://www.quora.com/What-would-you-consider-as-basic-human-rights-that-should-be-enforced-on-everyone-without-exception/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-19 18:17:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965651521961684992

  • The problem with “Human Rights” is in the determination of who in fact is ‘human

    The problem with “Human Rights” is in the determination of who in fact is ‘human’, and who remains some degree of domesticated animal. (humor)

  • Curt Doolittle’s answer: All human rights are just property rights. That is all

    Curt Doolittle’s answer: All human rights are just property rights. That is all that they can be. Why we should not force property rights upon people is very hard to imagine. Of course, the communists would say that their last few articles that were forced into the international declaration in o…

  • Curt Doolittle’s answer: All human rights are just property rights. That is all

    Curt Doolittle’s answer: All human rights are just property rights. That is all that they can be. Why we should not force property rights upon people is very hard to imagine. Of course, the communists would say that their last few articles that were forced into the international declaration in o…

  • What Would You Consider As Basic Human Rights That Should Be Enforced On Everyone Without Exception?

    All human rights are just property rights. That is all that they can be. Why we should not force property rights upon people is very hard to imagine.

    Of course, the communists would say that their last few articles that were forced into the international declaration in order to get their signatures were also property rights , bt they cannot be, since they are demands for imposition on the property others, not demands that we forgo impositions upon the property of others.

    I’ve written extensively about this subject and there can exist no positive moral laws. All moral laws are prohibitions and prohibitions only. That is all it is possible for universal laws to be.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-you-consider-as-basic-human-rights-that-should-be-enforced-on-everyone-without-exception

  • What Would You Consider As Basic Human Rights That Should Be Enforced On Everyone Without Exception?

    All human rights are just property rights. That is all that they can be. Why we should not force property rights upon people is very hard to imagine.

    Of course, the communists would say that their last few articles that were forced into the international declaration in order to get their signatures were also property rights , bt they cannot be, since they are demands for imposition on the property others, not demands that we forgo impositions upon the property of others.

    I’ve written extensively about this subject and there can exist no positive moral laws. All moral laws are prohibitions and prohibitions only. That is all it is possible for universal laws to be.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-you-consider-as-basic-human-rights-that-should-be-enforced-on-everyone-without-exception

  • PHILOSOPHY IS DONE: IT IS LEFT WITH CHOICE. TRUTH IS THE PURVEY OF SCIENCE (DUE

    PHILOSOPHY IS DONE: IT IS LEFT WITH CHOICE. TRUTH IS THE PURVEY OF SCIENCE (DUE DILIGENCE OF TESTIMONY).

    —” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”—

    Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort).

    And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule).

    Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation).

    As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort).

    Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions.

    And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity.

    Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example).

    Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery.

    Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means.

    The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history.

    I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods).

    Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good.

    However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference.

    And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-13 22:53:00 UTC

  • Philosophy Is Done: It Is Left With Choice. Truth Is The Purvey Of Science (Due Diligence Of Testimony).

    —” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”— Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort). And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule). Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation). As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort). Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions. And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity. Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example). Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery. Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means. The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history. I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods). Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good. However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference. And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.

  • Philosophy Is Done: It Is Left With Choice. Truth Is The Purvey Of Science (Due Diligence Of Testimony).

    —” But, What about ethics? What about existentialism?”— Ethics (direct) and Morality (indirect) consists of nothing more than reciprocity. ( Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer independent of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. ie:the continuous incremental expansion of tort). And unethical and immoral action violates reciprocity (the same rule). Or put more traditionally, the Silver Rule correctly defines ethics and morality. However, since the optimum game strategy is exhaustive investment (not boundless, but exhaustive) in opportunity for cooperation (thats the science), then the Golden Rule (which is secondary to the silver rule) increases the overall condition (productivity of cooperation). As we innovate in both moral and immoral actions, we increase the suppression of immoral actions through the empirical discovery of them in conflicts (tort). Unfortunately, law like norms, tends to lag, and lags more the more governments …. interfere…. with tort law (empirical) discovery and suppression of criminal, unethical, and immoral actions. And worse, while norms usually make their way into legislation or command, (not necessarily tort), the effect of norms is increased by homogeneity and decreased by heterogeneity. Moreover, group evolutionary strategy (moral and immoral both) sometimes requires or advances both ethical/moral, and unethical/immoral behavior, which results in norms that institutionalize unethical and immoral behavior. (Gypsies for example). Anyway. Ethics and morality were an empirical not philosophical discovery. FIctionalisms to choose to invest in different strategies by which we create opportunities were the discovery. Or said more simply: the primary challenge has been the christian one: the extensino of kinship love to non-kin (or at least near kin), but by personal rather than political means. The principle issue with ethics and morality is that in the age of fiat currency we have substituted state insurance for interpersonal extensions, and in doing so eliminated the ability to test for exhaustion vs rent seeking. And the consequences are pretty obvious to the student of history. I think the only questions left to philosophy are aesthetic (individual preferences) and strategies (group goods). Science (Truth) is falsificationary (survival in the evolutionary markets for criticism). But anything that is not false, and not unethical/immoral is a candidate preferential, ethical, and moral good. However, since time and resources are not infinite, we must rally one another around preferences, strategies, and goods. And while we may state them truthfully (operationally), or fictionally (allegorically), they are not matters of truth but of good or preference. And this is, as far as I am able to determine, the role left to philosophy: choice. Truth is and has probably always been, the purvey of what we call ‘science’, or what I would call ‘testimony’.