Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Natural Law: Cooperation is rational only under productive, fully informed, volu

    Natural Law: Cooperation is rational only under productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer w/o externality.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-24 15:47:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790580361185099776

    Reply addressees: @Mike10four @SnapPopCrackle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790557473832710144

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Mike10four

    @SnapPopCrackle @curtdoolittle The link between “natural law” and the physical laws of nature.
    https://t.co/FCpkaXQLwO

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790557473832710144

  • SEQUENCE Manners, > Ethics, > Morals, > Etiquette, > Rules of Order

    SEQUENCE

    Manners, > Ethics, > Morals, > Etiquette, > Rules of Order.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 16:03:00 UTC

  • “Science has developed the art of speaking truthfully over centuries. However, t

    —“Science has developed the art of speaking truthfully over centuries. However, the one truthful proposition that they have avoided is morality. The right of productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, is sufficient for a first-principle of all political discourse. The consequence of this single rule, is that political action must be constructed out of exchanges, rather than ‘collective goods.”—CD

    (ht Ricky Saini for the reminder)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 04:01:00 UTC

  • THE DECISION OF UN-EQUALS: THE GENGHIS KHAN STRATEGY If we cannot agree on means

    THE DECISION OF UN-EQUALS: THE GENGHIS KHAN STRATEGY

    If we cannot agree on means – shared investment in a common goal, then we can still possibly agree to trade, and cooperate on means, even if not on ends. If our means AND ends are incompatible, we can go our separate ways. If going our separate ways isn’t compatible, then we must either suffer one another’s predation, or go to war. And some of us will not suffer other’s predation. War, subjugation, enslavement, and if necessary, death, is simply a preferable lifestyle unless cooperation is more profitable. )

    This is called the Genghis Khan Argument: that equals in power must suffer, but suffering of un-equals in power can be solved by the greater power to the dissatisfaction of the lesser power, if it is appealing.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-22 16:20:00 UTC

  • CHRISTIANITY As long as Christianity is compatible with natural law, and Christi

    CHRISTIANITY

    As long as Christianity is compatible with natural law, and Christian arguments in the commons are made with natural law, it’s merely a language of allegorical mythology.

    I clearly prefer the pagan to the Christian.I understand the superiority of the greek and roman over the pagan. But as far as I know the Pagan, Greek, Roman, and Christian are compatible with natural law.

    Morality is not determined by whether we argue by analogy, or history, or reason, or science, or testimony. It is that whether regardless of the language we use, the argument is reducible to conformation to natural law.

    Thou shalt not impose a cost upon others directly or indirectly except by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-22 13:41:00 UTC

  • I BET YOU DIDN’T THINK OF THAT (I think very few people who read me understand t

    I BET YOU DIDN’T THINK OF THAT

    (I think very few people who read me understand the consequences of my emphasis on consent limited by the one law of non-imposition of costs against property in toto: the result is a eugenic meritocracy wherein groups will self-sort by kin out of self-interest and necessity. Markets make nationalism too you know. But I bet you didn’t think of that. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-22 10:55:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “You make a distinction between natural and common law?” NATURAL LAW: coope

    Q&A: “You make a distinction between natural and common law?”

    NATURAL LAW: cooperation via non imposition: the requirement for all actions that affect others, to consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    (update)

    NATURAL LAW: cooperation via non imposition: the requirement for all actions that affect others, to consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to externalities that are also productive, fully informed, warrantied, and voluntarily transferred.

    Now technically speaking (and I like to speak technically 😉 ) individuals affected by externalities cannot always be fully informed, and as such cannot consent to voluntary transfer. So we have to count on productive and warrantied, for those that are. In other words, if you make people’s property values increase, they are not going to be unhappy about it. If you make them decrease they are going to be unhappy about it.

    In other words, impose no cost upon others, directly or indirectly that they have not consented to. But by all means distribute gains to others directly or indirectly whether they have consented to it or not. 🙂

    (end update)

    COMMON LAW: those instances in which judges discover a new means of violating natural law, which must then be codified for future reference as a means of deciding against the violator.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 14:04:00 UTC

  • Natural Law Means A Simple Law.

    When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.

  • Natural Law Means A Simple Law.

    When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.

  • When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the co

    When arguing under natural law it is not so important that you master all the contracts (legislations) and processes (regulations). The reason being that legislations and regulations are always open to revision or refutation if they violate the One Law. So while many layers of contract and regulation may result in conformity to the One Law, it is also possible that they may result in violation of the One Law. And the only way we know that is through FULL ACCOUNTING.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 10:16:00 UTC