Theme: Reform

  • Don’t hold out on us man. Paste it here so we can add it to the notes as we’re r

    Don’t hold out on us man. Paste it here so we can add it to the notes as we’re reforming it. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 16:57:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752375443989082170

    Reply addressees: @TabbyTeamster

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752372846569861482

  • Only because until now we had some dispute even though narrow over the natural l

    Only because until now we had some dispute even though narrow over the natural law – and the enemy’s use of positive law. As I’ve said before the logical conclusion of my work in natural law is a religion of evolved from it, because it is almost identical in morals to the aryan-christian synthesis in christianity, but is uniform and uniformly decidable, while lacking the nonsense in ‘scripture’. There is this odd belief among the religious that they are the same when in fact they differ profoundly precisely becaues ‘scripture’ is open to interpetation as well as promotion of some bits and ignoring of other bits. Natural law is the end result. And the ten commandments or the golden rule are good evidence of the foundations.

    Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_ @ArmoryOC


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 15:54:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752359581479510016

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752358027322122739

  • “If you really think you get to keep the fruits of Western Civilization stripped

    –“If you really think you get to keep the fruits of Western Civilization stripped of its religious ethos, you will be greatly disappointed.”–

    Only if we don’t replace it’s supernatural justification with the same ethics in natural prose – which is what Aristotle said, and both Aquinas and the Scholastics (the church in general) as well as Blackstone and the Founders, as well as people like myself and our organization understood.

    So just as supernatural justification of ethics need be taught by an institution, natural law ethics must be taught by an institution – because that scale and uniformity of production requires an institution.

    It is slightly more costly to train people in natural law, but unlike superstition it doesn’t require faith, doesn’t require lying, and isn’t dismissable or open to ridicule like superstition faith and the lying they require.

    So what occurred in it’s place was the pseudoscientific religion of the feminine-jewish-abrahamic-marxist sequence of frauds.

    Meaning we could quite easily purge the feminine-to-marxist sequence of lies, and teach the ethics of truth AS a religion as did the greeks and chinese did with their traditions.

    In doing so one does achieve the spiritual – just not the imaginary spiritual, but the real spiritual.

    Though there lies the rub. The reason for false religion is to allow people who are dissimilar, have dissimilar interests, dissimilar wants, don’t like one another don’t respect one another to act optimistically.

    In other words, the reason you need a proxy is because you in fact hate your neighbor.

    Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 13:39:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752325713670098944

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752209350498668994

  • CD: QUESTIONS – How do you envision the practical implementation of these reform

    CD: QUESTIONS
    – How do you envision the practical implementation of these reforms in existing legal and constitutional frameworks?
    – What challenges do you foresee in translating complex scientific and cognitive insights into operational legal principles?
    – How do you assess the potential impact of these changes on the broader socio-political landscape, especially in terms of conflict resolution and societal stability?

    CURTD
    I don’t believe there is any difficulty translating scientific and cognitive insights into operational egal principles. It requires first creating a universally commensurable paradigm, vocabular and logic with which to unify the physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and formal (logical) sciences. Doolittle has done that with universal commensurability in operational language.

    So there is really just one universal principle to all of existence and it simply expands as theh complexity of matter from the merely physical to conscious life to the systems of cooperation between complex conscious life.

    As such all existence is operationally reducible, even if we do not yet know enough to reduce it to that first principle.

    As for the potential impact, the population takes about a decade for any change in the law to percolate down through the courts, legislature, bureaucracy, economy society, famly, and individual as a set of biases or rules at their scale of competency and influence.

    So this would take about a decade to propagate down. And I think it would provide mindfulness and clarity to a confused and stressed population.

    However there are vast sections of our population that are engaged in one form of free riding, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy sedition or worse, and they are largely in the academic, media, state, and financial sectors – very privileged folk because of the permissibility of their criminality.

    So I would expect many people in those sectors to resist reforms that would prevent their currently ‘tolerated’ crimes.

    GPT
    Your perspective on translating scientific and cognitive insights into operational legal principles through a universally commensurable paradigm is both intriguing and ambitious. Curt Doolittle’s approach, as you describe it, seeks to integrate various disciplines using a universal principle expanded through operational language. This paradigm appears to aim for a comprehensive and unified understanding of existence, from physical phenomena to complex social interactions.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 22:41:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751012398033436672

  • I’m not anti crypto. I’m anti false claims about crypto. In fact I advocate cryp

    I’m not anti crypto. I’m anti false claims about crypto. In fact I advocate crypto even if all it did was solve the ‘unbanked’ and check-cashing problem at the bottom, end fees for transfers, and end fees for escrow. In effect I would like to cut out the middleman and his unnecessary transaction costs. And that’s just the beginning of the virtues of digital. The ‘oddity’ is the weird obsession with the stability of pricing power which just will not happen whatsoever.

    Reply addressees: @bryanbrey @rosswcalvin @realJohnVictor @CurveFinance


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-21 14:44:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749080409369923584

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749079285619384651

  • Thanks for today’s incentive. We have completed enough of the revision of the dr

    Thanks for today’s incentive.
    We have completed enough of the revision of the draft reforms to update the web content and then link in the home page.
    So I’ll work on that for the rest of the day and then publish a tweet when done. That will allow us to promote our reforms even…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 19:07:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748059521296077154

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748043131918901755

  • “REVOLUTION” VS “REVOLT AND RESTORATION” –“I’m a military veteran. I would oppo

    “REVOLUTION” VS “REVOLT AND RESTORATION”

    –“I’m a military veteran. I would oppose a revolution. Revolutions are blank checks. Restore the Constitution.”–Jeff Ford @mustangeroo

    Hence why I use the term “restoration” but ‘revolt’ is the only means of achieving it. and the… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1748018177919848932


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 17:32:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748035573565026640

  • (Hence why I use the term “restoration” but ‘revolt’ is the only means of achiev

    (Hence why I use the term “restoration” but ‘revolt’ is the only means of achieving it. and the anglo tradition has a long history of success using it. revolutions change people but retorations change laws and institutios.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-18 16:23:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748018177919848932

    Reply addressees: @mustangeroo

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748014421052637212

  • I don’t try to encourage it, I try to find a way to achieve what it does by othe

    I don’t try to encourage it, I try to find a way to achieve what it does by other means. I think I CAN do it, and therefore we CAN do it, but as far as I can tell it takes an institution (education) to pull it off.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 21:59:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747740394203263072

    Reply addressees: @teodoriancu14

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747738539263938780

  • James, you always go in for compromise, when it has been compromise that has cre

    James, you always go in for compromise, when it has been compromise that has created the present conditions. The point of conservatives pressing the margin is to bring us closer to the civil war that you for some reason presume can’t or won’t happen despite that historically every single time, across all this earth, this condition has occured it has caused either a civil war, a catastrophic decline, a conquest or a total collapse.

    Reply addressees: @ConceptualJames


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-15 03:11:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746731857239068672

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1746625330331230254