The Desert and the Grasslands
There is an important reason why the focus of this movement is on the common ground of basic sanity. A few reasons in fact.
It is partly because we may well need majority support to facilitate our freedom so we need to keep the agreement as agreeable as possible, while still representing genuine change.
Rallying people under a banner of relatively simple logic and basic “common” sense would seem a more achievable aim than looking to unite a majority under other ideals.
Also, the changes that need to be made are interlinked to the basic agreements of what is logical, moral and basically sane.
Demanding agreements on higher specifics contradicts the very spirit of the basic agreement and these higher specifics are deemed an area where debate and discussion may still be required, with it remaining possible that no definite correct answer can be found, or at least collectively agreed upon.
The ultimate reason for attempting to unite people under the basic ethos of sanity is driven both by a recognition that society is ultimately ruled by insanity and criminality and that, while it is likely impossible to unite even a majority, let alone everyone, under any agreement too soaked in personal preferences and higher ideals, it is at least theoretically possible to unite a large population of people under the ethos of simple, but honest and consistent, logic and “common” sense.
A basic sense of simple sanity should be able to unite a majority, and if it doesn’t we are in big trouble.
Awareness in various forms and of various description appears to be increasing and many movements are developing to the point that they claim to recognise the injustices of the current system, as well as proposing alternatives in many cases.
Sadly specific plans of actions do not so commonly accompany such movements and while many groups appear to oppose the same general insanities at first look, after closer inspection it is revealed that many are at conflict with each other over identifying the specific solutions, and even many of the causes involved in so much of the criminality in modern society.
It is here where the need to prioritise the fight for sanity is demonstrated.
We don’t need to agree on every single specific course of action if we can agree on the basic principles.
There is always room for debate and always need for humility in such debates to allow us to find the optimum solutions to various problems we face, collectively and individually. As long as we have the basics right we can sort out the finer details later.
While we scrutinise the grey lets at least agree on the black and white of it all. While we squabble over ideals, lets at least unite on basic morality.
To use the title metaphor, let’s at least agree on what is clearly the desert and what is clearly the grasslands, even if there is a grey area in between, where the desert meets the grasslands, that is harder to define.
Just as we can agree on the obvious logic, the obvious morality even, of certain situations and scenarios we can also agree what is a desert and what is grasslands.
But as you travel from one to the other it is harder to define the exact point that one becomes the other.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
To continue this metaphor, the debate over finer details and finer individual ideals and ideas are much like the potential debate over the exact point that the dessert becomes the grasslands (and vice versa). But in both cases the debate over the finer details is pointless if the basics cannot be agreed upon.
We can argue about the exact point that the desert becomes the grasslands, but when we are surrounded by only sand and sky we (at least most of us) can agree our location is a desert, and only the delusional and the dishonest will try to say otherwise.
When it is just grass that we can see beneath the sky, as far as the eye can see, then we can agree that we are in the grasslands, and once again all sane people should be able to agree on that.
As the one gradually becomes the other there can and will be disagreement over the exact position of the line, or even over whether there is an exact line, between what is desert and what is grassland.
When does the desert become the grassland, and vice versa?
This “no mans land” of ambiguity, where both characteristics of desert and grassland exist and debate remains over the defining transition, is perfectly acceptable.
With ratios of grass to sand gradually favouring one over the other differing definitions of where the line between them should be drawn is inevitable.
We can debate and discuss our definitions and reasoning for drawing the line in various places, or put the case forward that this land of ambiguity should simply remain the designated grey area as it is neither desert of grassland but something entirely different from both and worthy of its own definition (though the point of transition would still be debatable).
But if we cannot agree when we are in the middle of the desert, with only sand and sky visible in all directions, that we are indeed in the desert then there is little point in debating the moment of transition.
If we cannot even agree on the basic definition of the desert, or the grassland, then we have very little hope as a species of agreeing finer details.
When luscious grasslands is all we can see and there is not so much as a hint of sand, then we should all be able to logically agree we are in the grasslands.
We must acknowledge and accept that reasonable people can still disagree on the finer details with in the “grey areas”, where the desert meets the grasslands, as long as they are united on the basics.
Before we squander too much time debating the finer details in the areas of ambiguity, let us first unite in the areas where we can all agree.
Let us define the desert, let us define the grasslands and come together on those definitions.
Then, and only then, the debate over the finer details can be pursued on a foundation of the basic definitions that we all agree on.
This is how we will end the insanity, by addressing the insanity first.
There may be many areas that are not ideal according to various definitions but we should be able to identify, or at least recognise when it is identified for us, the obvious insanity and the obvious criminality.
We don’t all need to come up with the perfect society, in fact such a thing is a futile pursuit as definitions of perfection will not likely be reconciled among the diverse population of human beings.
But if we hope to end the insanity and criminality of the current system, and strive for a better world, then we need to unite on a common ground, under a simple agreement, and put an immediate end to the criminality we can all agree is wrong.
The inability to separate the reasonable philosophical differences, that we will inevitably have, from the outright insanities we tolerate, not just among us but as imposing forces on us, is possibly the greatest reason why we have failed to rise up as a united people against the obvious evil of this world.
This is why this movement is asking first and foremost for us to set aside the petty squabbles and the nuanced differences and just come together on a common ground that preaches a simple and basic sense of decency and logic.
This is why the Non Aggression Principle, as defined by the Nations of Sanity, is essential for this common ground to be built upon.
In a free and sane society we can differ on idealistic morality and leave that to personal choice, but we need to unite on the basic morality of the Non Aggression Principle and accept that no act can be deemed criminal if it does not cause harm or loss, or threat, to another.
In addition to this, no entity, individual, government, corporation or organisation of any kind has the right to violate your freedom.
As a consequence of this, the initiation of force is and must always be seen as a criminal act, a violation of the Non Aggression Principle and the Sanity Agreement, and will be treated as an act of aggression against all free people, not just the specific victim.
“Justice is indivisible. A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” – Martin Luther King Jr.
For this reason the Sanity Agreement is modelled as essentially a peace treaty for the entire human race.
All who agree to it agree that we all have the right to choose our own way of life and, providing we do not infringe on the rights of others, are free to do what we want, live how we want and pursue happiness how we choose to.
Despite the simplicity and declared infallibility of the Sanity Agreement, it will understandably be seen as an unrealistic and overly ambitious goal.
However, the implications of this agreement are potentially world changing and ultimately world saving consequences.
A world where no nation’s government can muster majority support for their international or domestic crimes and general state violence, and in fact actually face organised, united, majority opposition from their citizenry, is on the path to world peace, world freedom and possibly most importantly a world wide rule of simple sanity.
Please read through the proposals of the Nations of Sanity, take the challenge and consider joining the movement.
The world needs a real revolution and we cannot wait for a utopia that will never come.
We cannot wait for the massively diverse human race to agree on every fine detail, ideal and principle.
We need to end the insanity of this system now!
We need to put aside our petty differences and come together on a common ground of very basic logic and decency and bring this world the real revolution it so desperately needs.
Please help bring back the rule of sanity to a world gone mad and set the people free from the chains of tyranny, oppression and countless injustices.
Join the Nations Of Sanity.