The idea of the Nations of Sanity is to unite people on their most common ground, their most basic and fundamental area of logical agreement.
We are not expecting everyone to agree on all areas of idealistic visions and the nuances in their personal ideology, because people differ too much on such specifics.
We are saying it does not matter if you have a different specific vision for how society should be, in a free society you are free to pursue any path you choose, as is everyone, with the only restriction being that you must not cause harm or loss to another or interfere with their equal freedom..
This defining law, built from the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) is the one and only rule that we can all agree to live by (even theoretically) and while it can give birth to a complexity of specifics, nothing can be allowed to violate this one defining principle.
The Nations of Sanity’s challenge, request or invite (depending on which welcome you prefer) to everyone is to find flaw in what is being proposed.
Whether you see flaw in specific plans of action or purposes, or want to challenge the basic foundation, you are always welcome and actually encouraged to make your voice heard here.
This is presented to you as a challenge to find fault in what is being proposed, if you think you can.
Because we claim that this is simple sanity and no one can argue why this should not be made reality. We say it is quite literally the only way to have equal rights and freedom for all. We say that the NAP is the only sane approach to defining crime and the only standard that can be universally applied.
We say this, and only this, is sanity.
If you disagree we ask that you please speak up and voice your objections, concerns and opposing views.
This challenge is presented because we strongly believe that no one can successfully make a logical argument against what is being proposed here, or even find fault in the specifics. But the offer/request to present such challenges and pick out such flaws is always there.
To keep things interesting and try and stimulate ways to engage people into this topic of discussion, we will create more specific challenges that people are invited to pick the holes out of.
Certain specifics that talk about the practical application of what is proposed here is, like everything proposed here, open to any and all scrutiny.
The hope is that, as it comes through all attempted challenges and survives all scrutiny unscathed it gains more respect and recognition for the simple sanity that it is representing.
From there the hope is to gain the support to turn this vision to reality.
We will never agree on every little nuance in life, every little morality or ideal.
We will not even all agree on many of the bigger things. But there is one area where almost all of us can and should agree, and the few who cannot will no longer have the power to impose on others, even if they still have the will to do so.
So when we speak of morality we need to acknowledge that there are two kinds.
There is the universal morality, based on the Non Aggression Principle, that should govern society.
This basic law that essentially prohibits only that which causes harm or loss to another is where we need to unite on agreement.
Such morality should be consistent with the values of all people, and those who oppose such an agreement are literally declaring war on free people because the agreement’s only stipulation is to refrain from violation of this most basic principle of freedom.
But there is another form of morality which is not so universal and cannot be enforced without violating people’s rights through the initiation of force.
A more individual morality where people will not agree, but more importantly do not need to because such morality is down to personal choice.
For example, it is morally right to help people in need and do charitable work, but it is not an obligation and any attempt to make it an obligation would involve the initiation of force and as such would not be permitted.
You can facilitate and encourage people to help each other, but you cannot force them because not only would such enforcement be a violation of their rights but it would also negate the virtue of such deeds as a good deed is not a good deed if you are forced to do it.
Even though the results may produce tangible benefit, the overall virtue is compromised by the immorality of the force used to facilitate it.
This is why, despite recognising that morality does extend beyond the Non Aggression Principle, the Nations Of Sanity insists that the only law that can govern a sane and just society is that which prohibits harm or loss to another and anything that falls outside of that mandate cannot be imposed on people.
We cannot force people to help old ladies across the street but we can encourage it. We cannot demand their kindness, we can only encoruage it. But we can demand that they don't mug the old lady.
We can use force to prevent crimes and the ONLY consistent and universal definition of crime is the NAP.
The common ground presented here is built on the Non Aggression Principle and is the only way people can live with true freedom.
If we all put aside our petty differences for a moment and take a look at the common ground, of simple sanity, that we can all join together to support, we will finally see how we can actually change this world and put an end to the criminality and the insanity that currently rules over us all.
This movement is based on the foundation that everyone can agree on. The true common ground.
There will still be debates and differences within, over ideals beyond this basic principle, and our evolution will continue, but only within the common ground of simple sanity can we progress as a truly free society where we can all guide our own journeys and respect other people’s rights to guide theirs.
The Non Aggression Principle is the defining basis of the Nations of Sanity and the Sanity movement.
It is the most basic and simple form of morality and sanity and for that reason the only way to move forward together as a species.
Tell me I’m wrong!