Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Sovereignty Is Only Rational For Superior Peoples

    Only a superior people would choose a group strategy of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth(empiricism, operationalism), and Markets in Everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.And conversely, only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

  • Sovereignty Is Only Rational For Superior Peoples

    Only a superior people would choose a group strategy of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth(empiricism, operationalism), and Markets in Everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.And conversely, only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

  • SOVEREIGNTY IS ONLY RATIONAL FOR SUPERIOR PEOPLES Only a superior people would c

    SOVEREIGNTY IS ONLY RATIONAL FOR SUPERIOR PEOPLES

    Only a superior people would choose a group strategy of Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth(empiricism, operationalism), and Markets in Everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.And conversely, only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 15:15:00 UTC

  • Paul doesn’t try to make sense. He tries to pursue his western-hatred agenda. An

    Paul doesn’t try to make sense. He tries to pursue his western-hatred agenda. And he does it as has every other generation of Fictionalists (Theologians, Rationalist Philosophers, Pseudoscientists), by half truths forcing suggestion using overloading to invoke moral sentiments.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 13:51:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968846077846806528

    Reply addressees: @Anon_OMouse @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/968840221151330305

    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/968840221151330305

  • Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hier

    Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hierarchy. The east developed lying to circumvent impact on the dominance hierarchy. China’s’ first philosopher is sun-tzu, “delay, deceive, and seek opportunity to act when the opponent is in weak condition”. The west’s first philosopher is unstated: we are small in number, so use techology, and expertise, to solve future problems immediately – regardless of the impact ont he dominnce hierarchy. This philosophy results in mathematics, plato, aristotle, and zeno. Lying is systemic in china. It’s expected. They cannot create and hold commons. They have zero respect for human life. They care nothing for liberty. China is a bureaucracy. Russia is a church, and the West is (or was) a militia.

  • Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hier

    Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hierarchy. The east developed lying to circumvent impact on the dominance hierarchy. China’s’ first philosopher is sun-tzu, “delay, deceive, and seek opportunity to act when the opponent is in weak condition”. The west’s first philosopher is unstated: we are small in number, so use techology, and expertise, to solve future problems immediately – regardless of the impact ont he dominnce hierarchy. This philosophy results in mathematics, plato, aristotle, and zeno. Lying is systemic in china. It’s expected. They cannot create and hold commons. They have zero respect for human life. They care nothing for liberty. China is a bureaucracy. Russia is a church, and the West is (or was) a militia.

  • Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hier

    Um … the west evolved truth telling regardless of impact on the dominance hierarchy. The east developed lying to circumvent impact on the dominance hierarchy.

    China’s’ first philosopher is sun-tzu, “delay, deceive, and seek opportunity to act when the opponent is in weak condition”.

    The west’s first philosopher is unstated: we are small in number, so use techology, and expertise, to solve future problems immediately – regardless of the impact ont he dominnce hierarchy. This philosophy results in mathematics, plato, aristotle, and zeno.

    Lying is systemic in china. It’s expected. They cannot create and hold commons. They have zero respect for human life. They care nothing for liberty.

    China is a bureaucracy. Russia is a church, and the West is (or was) a militia.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-27 16:27:00 UTC

  • Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): “I want freedom.” “I want equality.” — So

    Retweeted Outsideness (@Outsideness): “I want freedom.” “I want equality.” — So do both, in different places. It’s not that freaking difficult.

  • Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

  • WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW (SCIENCE) NOT PHILOSOPHY (CHOICE). Human nature invests

    WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW (SCIENCE) NOT PHILOSOPHY (CHOICE).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems.

    Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see.

    I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected.

    —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”—

    Well, exactly.

    –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”—

    The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence).

    Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons.

    In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it.

    People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism.

    And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism.

    So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth).

    Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:42:00 UTC