Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • What’s the difference between doing a good job and prosecution as a collaborator

    What’s the difference between doing a good job and prosecution as a collaborator?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-07 17:41:00 UTC

  • PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural La

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW

    The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)

    Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE:

    Fully understanding this one law may also require:

    1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.

    2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest.

    3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.

    4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.

    If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).

    This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 19:16:00 UTC

  • OF COURSE WE CAN PUNISH ILES When did we STOP punishing lies in public? (libel,

    OF COURSE WE CAN PUNISH ILES

    When did we STOP punishing lies in public? (libel, slander, duel, fights between men?)

    How much debate was there over the freedom of speech and press? A great deal. Because the lies of the church did good in the eyes of the founders. Because the press allowed the propagation of the lies upon which the american revolution was founded as well as the rational and moral arguments. But mostly because they couldn’t figure out how to manage it in court. And they felt it less necessary to manage in court because of the physical punishments men laid out upon each other such that it was not NECESSARY to lay out in court.

    Now lets look at recent evolutions in knowledge: like empiricism (measurement), and darwinianism (evolution) despite the fact that we had been domesticating animals over 12000 years ago? I mean, its not a very complicated idea. Why did it take so long?

    (a) when did we begin to understand the scientific method, and how long did it take us?

    (b) when did we solve the major problems of the foundations of mathematics and logic?

    (c) when did we discover both econometrics (economics) and statistics?

    (d) when and why did we switch from justifiation to criticism in order to advance science?

    (e) when and why did the operational revolutoin fail in the early 20th century, despite being ‘discovered’ in every major theoretical discipline? I mean, the entirety of the philosophy of language could have been settled, and a century of nonsense saved, and god knows what else?

    I mean, the history of mankind consists of the gradual domestication of the beast man.

    ANd while in history education was the primary objective…. ONCE EDUCATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, THEN THE PRIMARY IMPROVEMENT IS TO ELIMINATE ERROR BIAS, AND DECEIT.

    We live in an era where nearly all information is free for the simple cost of investing the time to learn it. The only thing we can do to improve the lot of man, and to prevent regression tot he mean, is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    We live in an era where we have suppressed parasitism (violence, theft, commercial fraud) such that financialization and politics are the two primary means of improving our lot, and preventing regression toward the mean.

    If we have the methods of testing truthful speech (we do), then there is no reason we cannot do as every generation in history has done: outlaw through law, new methods of crime, that man has discovered.

    And what was discovered in the late 1700’s was to advance scripturalism to pseudorationalsim (Rousseau/Kant), and then in the later 1800’s how to advance pseudorationalism to pseudoscience (Marx, boaz, freud), and then in the early 1900’s to distribute the task to many disinformation specialists (the frankfurt school), and then to use mass media to distribute it (socialists), and then to use it to take over the academy, and from there indoctrinate the political system, and the buy offf the polity with debt, producing the upcoming crash to end all crashes.

    We have, for most of human history regulated lying and insult (non-truthful criticism) by interpersonal violence and duel. The press was regulated to prevent its abuse. But then the press was ‘de-regulated’ by the american revolution, and the ending of libel, slander, duel, and ‘fighting’. The cheap printing, newspapers, pamphlets, paperback books, movies, telephone, radio, television, and mass media, and now the internet have put distance between liar and victim and allowed the industralization of deception that we call ‘propaganda’ to bathe our people in information which they lack the means of rationally testing if able, and which seduce those whose wants it satisfies.

    It is as evil as the invention of abrahamism and ‘the book’ – the similarity of ‘the book’/’the pulpit’, and ‘pseudoscience’ /’the media’ should not be lost on the most dim of us. Where the ancient world involved the saturation of the schools with liars, the present involves the saturation of schools, academy, and the informational environment with liars. Our people are saturated with lies they cannot defend themselves from, and saturated witha liens that they cannot defend themselves from. Meanwhile their families shrink, their civilization dies – and a few simpletons criticize me for putting for a rational means of rather simply making use of our existing legal system to apply the same standards to political speech that we do to commercial: reciprocity.

    What the hell makes you think that (a) people won’t cooperate for both good and bad at massive scale, and that people won’t conduct war by disinformation and the suppression of disinformation?

    I mean. You can spout an OPINION but what examples in history can you give, of any scale, that have any substance, that mirror even this one sketch that I’ve just written?

    I mean, it’s one thing to remain skeptical, and it’s another to hold an opinion that is contrary to all accumulated evidence in all of history for all of mankind…. Jeez….

    Color me frustrated with simpletons.

    THE PROBLEM IS NOT COMPLICATED. PEOPLE ARE JUST IGNORANT AND STUPID

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 11:16:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: SACRED The exceptionless prohibition on psychological, and verbal, a

    DEFINITION: SACRED

    The exceptionless prohibition on psychological, and verbal, as well as behavioral, imposition of costs upon a commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 12:12:00 UTC

  • IS HOUSE ‘SLAVERY’ BETTER THAN STATE INCARCERATION? (YES) James makes an less ob

    IS HOUSE ‘SLAVERY’ BETTER THAN STATE INCARCERATION? (YES)

    James makes an less obvious argument, that there is little difference between slavery under the romans and incarceration in the modern world – and in fact, the modern world is worse. The difference being someone had to take responsibility for you in the ancient world, and the corporeal state takes no responsibility for you in the present, just locks you away where you learn nothing except how to be a better, more fit, criminal, since you have no viable means of survival afterward.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 11:49:00 UTC

  • I ADVOCATE THE MOST MORAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF THE HIGH COST OF DYSGENIA.

    I ADVOCATE THE MOST MORAL SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF THE HIGH COST OF DYSGENIA.

    I’m advocating the most moral means of preventing the harm of the lower and underclasses, and the whims of women: pay for one child or zero child, rather than allow the vast harm that their reproduction imposes upon the rest of us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 13:41:00 UTC

  • If women don’t interfere in the affairs of men, then must grant them safety in e

    If women don’t interfere in the affairs of men, then must grant them safety in exchange, and attempt at all times to save them from fear. If women interfere in the affairs of men, then we must only treat them as men. Which they universally object to, by using all forms of name calling. That is the source of feminist argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 10:37:00 UTC

  • Men are innately rational. Men are not innately amoral, moral, immoral, or evil.

    Men are innately rational. Men are not innately amoral, moral, immoral, or evil. Our task, as individuals, families, and polities, is to remove the opportunities for the unethical, immoral, and evil, leaving only amoral and moral actions available to each other.

    —-

    (FYI: Amoral (/AYH-more-uhl/) Adj. – Neither moral nor immoral: independent of moral consequence.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 10:52:00 UTC

  • MEN ARE RATIONAL – PERIOD. 1 – Men are rational. Period. 2 – Men can rationally

    MEN ARE RATIONAL – PERIOD.

    1 – Men are rational. Period.

    2 – Men can rationally choose morality or immorality or evil. Period.

    3 – Morality consist of reciprocity. Period.

    4 – Reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality – period.

    5 – The test of reciprocity is changes in property in toto (demonstrated property) Period.

    6 – The purpose of reciprocity is the demand for restitution as a means of preventing retaliation cycles.

    7 – The Purpose of preventing retaliation cycles, is to preserve the value of cooperation.

    8 – The incremental suppression of retaliation cycles produces lower risk and higher experimental velocity, (that we call ‘trust’), thereby increasing the rate of returns on cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 10:23:00 UTC

  • THE BEST AND MOST IMPORTANT 200 WORDS YOU CAN READ TODAY: All men are rational a

    THE BEST AND MOST IMPORTANT 200 WORDS YOU CAN READ TODAY:

    All men are rational actors – neither moral nor immoral, but rational. We achieve the good by eliminating the utility of choosing the bad. We eliminate the utility of choosing the bad by the promise of violence for violations of reciprocity. We test for the violation of reciprocity by demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of negative externality. We call this test of reciprocity Natural Law. We can only test this Natural Law by the use of independent judges and juries to discover violations of it by sympathetic testing. We can perform that sympathetic testing when observing testimony. We can sympathetically test from testimony because our ability cooperate was made possible by an ability to sympathize with intent. By sympathizing with intent, we can discover malincentives and malintentions. We can then judge malincentives and malintentions, and record those judgements for future use in what we call the ‘common law.’. But for this system to work at all, those who testify, the jury, and the judges must give higher priority to the commons than to their self, kin, or organizational interests. And so they themselves must be subject to the same demand for reciprocity as those that they adjudicate. This is the secret to western civilization: truthfulness of warrior cult spread across all men, via service in militia and army.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 09:05:00 UTC