Theme: Reform

  • Plenty of solutions. Separate house for women, update the constitution to preven

    Plenty of solutions. Separate house for women, update the constitution to prevent female voting for irresponsibility, criminalize the behavior, reform education.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-11-08 22:56:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1987293279910768892

  • Our opinion is that the basics of our work can be taught anywhere from seventh t

    Our opinion is that the basics of our work can be taught anywhere from seventh to twelfth grade, and certainly in the first two years of college. But more importantly, we need our work taught in the first year of law school, and we need to provide incentives (they actually exist already) to police and obtain award for policing the judiciary and the state.
    At present the napoleonic code in europe provides an administrative court for doing so. In our opinion, as demonstrated by the problems trump has had with lower courts unskilled in constitutional matters – only in procedure and code – this is a necessary restructuring of the court system. In part because the common law evolved when one could appeal to the local church, the local manor, the local city, the local sheriff, even the parliament, and eventually the king.
    Theoretically our representatives and senators were to fulfill that role, but to suppress corruption we reduced tehir influence, and the centralization of power in washington requiring full time legislators there, has functionally left the people without a vehicle for protection from the state.
    Of course our work at the institute seeks to remedy this situation through constitutional ‘completion’ more so than reform. In other words, the natural and common law are merely incompletely stated for handling the emergent scale. We seek to complete that law rather than ‘reform’ it. Even if the word ‘reform’ applies correction rather than completion.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-30 16:16:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1983930960321376326

  • (NLI) –“I wouldn’t want everyone to be like me, I want the court to be like us.

    (NLI)
    –“I wouldn’t want everyone to be like me, I want the court to be like us.”– Brandon Hayes, President NLI

    Regarding his attempts at judicial reform in order to restore justice by our efforts at suppressing proceduralism, and restoring rule of law.

    You shouldn’t need to be an expert in jurisprudence and the law (like brandon) to defend yourself from the effective ‘conspiracy of evasion of the word and spirit of the law’ by the courts.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-10-30 14:22:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1983902307252367533

  • (AI, Reforms, Job Losses) Brad and I were just working on healthcare costs drive

    (AI, Reforms, Job Losses)
    Brad and I were just working on healthcare costs driven by insurance, administrative, and regulatory burdens. But this just begs us to address all the dead weight sectors that are producing white collar jobs that are easily replaced by removing the human


    Source date (UTC): 2025-09-22 17:58:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1970185949939409189

  • (NLI / Runcible) I have finally reduced the explanation and reforms necessary fo

    (NLI / Runcible)
    I have finally reduced the explanation and reforms necessary for AI reasoning into argument and pseudocode. I finally have confidence I can help the LLM teams grasp the paradigm shift necessary. 😉
    Took me a few weeks… lol
    But we got there. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-21 19:20:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1958610139646500892

  • Reforming Truth: Extending the Scientific Method Into Ethics, Law, and Politics

    Reforming Truth: Extending the Scientific Method Into Ethics, Law, and Politics

    Curt Doolittle, a philosopher and social scientist known for his work on Propertarianism and Natural Law, constructs a rigorous epistemological and juridical framework that integrates decidability, testifiability, truth, and the satisfaction of demand for infallibility. These concepts are designed to achieve universal commensurability, resolve disputes objectively, and ensure cooperation in human societies. Below is an explanation of how he defines these terms and their interrelationship based on his writings, particularly as reflected in his emphasis on operational logic, testimony, and reciprocity.

    Decidability, testifiability, truth, and satisfaction of demand for infallibility form an integrated framework aimed at resolving disputes and achieving universal commensurability through operational logic and reciprocity. These concepts interlink to ensure objective, reliable outcomes across scientific, legal, and ethical domains.

    Doolittle defines decidability as the ability to resolve a proposition or question definitively—yielding a clear “yes” or “no”—within a system of rules, axioms, or operations, without reliance on subjective discretion or opinion. A proposition is decidable if an algorithm or set of operational steps exists that can produce a decision based solely on the system’s internal information. For example, he notes that decidability exists “if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice).” If discretion is required due to insufficient information, the question remains undecidable. Decidability is the ultimate goal of his framework, ensuring that disputes—whether scientific, legal, or ethical—can be settled objectively and reproducibly.
    Testifiability is the capacity of a statement or claim to be rigorously tested across multiple dimensions of human perception, reason, and experience, warranting it as free of ignorance, error, bias, or deceit. It is the operational process by which testimony (a claim about reality) is validated through due diligence. Doolittle specifies a series of tests for testifiability: categorical consistency (identity), internal consistency (logic), operational consistency (existential possibility), external consistency (empirical correspondence), rational consistency (bounded rationality), reciprocal consistency (mutual rationality), and completeness within stated limits. Testifiability requires claims to be expressed in operational language—describing repeatable, verifiable actions—and backed by a warranty of due diligence, meaning the speaker must offer evidence or restitution if the claim fails. It is the practical mechanism that supports decidability.
    Doolittle defines truth as testimony that survives the gauntlet of testifiability and provides sufficient information for decidability within a specific context. Truth is not a static or absolute state but a spectrum of warranty tied to the speaker’s due diligence and ability to perform restitution if proven wrong. He identifies several levels:
    • Tautological Truth: Identity or equality between terms (e.g., “A is A”), true by definition.
    • Analytic Truth: Testimony guaranteeing internal consistency within a logical system, independent of external reality.
    • Ideal Truth: A perfectly parsimonious description, free of error or bias, replicable with complete knowledge and due diligence.
    • Truthfulness: Practical testimony given with incomplete knowledge but after due diligence to eliminate error, bias, and deceit.
    Truth is the product of testifiability, serving decidability by providing a reliable basis for resolution.
    Satisfaction of demand for infallibility refers to the degree to which a claim, system, or testimony meets the specific threshold of certainty or reliability required by the context in which it is applied. Doolittle argues that humans have varying demands for infallibility depending on the stakes—e.g., casual conversation requires less certainty than engineering a bridge or adjudicating a legal dispute. This concept acknowledges that absolute infallibility is unattainable due to the limits of human knowledge, but a claim can be “infallible enough” if it survives testifiability to the extent demanded by the situation. It’s about calibrating the rigor of testifiability to the practical needs of decidability, ensuring that the level of warranty matches the consequences of failure. For Doolittle, this is central to his via-negativa approach: truth claims must eliminate enough error to satisfy the context’s demand for certainty, rather than claiming universal perfection.
    In Doolittle’s framework, decidability, testifiability, truth, and satisfaction of demand for infallibility form a tightly knit system:
    • Decidability as the Goal: Decidability is the endgame—resolving questions or disputes objectively. It’s the “why” of the system, driven by the need for cooperation and conflict resolution in human societies.
    • Testifiability as the Method: Testifiability is the “how”—the operational process that evaluates claims through falsifiable tests, ensuring they can support decidability by eliminating subjectivity and ambiguity.
    • Truth as the Product: Truth is the “what”—the warranted testimony that emerges from testifiability, providing the reliable content needed for decidability.
    • Satisfaction of Demand for Infallibility as the Calibration: This is the “how much”—the contextual benchmark that determines the level of testifiability required to produce truth sufficient for decidability. It adjusts the rigor of the process to the stakes involved, ensuring practical utility without chasing unattainable absolutes.
    The relationship is sequential and adaptive: A claim must be testifiable (subjected to rigorous scrutiny) to produce truth (warranted testimony), which satisfies the demand for infallibility (context-specific certainty) necessary for decidability (a definitive resolution). For example, in a low-stakes context, the demand for infallibility might be satisfied with minimal testifiability, yielding a “good enough” truth for decidability. In high-stakes scenarios (e.g., law or science), the demand escalates, requiring exhaustive testifiability to achieve a higher warranty of truth.
    Doolittle’s inclusion of satisfaction of demand for infallibility distinguishes his system from traditional philosophy by grounding it in pragmatism and human limits. It ties the abstract pursuit of truth to real-world consequences, ensuring that the framework scales to the needs of the user or society.
    This quartet—decidability, testifiability, truth, and satisfaction of demand for infallibility—underpins his mission to extend the scientific method into ethics, law, and politics, emphasizing falsification and reciprocity over subjective justification.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-11 20:14:26 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1954999874518388894

  • RE: Tsunami. Well don’t complain about the no-show crisis. This demonstrates tha

    RE: Tsunami.
    Well don’t complain about the no-show crisis. This demonstrates that we can, with notice, ‘get it done’, and we’ve seen the pressure points (traffic) that we need to correct for the future.

    Instead, look at these ‘escapes to the hills’ as opportunities for family, friend, and public gatherings. A random holiday excursion.

    ‘Cause ten unnecessary ‘half day vacations’ are a common good, and far better than accidental swims one never returns from.

    I live in the seattle area with that scary volcano in the sky every clear day. IMO we don’t ‘rehearse’ for crises as we should every twenty years or so. (And we don’t have an organized millitia for such emergencies.)


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 06:05:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950437462704345267

  • We have the solution but implementing it without a revolution is a challenge

    We have the solution but implementing it without a revolution is a challenge.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-21 07:10:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1947192548168266209

  • What to do legislatively is something I have solved. Getting to the point where

    What to do legislatively is something I have solved. Getting to the point where that legislation can be implemented is the remaining hard problem. Normally that only happens after war, civil war, or collapse. I had thought with this election we might head in that direction, but I am afraid it is only a temporary respite and that the traditional method of ‘correction’ will emerge one way or another.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-09 20:06:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943039152079110646

  • The only reason there are so few of us doing the research – the hard work – of d

    The only reason there are so few of us doing the research – the hard work – of discovering truth in the behavioral sciences across the spectrum, and solutions using that truth, is because no one actually wants a means of cooperation … then want a means of success by defeat.
    And those of us who discover and purvey the truth are doomed to be cursed by both sides as enemies, fools or traitors.
    I’m pretty exhausted – especially given my libertarian moral instincts – by the fact that the left considers me evil, the libertarians a defector, and the right a seditionist that’s trying to make peace with the enemy.
    Now, one can sit in one’s ivory tower and suffer the slings and arrows while camping amidst one’s fellows. But when we attempt to engage in activism or god forbid business, we leave that ivory tower and the company of our fellows, and venture into the daily warfare that constitutes the century and a half of collapse of our civilization under the influence of the feminine, the left, the christian, and the foolishly optimistic right, and naive libertarian. All of whom were made possible by the by the government they inherited from the aristocracy, and the economy inherited from the upper middle and middle classes, such that the folly of the lower classes, the effeminate males, and women could be expressed in economy and polity.
    The high trust of the federation of the aristocratic west, its truth before face as honorable, combined with folly of utopian christian optimism, combined with the evolution of distributed restoration of european trade, gave us profound advantage – but the hole in it is tolerance for that which would undermine any aspect of it.
    And the combination of the left and women voters did what no army in history could have.
    Just as it did to greece and rome.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-09 17:05:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942993520215888038