Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reform

  • REFORMING THE “CANCELLED” GRANT SYSTEM Restructure the grant request to be free

    REFORMING THE “CANCELLED” GRANT SYSTEM
    Restructure the grant request to be free of DEI dogma. Re-apply. They have a mission. They are pursuing their mission. It’s not that complicated. They’re irradicating DEI from the government, and eradicating funding of leftist causes through the grant system.

    Deal with it. It’s not rocket science. If your science doesn’t pass those hurdles then it’s not science it’s use of public funds for political purposes, propaganda and ideology parading as science.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-14 18:35:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2032888351435665413

  • Trump is a predicable reformer president. We have them about every 80 years, jus

    Trump is a predicable reformer president. We have them about every 80 years, just as we have economic cycles every 50 years. He just happens to be president when the two cycles are converging.
    The US Political system can accomodate reformer presidents and still return to republican government afterward.
    In the past most reformers produced unification of the states under a stronger federal government in response to world and domestic pressures. This time it looks like we are returning to 19th century form in response to changes in world events.
    Our challenge is that we need him for two terms if not three for the process to complete in domestic ‘settlement’ (conflict reduction). So the process may remain undone and conflict continue.
    I’ll stay on record with the problem being not only immigration but the introgression of women in to voting – which appears to be a biologically instinctual problem we cannot overcome. Male bias favors truth before face which is stressful in time but evolutionary over time. But female bias favors face before truth to avoid stress in time and is destructive over time.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-03 18:55:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2028907203747561613

  • RE: FUKUYAMA ON AMERICAN POLITICAL REGULATORY BURDEN – WE DON”T TRUST GOVT. Fran

    RE: FUKUYAMA ON AMERICAN POLITICAL REGULATORY BURDEN – WE DON”T TRUST GOVT.
    Francis,
    RE:
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=iZsIkn
    hLOLA
    …

    Long term student and fan. I understand your argument, but I have a very difficult time comparing the evidence of bureaucratic behavior, especially given the credentialist background of government employees instead of historical public service as a result of demonstrated competency in military, industrial, or business disciplines.

    My organization’s work in the law – which still holds up somewhat compared to other organs of government, encounters a deep incompetence outside of a handful at the appellate and supreme levels. I agree with the loss of prestige in government work driving out possible candidates. I agree with the demand for private litigation to correct public problems. Our organization uses the limited vehicles in the common law to do so ourselves.

    But I also agree with the tragic failure of our education system beginning with the early sixties attack on it. So I’m not disagreeing with your criticisms. I’m disagreeing that the people in government are capable of the work and responsibility you wish to give them. (I”ve built two of the larger privately held consulting companies, and government work isn’t a problem of regulations so much as – it’s a problem of quality and competency.) The problems DOGE surfaced were not outliers.

    Worse, while you compare our government to others, our government of 340M was not designed like ‘other liberal democracies’ with no more than 80M in a concentrated geography. It was designed as a market for the production of commons between the states, given the necessity of a secular empirical government because of the four foundational populations being of different religious fundamentalist populations still reacting to the protestant reformation and the european wars given the parasitism of the church and the state and the nobility.

    And just as europe is discovering that unification is impossible for anything but defense, Americans are discovering that their post-civil-war unification, legitimized by early 20th trade and war era insulation from europe’s suicide, is no longer possible. Worse, the success of the left and excessive immigration of costly dependents has amplified that divisiveness.

    So I am aware of your biases – each of our generations has them.I’m only ten years younger than you are. And even that difference is noticeable in our generations. And your works on trust and political order were foundational for me and my work. But your faith in liberal democracy doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.

    Why? America goes through a crisis about every eighty years – purging accumulated ‘corruption’ that has become entrenched in a model that no longer serves the national and international circumstances. Trump is the fifth or sixth president to have made such reformations: Trump, Reagan, FDR, Lincoln, and Jackson.

    We voted the most competent president in our history (Bush 1) out of office when he could have reordered the world in gentlemanly fashion.

    Now we are stuck with stress conditions and Trump’s Shock and Awe urgency.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2026-02-21 23:07:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2025346731773493391

  • @ramez We have nearly complete a multi-decade project that reforms the constitut

    @ramez

    We have nearly complete a multi-decade project that reforms the constitution by plugging the approximately dozen holes in it.
    It’s not been a ‘philosophical’ project but a scientific one, that makes no assumptions about human nature, only relies on the evidence of it.
    Once we understand those holes, it’s comforting to realize how much our enlightenment forbearers got right. And that what went wrong was 20th century progressive utopianism.
    (Now if we can just get it into publishable form before the world decides to burn itself to the ground.)

    CD
    The Natural Law Institute (research)
    and Runcible Inc. (technology)

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-29 15:01:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2016889389201445326

  • RE: @Science You want funding? Separate the hard science from the pseudoscience,

    RE:
    @Science

    You want funding? Separate the hard science from the pseudoscience, fix the mathiness problem in physics that’s crippled it for more than fifty years. Fix the replication problem in the behavioral sciences, Fix the sophistry and conformity problem in the humanities (philosophy theses are intellectually embarrassing). End the publication hamster wheel of junk science production, separate teaching staff from research staff, prohibit research with a leftist agenda of perpetuating 20th century pseudoscience, and stop the prohibition on research on human differences such that we can create policy to accommodate those differences instead of preserving conflict because we don’t. Cut the production of PhD’s so that the output meets market demand. Give primacy to american citizens in admission. Balance left and right professors so students see both perspectives. End the nonsense (gut) courses that are simple seditions. Otherwise you’re just part of the corruption problem hiding under pretense of ‘scientific neutrality’. You are not producing the scientific and governing classes we need. You’re producing the same corrupt bureaucracies as we faced with the church. The “Managerial State” has been a failure.

    We wouldn’t need think tanks to augment academic research (like ours) if the academy did it’s job instead of replacing the supernatural clericy with a pseudoscientific one, that because it’s dominated by women seek to amplify consensus and suppress innovation.

    The amount of time I spend debunking pseudoscientific claims that are then magnified by a sensationalist media is absurd.

    You know the cause of all this? We prohibit IQ tests in employment, which causes people to get nonsense degrees, go deeply into debt, corrupt the incentives of our academy, produce seditionists instead of scientists and public servants, and mass produce junk science, and replicate in academic corruption what has been achieved by the left in financing NGO corruption.

    I mean. You excuse yourselves. Every day. But you’re all culpable by tolerating it. Moreover you oddly believe your own nonsense.

    It’s exasperating.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 20:03:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014066425091203424

  • My understanding is that he will pivot to that strategy when it’s closer to the

    My understanding is that he will pivot to that strategy when it’s closer to the midterm elections. He has taken one step which is to prohibit the financial sector from buying houses, and thereby creating artificial scarcity and increasing the prices (a scam against the people.) This announcement last week didn’t get enough coverage, but he is taking action.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-21 19:27:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2014057358633336905

  • International law — what it is, where it fails, what to do about it (Natural Law

    International law — what it is, where it fails, what to do about it (Natural Law Institute)

    Date: Friday January 2, 2026
    Organization: The Natural Law Institute
    Location: Seattle, WA
    Author: Curt Doolittle
    Cause. Absent a world sovereign, states must cooperate under scarcity while minimizing retaliation cycles. Consequence. Cooperation survives only if exchanges between states are reciprocal, truthful, warrantied, and decidable without discretion. Function. “Law” therefore exists to institutionalize reciprocity so disputes convert into exchanges instead of wars.
    • Provide decidable rules of interaction among sovereigns so claims can be judged without importing political discretion. (Decidability = judgeable true/false/adjudicable by rule rather than authority.)
    • Institutionalize reciprocity: only productive, fully-informed, voluntary, warrantied transfers that don’t impose externalized costs on others (directly or by externality). That is what makes cooperation self-enforcing.
    • Constrain discretion so “rule of law = non-discretion” applies even across borders.
    Our stack puts Truth (testifiability), Reciprocity (no asymmetric cost-shifting), and Decidability (no discretion) as universal preconditions for legal claims. These are explicit definitions in the protocol layer we publish and use.
    We apply that stack to     conflict resolution and diplomacy specifically to reduce ideological posturing and increase settlement.
    Historically, the “law of nations” grew from custom and treaty; after 1945 it expanded via charters, conventions, and tribunals. That growth increased coverage but not always decidability or reciprocity. Where texts became aspirational or moralizing, discretion re-entered and enforcement became selective rather than algorithmic. (Under our method, anything that cannot be computed as a contract, policy, or rule is only adjudicable—venue-dependent—not fully decidable.)
    Decidability → Truth → Judgment
    1. Undecidability (necessary failure). Vague obligations, undefined metrics, and reliance on interpretive bodies import discretion and politics; by definition that’s not rule of law.
    2. Irreciprocity (cost-shifting). Many instruments allow externalization of costs (sanctions, environmental spillovers, financial externalities) without warrant or restitution. Our irreciprocity protocol classifies these as fraud/free-riding/rent-seeking/externalization/predation/institutional capture.
    3. No warranty/liability layer. States can assert rights without posting bond/insurance or accepting restitutional liability ex-ante. (Our output/ledger specs tie demonstrated-interests to remedies and instruments.)
    4. Weak full-accounting. Instruments rarely require a demonstrated-interests ledger and externalities transfer matrix across temporal, spatial, and institutional scopes before verdict—so parties argue narratives instead of balances.
    A. Pre-conditions (non-negotiable).
    Adopt the universal standard in every instrument and forum:
    • Truth = testifiable claims; Reciprocity = no asymmetric costs; Decidability = no discretion needed. Make these jurisdictional gates for standing.
    B. Turn treaties into contracts.
    • Enumerate obligations in operational terms with measurable indicators and time bounds.
    • Require full accounting (DI-ledger + transfer matrix) filed with any claim.
    • Classify alleged harms using the externalities/irreciprocity taxonomy so prohibitions/remedies are computable.
    C. Replace punishment with restitution under warranty.
    • Every signatory posts instruments (bond/insurance/escrow) sized to their demonstrated interests and risk. Remedies trigger automatically upon metric breach.
    • Remedies must pass: reciprocity, warrantability, restitutability, insurability—and disclose the cost/benefit/risk trade-offs.
    D. Venue as a market (non-discretionary adjudication).
    • Competing International Reciprocity Courts/Arbitral providers run the same computable protocol; parties choose provider but not the rule-set. (Rule of law = non-discretion.)
    • Outputs classify claims as Decidable / Adjudicable / Undecidable with machine-readable verdicts so finance and trade systems can enforce automatically.
    E. Enforcement via existing channels.
    • Make consequences algorithmic: automatic tariff/bond forfeiture/market access throttling keyed to the verdict—not discretionary sanction politics. (Institutionalizability + liability criteria.)
    • Definitions & gates: Truth/Reciprocity/Decidability.
    • Scoring & tests: machine-readable reciprocity tests (productivity, full information, voluntariness, externality internalization, warranty, restitutability).
    • Irreciprocity taxonomy & protocol for detecting and prohibiting cost-shifting behaviors.
    • DI-ledger + instruments for remedies (bonds/insurance/escrow).
    • Application to diplomacy: use operational definitions and reciprocity to resolve disputes with fewer ideological excuses.
    International law should convert inter-state conflicts into reciprocal, truthful, warrantied, decidable exchanges so we can resolve disputes without importing politics or generating conflicts.
    Where current regimes rely on discretion and moral rhetoric, they fail Natural Law tests: obligations become undecidable, costs are externalized, and there is no warranty or restitution.
    Our reform program replaces discretion with computation:
    (i) gate all claims by     Truth–Reciprocity–Decidability;
    (ii) rewrite treaties as     computable contracts with full-accounting ledgers;
    (iii) require     instruments (bond/insurance) so remedies trigger automatically;
    (iv) run cases through a     market of non-discretionary venues whose outputs are executable by trade/finance systems.
    That’s how you get law between sovereigns rather than politics between factions.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-09 17:16:47 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2009675733959094745

  • Our organization has been making this argument for almost a decade. Though we in

    Our organization has been making this argument for almost a decade. Though we include the reforms in the financial sector as well – the extractions from which are even more horrifying. Our point is that there is no reason we tax the common folk so to speak. We don’t have to increase taxes. I get angry thinking of independent contractors whose bodies give up by their late forties paying income taxes when their net contribution to taxes is in the low single digits. It’s just ‘not right’ so to speak.

    Noblesse Oblige.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:56:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006982836041982024

  • (Worth Watching) IMO The correct framing of trump’s reforms of the international

    (Worth Watching)
    IMO The correct framing of trump’s reforms of the international order. Fantastic talking points.

    Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 01:49:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006905751378530515

  • (Worth Repeating) Most people who encounter my work do not know the context in w

    (Worth Repeating)
    Most people who encounter my work do not know the context in which I work, which is to attempt to use truth however uncomfortable to get us to reform our priors such that we can cooperate with less friction and less conflict at greater scale for greater returns. Unfortunately this requires we often slay our sacred cows – which may be elements of our group strategy that are inconsistent with that broader goal. Europeans have become better at this reform than others but the world does seem to slowly move in this direction – because it must.
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2025-12-27 19:26:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2004997327736766821