We have solutions. They are just largely nuclear options.
Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 13:51:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697608239762858036
Reply addressees: @VladRomanyuk6
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697595669844725877
(Worth Repeating)
Either way, fedcoin and more is going to happen as I said. And the incentive structure will be expressed in policy as I’ve said. And so we must start exercising the class action system on a number of fronts in self-defense against that deterministic future – and do so while the court will agree with us; having returned to common concurrent textual law, and away from the deleterious consequences of activist and positive law that made a catastrophe of our institutions and society over the last eighty years .
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-31 20:25:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697344786020069377
RT @NoahRevoy: @michaelpbreton Most people who are unsatisfied with the current system do not have a coherent set of demands or any idea ab…
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-25 13:43:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1695069279710798018
They are too expensive. Each one gets easier. Not a fan of it any longer. Need to remove govt from it.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-24 19:36:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694795773899121037
Reply addressees: @hyperlambda
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1694786245493411897
So we evolve down this scale in precision of wisdom literatures (grammars) to discover first principles, and then back propagate reforms to eliminate error, producing non-false ideology, philosophy, religion, etc.
From the Experiential > to the Conflationary > to the Inflationary… https://t.co/95V70ur1od
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-20 16:11:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1693294755470319623
–“Q: Curt: Can Christian, Constitutional, Rule of Law, Parliamentary Monarchies be restored?”–
Of course. It’s easy.
And yes, we’ve written the option in our constitution and suggested some strategies. No one before me has ‘scienced’ the law well enough to articulate it all, but I have the advantage of time and place. So writing a proper constitution that restores monarchy and prime minister instead of president and congress is rather simple.
It’s much easier if the european monarchies would have a few more kids, or at least raise children from other countries for participation in the monarchy (which was common in history) because you really do need a lifetime of training to do it, and even then not everyone can cope with the rigor of doing the job in proper germanic fashion so to speak.
Reply addressees: @Rasterdingus
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-17 16:45:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1692216067626577921
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1692207166294294757
OUR REFORMATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Q: Curt: “Should The First Amendment be [insert idea here]?:
All,
Our reformation of the first amendment consists of:
a) The requirement for testifiable, truthful, and reciprocal speech in public to the public in matters public (including commerce) to prevent false promises deception and lying; This ends the left forever, because all leftists promises are those of a removal of responsibility by social construction of denial of the four categories of the laws of nature: lying.
b) The prohibition on suppression of testifiable, truthful, reciprocal speech. This ends the suppression of uncomfortable truths so that we may find solutions to problems that exist rather than ignore them.
c) The prohibition on conspiracy to cancel constraining us to courts for the negativa, and legislature for the positiva thus not evading due process – ending all variations on cancel culture and social construction by bypass of the legislature and the people (including lawfare).
d) The restoration of defamation by libel and slander to whether it’s true or not instead of whether the harm is material or not to end undermining.
e) To provide a special exception for Christian religion if necessary – given that fundamentalism is an untestifable claim and therefore violates truthful reciprocal speech.
Note that, we would prefer that we license Christian deism and natural law since it’s at least analogistically not-false, it’s closed to misconstruing, and compatible with natural law. But that might not be possible given it’s tolerable by secularists, humanists, Catholics, mainstream protestants, but not so by evangelicals. This keeps the state out of the religion but encourages the Christian sects to reform.
Note that, It’s increasingly clear that we must very likely limit religions and in particular their manifestation in public in any form, to the Christian secular to evangelical, and only tolerate other religions – including the mass prosecution of religions for the behavior of their individuals adherents. This forces integration or departure. And as we know, the hostiles hide under religious protection.
I would never have thought this reasonable in the past, but my study of religion as the foundation of group evolutionary strategies, the incompatibility of those strategies, and the use of religions as a means of sedition, treason, and warfare changed my opinion – l like many opinions I’ve changed once I’ve done the work (despite that I don’t like some of what I’ve discovered.)
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @tysonmaly
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-14 17:05:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691133943767093266
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1691119879665909760
RT @ThruTheHayes: FOR THE PEOPLE
If, as a politician, you’re not running on: subsuming the Fed under the treasury, paying down mortgages,…
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-12 01:01:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1690166573993017344
It’s rough. yes. which is why we are concerned with revolution in what we call religion as well.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 11:04:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689593472997601281
Reply addressees: @chasmath2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689578832846622720
–Q: “Curt: Can we put the divorce industry out of business?”–
Well, that’s the issue, isn’t it?
We’re proposing a set of policies that should correct the incentives. They include, first, providing a middle option of temporary partnership by exchange of power of attorney, and agreement on the ownership of assets (his or hers to be kept, and ours to be sold) without insurance by the polity of the relationship, ending child support and alimony. And second, restoring marriage under the same criteria above, with insurance by the polity by restoration of liability for interference in the marriage and family by external and internal parties.
But there is a hard question here:
1) Do we want to do what is good for the polity at the cost of responsibility that imposes on our freedom of self-reward?
Or
2) Do we want to do what provides people with the most freedom and least responsibility at the cost of the continuity and quality of the people in the polity?
And
3) If we choose #1, then how can we bring that about when so many wish to escape that responsibility (especially women) now that we know the sexual revolution and the enfranchisement of women was a catastrophe? Is it possible democratically? Or must it be done coercively – as essentially paying ‘tax’ by the burden of responsibility for the production of generations of humans?
So yes we can put the divorce industry nearly out of business, and ewe can and must put the family court out of business, and in doing so remove the state from marriage once again.
Reply addressees: @dissidentwrath
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-08 17:59:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688973138736910346
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688970120503169050