Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • My policy on drug dealers is that once you’ve been convicted of trafficking, you

    My policy on drug dealers is that once you’ve been convicted of trafficking, you are no longer insured by the people. In other words, if you are murdered then there is no crime to investigate. Now, my definition of a drug is one that empirically results in dependency. My policy on drug use is that you can’t use them, drive, use powered equipment, weapons, or be responsible for other people. In particular as far as I know, tripping is good for you if you can handle it. Sedating drugs are useful. Pleasure center drugs are a problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-06 08:42:00 UTC

  • Virtue signaling to excuse not taking responsibility for defense

    Virtue signaling to excuse not taking responsibility for defense.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 20:52:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981998064360656898

    Reply addressees: @Spagaletto

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981912179719987200

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981912179719987200

  • “WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON TEEN SEX?”— As always, the problem is not sex, but ca

    —“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON TEEN SEX?”—

    As always, the problem is not sex, but causes and consequences:

    (a) pregnancy – and the damage this does to not only you, the child, but the society that must pay for your mistakes,

    (b) and single motherhood,

    (c) or immature parenthood,

    (d) the degree of interest in it, such that it detracts from other things.

    (e) the high correlation between multiple sex partners and unsuccessful families.

    The ‘intensity’ of the male sex drive in the teens is just …. amazing. Testosterone is the most wonderful drug of all. It’s just mind-consuming.

    I think for boys it doesn’t matter – we are evolutionary machines and the need for sex is purely physical. But girls are different – and should not use sex to ‘buy’ attention, or being liked, or ‘belonging’, or ‘status’ (which is all too common), and should not participate because of alcohol or drugs – if you need alcohol you aren’t ready yet.

    This is the best test: If you aren’t prepared with protection, aren’t ready to do it without chemical assistance, aren’t willing to plan it rather than stumble into it, and you aren’t willing to keep it between the two of you permanently, then you aren’t ready. Conversely, if you have protection, don’t need chemical assistance (drugs or alcohol), can plan it so that it’s private somewhere, and can keep it between the two of you permanently (the urge to tell everyone is very powerful), then you might be ready.

    General rule of thumb: What happens between male and female is no one’s business as long as you don’t make it anyone’s business. This is true in all walks of life. The problem is, do you need to tell anyone? If you do, then you aren’t ready.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:46:00 UTC

  • Being ‘nice’ is the whole problem. It’s like postmodern parenting: responsibilit

    Being ‘nice’ is the whole problem. It’s like postmodern parenting: responsibility avoidance.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 10:14:00 UTC

  • I try not to insert myself into others universes unless they’re making a mistake

    I try not to insert myself into others universes unless they’re making a mistake (Pinker on violence (shifting), Taleb on warranty and law vs skin and money, and Peterson on Fictionalism and truth), although I probably should deal with Molyneux and optimistic aggression.

    (Megan would of course love it if I would pursue that line. The problem is, (a) until I publish it’s rude, and (b) criticisms are technical and these guys are educators, and (c) you know, I don’t want attention from island 120, because they’re too dumb to argue with.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 19:01:00 UTC

  • On Prostitution

    (Because someone just asked.) (“Taking a position on sex workers” is an awkward turn of phrase. So I’ll instead give an opinion on natural law of prostitution.) 1 – As far as I know, since males must work for female services, and since, females (largely) decide, all male-female relationships consist of some sort of exchange. So, all but causal male and female relations are simply on a spectrum of prostitution – from purely reciprocal affection through to purely commercial service. 2 – Prostitution (anywhere on the spectrum) can consist of a voluntary, productive, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of imposition of costs upon others by externality and is therefore ethical (interpersonally) and moral (extra-personally). 3 – Practiced as a means of obtaining additional income in order to pay down debts, or to create investments, (the better Call Girls and Escorts) seems is very hard to argue with – although this tends to permit prostitution as a luxury for the middle and upper classes when it’s the working and lower classes (and especially the underclasses) that are both most likely to engage in it, and who are most likely to abuse it (for affection, for income), and then require medication (drugs) to tolerate it. 4 – It is traditionally a last-ditch means of income for those who cannot find equal income by more desirable means. In many cases it is a means of economic survival. It is almost never a career a woman wants to remain in. It is just more economically rewarding (and more independent) than her available alternatives. And as such it is a difficult and unpleasant career to exit. As such it causes a dependency spiral. 5 – The principle problem with prostitution, like many, many moral questions, is the externalities, not the activity. (a) it creates the greatest and most expensive moral hazard of unwanted reproduction, thereby burdening all of society, and (b) it is not an occupation that we would wish our family members to engage in, so we are constantly defending against it (just like credit, drug, and alcohol use). (c) it is a constant threat to breaking up families given the unnatural stress of intergenerational monogamy during the first twenty years of marriage when women devote attention to children because they must, and a man most feels the ‘demand’ for intercourse. (d) And families serve as the first industry, the first corporation, in the hierarchy of corporations we call ‘civilization’. (e) And while in history, prostitutes and traveling workers and soldiers fulfilled one another’s needs, by the 20th century we had achieved nearly universal pairing off (marriage) along with the near abandonment of migratory craftsmen and migratory soldiers. 6 – Ergo, the principle issue with prostitution is – like all things – keeping it invisible to the commons. So like all sex, it is not a problem in a bedroom, or between individuals. And it is hard to argue with it as a ‘sugar daddy’ or ‘mistress’ or ‘select clients’, or ‘side job’. It is a problem, when it is either necessary for survival or transforms into a condition that requires medication. Since that medication is evidence of spiraling. And spiraling always ends up externalizing the costs upon the rest of the polity. 7 – No person may take an action the restitution for which he cannot pay. And one simply cannot pay for the consequences to society that are produced by destruction of marriages, loss of life’s potential, and the vicious spiral of decline, medication, and crime that results from it. 8 – Therefore, liability for spreading disease, liability for fomenting divorce, liability for encouraging others to engage in prositution, liability for supplying medication to preserve someone’s participation in prostitution, liability for creating the moral hazard of prostitution (baiting, entrapping, trafficing), and liability for ‘polluting the commons’ are all liabilities one must avoid – because one cannot perform sufficient restitution to correct for those consequences. But if any person out of public sight and sound offers and negotiates an exchange of sex for money – that is entirely ethical and moral. Cheers
    Apr 02, 2018 12:31pm

  • On Prostitution

    (Because someone just asked.) (“Taking a position on sex workers” is an awkward turn of phrase. So I’ll instead give an opinion on natural law of prostitution.) 1 – As far as I know, since males must work for female services, and since, females (largely) decide, all male-female relationships consist of some sort of exchange. So, all but causal male and female relations are simply on a spectrum of prostitution – from purely reciprocal affection through to purely commercial service. 2 – Prostitution (anywhere on the spectrum) can consist of a voluntary, productive, fully informed, warrantied, exchange, free of imposition of costs upon others by externality and is therefore ethical (interpersonally) and moral (extra-personally). 3 – Practiced as a means of obtaining additional income in order to pay down debts, or to create investments, (the better Call Girls and Escorts) seems is very hard to argue with – although this tends to permit prostitution as a luxury for the middle and upper classes when it’s the working and lower classes (and especially the underclasses) that are both most likely to engage in it, and who are most likely to abuse it (for affection, for income), and then require medication (drugs) to tolerate it. 4 – It is traditionally a last-ditch means of income for those who cannot find equal income by more desirable means. In many cases it is a means of economic survival. It is almost never a career a woman wants to remain in. It is just more economically rewarding (and more independent) than her available alternatives. And as such it is a difficult and unpleasant career to exit. As such it causes a dependency spiral. 5 – The principle problem with prostitution, like many, many moral questions, is the externalities, not the activity. (a) it creates the greatest and most expensive moral hazard of unwanted reproduction, thereby burdening all of society, and (b) it is not an occupation that we would wish our family members to engage in, so we are constantly defending against it (just like credit, drug, and alcohol use). (c) it is a constant threat to breaking up families given the unnatural stress of intergenerational monogamy during the first twenty years of marriage when women devote attention to children because they must, and a man most feels the ‘demand’ for intercourse. (d) And families serve as the first industry, the first corporation, in the hierarchy of corporations we call ‘civilization’. (e) And while in history, prostitutes and traveling workers and soldiers fulfilled one another’s needs, by the 20th century we had achieved nearly universal pairing off (marriage) along with the near abandonment of migratory craftsmen and migratory soldiers. 6 – Ergo, the principle issue with prostitution is – like all things – keeping it invisible to the commons. So like all sex, it is not a problem in a bedroom, or between individuals. And it is hard to argue with it as a ‘sugar daddy’ or ‘mistress’ or ‘select clients’, or ‘side job’. It is a problem, when it is either necessary for survival or transforms into a condition that requires medication. Since that medication is evidence of spiraling. And spiraling always ends up externalizing the costs upon the rest of the polity. 7 – No person may take an action the restitution for which he cannot pay. And one simply cannot pay for the consequences to society that are produced by destruction of marriages, loss of life’s potential, and the vicious spiral of decline, medication, and crime that results from it. 8 – Therefore, liability for spreading disease, liability for fomenting divorce, liability for encouraging others to engage in prositution, liability for supplying medication to preserve someone’s participation in prostitution, liability for creating the moral hazard of prostitution (baiting, entrapping, trafficing), and liability for ‘polluting the commons’ are all liabilities one must avoid – because one cannot perform sufficient restitution to correct for those consequences. But if any person out of public sight and sound offers and negotiates an exchange of sex for money – that is entirely ethical and moral. Cheers
    Apr 02, 2018 12:31pm

  • Animal Rights

    1 – When we use the term ‘right’ like many terms, we conflate it with moral, legal, just, and a host of other terms that are reducible to “I just want it this way”. 2 – For a right to exist, two or more parties must enter into a contract of some sort whether private (written or verbal), commercial (written), social (norms), or political (laws). A contract consists of an exchange of rights and obligations, and both parties must benefit from it. 3 – That contract must be ‘insured’ (enforced) by a third party. In most cases a headman, a leader, or a judge in a government. 4 – When a breach occurs, one must appeal to the third party, to enforce the rights and obligations under the contract. This is where the term ‘right’ comes from. One enforces a right under contract. 5 – In any contract we must have some set of reciprocal rights and obligations, or it is not rational that the contract was voluntary rather than coerced. 6 – In order to enter into a contract one must be able to understand, consent to it, and perform it. 7 – Animals, children, the elderly, the infirmed, and the incompetent – and aliens if there are any for that matter – cannot necessarily enter into a contract voluntarily, nor perform it, nor be rationally held liable for performance under it. 8 – In fact, some primitive peoples could not, and some still cannot do so. Many if not all people, especially those people with IQ’s in the average range (2/3 of europeans) between 90-110, and almost anyone above 110, can do so. Animals cannot conceive of such things. 9) – Animals – especially complex mammals – are valuable to us. So we extend protections to those animals to prevent people from destroying that value. 10 – We are no longer in a position were we are economically dependent upon preying upon animals for our survival. 11 – We are no longer ignorant of the emotional indifference between ourselves and at least complex animals. 12 – But – and this is the real reason – we are no longer in a position where we desire to, need to, and in many cases, can afford to, tolerate people who treat animals badly. For the simple reason that we do not want such people among us: they have many other nasty habits. And because we have worked hard to extirpate hatred and abuse from the human heart, and we do not want bad behavior imitated. In other words, punishing animal cruelty tends to expose psychopaths in particular. 13 – So animals cannot have rights, but we can extend them protections, as insurers, just as we do other incompetents, not only to rid ourselves of people who behave badly, and not only to continue to train one another to remove hatred and abuse from the human heart, and not only because they are an asset we want to preserve and enhance, and not only because happy animals make the world a better place for us, but because at this point in our development, at least under western conditions, we no longer have the economic need to do otherwise. 14 – However, we must also understand that there is a not insignificant portion of the population – particularly female – that is no longer reproducing or caring for children, and is biochemically directing those energies to animals in lieu of that outlet. Moreover, there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that feels powerless and lacking status, and finds defense of animals or nature as a means of obtaining control (meaning.). There is a not insignificant portion of the populace that is not otherwise productive, is not competent and competition, and seeks meaning through political order instead of economic competition. And there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that finds group participation in rallying politically a means of status seeking and membership seeking. And those are just another set of psychological problems we have not solved in modernity, now that women have control of their reproduction, and legal, and economic independence from their biology. 15 – In other words, we can establish (institutionalize) common property rights (animals are members of the commons) over animals for whatever reason we choose to, and therefore insure them for present and future. We do the same to territory and to arts, and to many things: “You can use this productively but you may not cause negative externality”. Or, You may enjoy its beauty but not destroy it. These are just means of establishing limited property rights over anything we choose to limit property rights. In fact, we rarely grant rights to destroy scarce or valued assets for other than the purpose of consumption or transformation. 16 – But it is impossible for animals to possess rights. It is only possible for us to grant them protections. The fact that the law is ‘imprecise’ in the use of this language is simply yet another problem of vocabulary lagging behind our rate of development.
    Apr 02, 2018 3:27pm

  • Animal Rights

    1 – When we use the term ‘right’ like many terms, we conflate it with moral, legal, just, and a host of other terms that are reducible to “I just want it this way”. 2 – For a right to exist, two or more parties must enter into a contract of some sort whether private (written or verbal), commercial (written), social (norms), or political (laws). A contract consists of an exchange of rights and obligations, and both parties must benefit from it. 3 – That contract must be ‘insured’ (enforced) by a third party. In most cases a headman, a leader, or a judge in a government. 4 – When a breach occurs, one must appeal to the third party, to enforce the rights and obligations under the contract. This is where the term ‘right’ comes from. One enforces a right under contract. 5 – In any contract we must have some set of reciprocal rights and obligations, or it is not rational that the contract was voluntary rather than coerced. 6 – In order to enter into a contract one must be able to understand, consent to it, and perform it. 7 – Animals, children, the elderly, the infirmed, and the incompetent – and aliens if there are any for that matter – cannot necessarily enter into a contract voluntarily, nor perform it, nor be rationally held liable for performance under it. 8 – In fact, some primitive peoples could not, and some still cannot do so. Many if not all people, especially those people with IQ’s in the average range (2/3 of europeans) between 90-110, and almost anyone above 110, can do so. Animals cannot conceive of such things. 9) – Animals – especially complex mammals – are valuable to us. So we extend protections to those animals to prevent people from destroying that value. 10 – We are no longer in a position were we are economically dependent upon preying upon animals for our survival. 11 – We are no longer ignorant of the emotional indifference between ourselves and at least complex animals. 12 – But – and this is the real reason – we are no longer in a position where we desire to, need to, and in many cases, can afford to, tolerate people who treat animals badly. For the simple reason that we do not want such people among us: they have many other nasty habits. And because we have worked hard to extirpate hatred and abuse from the human heart, and we do not want bad behavior imitated. In other words, punishing animal cruelty tends to expose psychopaths in particular. 13 – So animals cannot have rights, but we can extend them protections, as insurers, just as we do other incompetents, not only to rid ourselves of people who behave badly, and not only to continue to train one another to remove hatred and abuse from the human heart, and not only because they are an asset we want to preserve and enhance, and not only because happy animals make the world a better place for us, but because at this point in our development, at least under western conditions, we no longer have the economic need to do otherwise. 14 – However, we must also understand that there is a not insignificant portion of the population – particularly female – that is no longer reproducing or caring for children, and is biochemically directing those energies to animals in lieu of that outlet. Moreover, there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that feels powerless and lacking status, and finds defense of animals or nature as a means of obtaining control (meaning.). There is a not insignificant portion of the populace that is not otherwise productive, is not competent and competition, and seeks meaning through political order instead of economic competition. And there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that finds group participation in rallying politically a means of status seeking and membership seeking. And those are just another set of psychological problems we have not solved in modernity, now that women have control of their reproduction, and legal, and economic independence from their biology. 15 – In other words, we can establish (institutionalize) common property rights (animals are members of the commons) over animals for whatever reason we choose to, and therefore insure them for present and future. We do the same to territory and to arts, and to many things: “You can use this productively but you may not cause negative externality”. Or, You may enjoy its beauty but not destroy it. These are just means of establishing limited property rights over anything we choose to limit property rights. In fact, we rarely grant rights to destroy scarce or valued assets for other than the purpose of consumption or transformation. 16 – But it is impossible for animals to possess rights. It is only possible for us to grant them protections. The fact that the law is ‘imprecise’ in the use of this language is simply yet another problem of vocabulary lagging behind our rate of development.
    Apr 02, 2018 3:27pm

  • ANIMAL RIGHTS 1 – When we use the term ‘right’ like many terms, we conflate it w

    ANIMAL RIGHTS

    1 – When we use the term ‘right’ like many terms, we conflate it with moral, legal, just, and a host of other terms that are reducible to “I just want it this way”.

    2 – For a right to exist, two or more parties must enter into a contract of some sort whether private (written or verbal), commercial (written), social (norms), or political (laws). A contract consists of an exchange of rights and obligations, and both parties must benefit from it.

    3 – That contract must be ‘insured’ (enforced) by a third party. In most cases a headman, a leader, or a judge in a government.

    4 – When a breach occurs, one must appeal to the third party, to enforce the rights and obligations under the contract. This is where the term ‘right’ comes from. One enforces a right under contract.

    5 – In any contract we must have some set of reciprocal rights and obligations, or it is not rational that the contract was voluntary rather than coerced.

    6 – In order to enter into a contract one must be able to understand, consent to it, and perform it.

    7 – Animals, children, the elderly, the infirmed, and the incompetent – and aliens if there are any for that matter – cannot necessarily enter into a contract voluntarily, nor perform it, nor be rationally held liable for performance under it.

    8 – In fact, some primitive peoples could not, and some still cannot do so. Many if not all people, especially those people with IQ’s in the average range (2/3 of europeans) between 90-110, and almost anyone above 110, can do so. Animals cannot conceive of such things.

    9) – Animals – especially complex mammals – are valuable to us. So we extend protections to those animals to prevent people from destroying that value.

    10 – We are no longer in a position were we are economically dependent upon preying upon animals for our survival.

    11 – We are no longer ignorant of the emotional indifference between ourselves and at least complex animals.

    12 – But – and this is the real reason – we are no longer in a position where we desire to, need to, and in many cases, can afford to, tolerate people who treat animals badly. For the simple reason that we do not want such people among us: they have many other nasty habits. And because we have worked hard to extirpate hatred and abuse from the human heart, and we do not want bad behavior imitated. In other words, punishing animal cruelty tends to expose psychopaths in particular.

    13 – So animals cannot have rights, but we can extend them protections, as insurers, just as we do other incompetents, not only to rid ourselves of people who behave badly, and not only to continue to train one another to remove hatred and abuse from the human heart, and not only because they are an asset we want to preserve and enhance, and not only because happy animals make the world a better place for us, but because at this point in our development, at least under western conditions, we no longer have the economic need to do otherwise.

    14 – However, we must also understand that there is a not insignificant portion of the population – particularly female – that is no longer reproducing or caring for children, and is biochemically directing those energies to animals in lieu of that outlet.

    Moreover, there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that feels powerless and lacking status, and finds defense of animals or nature as a means of obtaining control (meaning.).

    There is a not insignificant portion of the populace that is not otherwise productive, is not competent and competition, and seeks meaning through political order instead of economic competition.

    And there is a not insignificant portion of the populace that finds group participation in rallying politically a means of status seeking and membership seeking.

    And those are just another set of psychological problems we have not solved in modernity, now that women have control of their reproduction, and legal, and economic independence from their biology.

    15 – In other words, we can establish (institutionalize) common property rights (animals are members of the commons) over animals for whatever reason we choose to, and therefore insure them for present and future. We do the same to territory and to arts, and to many things: “You can use this productively but you may not cause negative externality”. Or, You may enjoy its beauty but not destroy it. These are just means of establishing limited property rights over anything we choose to limit property rights. In fact, we rarely grant rights to destroy scarce or valued assets for other than the purpose of consumption or transformation.

    16 – But it is impossible for animals to possess rights. It is only possible for us to grant them protections. The fact that the law is ‘imprecise’ in the use of this language is simply yet another problem of vocabulary lagging behind our rate of development.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 15:27:00 UTC