We need a specific plan of action, because even agreeing on our destination is not enough if we do not have a clearly defined way to get there.
So to get the ball rolling in the right direction the Nations of Sanity proposes a specific plan to pursue.
As with everything proposed here, everyone is invited, even requested, to attempt to challenge this plan of action. 
The plan is to find the common ground (which we believe we have) and rally people together to unite on it, based on only the simple sanities we can all agree on.
We will encourage debate regarding the nuances and various specifics, while offering a possible solution to all debated issues, but such debates will not effect the basic agreement.
For example, we can debate about the severity of various crimes, mitigations and appropriate responses.
But the basic principle that crime is defined by the violation of the Non Aggression Principle and the initiation of force, remains unaffected by such debates.
There will be grey areas that will need to be negotiated and defined, but the basics are clear.
We will organise our plan of action into levels, with the first and most basic being our demand for freedom based on the Non Aggression Principle and defined by our right to complete self ownership.
If we are not free from state violence, if we do not have the right to own ourselves, our work, our bodies and our minds then we are not free.
So our basic freedom, which we demand, is the freedom of self governance and any attempt to steal from us, attack or imprison us, or take, destroy, or even use against our wishes, our rightfully owned property is a violation of our rights.
This will be our minimum demand and we cannot accept any less than this, because anything less than sanity is insanity.
It is this basic premise that actually defines the movement.
We can offer sane answers and solutions to various specifics which can be challenged, debated and changed.
But the basic principle cannot be changed, the basic demand cannot be compromised, because the basic demand is simply the reasonable and sane demand for freedom.
Not the freedom to hurt others, not the freedom to impose on others in anyway, just the most basic and simple right of self ownership and the right to be free from assaults and violations by any other party.
That is all self ownership demands. That is all the Non Aggression Principle demands and that is our basic demand. Our first step.
Under this banner of freedom we are free to do what we like as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others.
If we do not cause harm or loss to another, or threaten to, and we do not infringe on other people’s right to exercise this same freedom then we are committing no crime and should be protected under this very simple, but perfectly logically and morally consistent, agreement.
This agreement dictates that the only law allowed to be in existence is the law against causing harm or loss to another.
That is essentially the terms of the sanity agreement and while debate can still be made about parameters and definitions when dealing with the finer details, such details can be prearranged and negotiated and agreed before hand.
The only defining dictation to the agreement is the basic rule of the NAP as defined here.
As is spoken about in more detail in the chapter titled "Where the desert meets the grasslands", the grey areas can be negotiated but the black and white is clearly and concisely defined by the NAP and any law built on it.
Many know this law as “common law" and would recognise it is as the logical foundation for law and basic objective morality.
It is widely accepted, among those who consider such principles, as a simple and agreeable law that is fair and relatively easy to abide by.
It is actually quite a shameful indictment on the population as a collective that we have allowed this simple basis of “common law" to be altered and manipulated to the point that the modern day laws not only stray away but completely conflict with and violate the basic common laws that they were alleged to be built upon.
Not only are there currently numerous laws now criminalising people who have caused no harm or loss to anyone else, but such laws actually invoke criminal violations of people by deeming them the criminal instigators and initiating force against them.
When no victim can even be established, let alone tangible harm or loss demonstrated, it is nothing short of madness that a law can exist that demands criminal proceedings. But that is the current reality of all modern societies and western civilisation cannot rationally claim to be civilised until this changes.
When all people have real freedom from the initiation of force and state violence, then and only then can we be declared free.
That freedom must guarantee personal liberty and a basic freedom that allows people to choose how they live their lives as long as they do not cause harm or loss to another.
It sounds simplistic but that is just because it is, or at least should be, what we ironically call “common sense”.
But the sad reality is that this basic foundation of right and wrong is completely ignored and violated by modern society.
The plan of action we propose is a step by step process, which will be elaborated in greater detail, but the first step is the implementation of the Sanity Agreement or Non Aggression Agreement in its most basic form.
We realise that such an agreement in its most basic form does not eliminate all potential disputes and conflicts. There are areas where it is difficult to establish if harm or loss is being caused, for example.
These grey areas require prior agreement, like when entering into contracts or agreements, to set certain parameters. But the Sanity Agreement does offer clarity regarding the issue of causing harm or loss and where such definitions are clear the Sanity Agreement is clear.
So if you are, without doubt, causing harm or loss to another then you are violating the Non Aggression Principle and the Sanity Agreement built on it. If you are definitely not causing harm or loss to another, or attempting or threatening to, then you are clearly not violating such an agreement.
The areas where there is debate over the parameters of what does and does not cause harm or loss to another will not be automatically resolved by the Sanity Agreement in its most basic form, but parameters can be negotiated in a supplementary manner prior to agreement.
An obvious example of this would be things like polution where parameters would need to be set to determine what constitutes harmful pollution.
Where harm or loss can be established there is no doubt where the Non Aggression Principle stands. The grey areas will remain grey areas where there is potential debate over whether harm or loss is being caused, or threatened.
To bring clarity to such areas of uncertainty then parameters will need to be agreed and accepted, but the basic ethos that you are free to pursue the way of life you choose, providing you do not violate others, is a guaranteed consistent.
While the hope would be that such parameters can be negotiated, agreed and accepted with relative ease, the more important step is the first step. This first step is the implementation of the more basic agreement of the Non Aggression Agreement/Sanity Agreement.
So while these finer specifics can be discussed and debated the basic agreement must be put in place immediately.
As is discussed in the chapter titled "Where the Desert meets the Grassland" the exact line between the two can be put up for debate but where there is no doubt regarding the issue of harm or loss there is no doubt as to where the Non Aggression Pinciple/Agreement stands.
As is described by the metaphor of the Desert and the Grassland, while the desert is with out doubt the desert and the grasslands like wise, there is the issue of the inbetween area, where the Desert meets the Grasslands, where an exact divide is hard to pin point.
We can leave the debate over where exactly that line must be drawn to a later date and there is room for varying definitions that would decide exactly where to draw the line between the two, but what is more urgent is that we at least agree what is without doubt the desert and what is without doubt the grassland.
To apply this to the issue of the Non Aggression Principle and the Agreement built on it, we have issues like polution where there can be debate over where to draw the line between causing harm or loss to others and not causing any harm (directly or indirectly).
At a certain point there is no doubt that harm is being caused, just as there is situations where harm can definitely not be established. Such areas are the grey areas, like the land between the desert and the grassland, which is harder to define.
But when there is nothing but sand around you then there can be no doubt you are in the desert, just as where there is harm or loss being caused, or at least threatened, then the violation of the Non Aggression Principle is beyond dispute.
As someone moves towards the desert from the grasslands it is potentially up for debate as to exactly when they cross over from one to the other but at a certain point there is no doubt.
So what we propose is that the first step we take is to implement the Non Aggression Agreement/Sanity Agreement in its most basic form. This agreement will deal with the clear violations, where harm or loss to others, or the threat of, can be established, simultaneously granting freedom to all people who do not violate this agreement. This basic premise will then set the foundations for defining the grey areas.
A society that does not give you the right to self ownership is not a sane or just society.
A society that refuses to accept and acknowledge your most basic right to freedom is not a civilised society. The grey areas can remain unresolved but if we do not oppose the basic rule of insanity and criminality then we are nothing.
At higher levels of planning we deal with the debated specifics of how to get from here to there, and how to handle the various nuances and specifics.
For example, when the Nations of Sanity have gained the support of a public majority in any nation the current government would essentially disappear, or at least it would lose its power to impose.
If a democratic majority rises up, united on the common ground of sanity, we can have a real revolution without any need for force or violence.
The right to dictate over you, beyond the enforcement of the sanity agreement, will be removed and you will be truly free.
However, despite its redefining changes that essentially ends the government as a ruling body, the infrastructure can be retained.
Everything that the government currently provides, that is needed or wanted can be retained, likely enhanced when we throw away the corruption that was inevitable in a coercive system.
It can be replaced with a voluntary collective that can take control of the government infrastructure and assets which will have to be transformed democratically into a form of voluntary socialism. The government would become truly democratic but would cease to be a government, in the traditional sense, as it loses its power to rule, impose and oppress its people. Instead it can only exist to lead, represent and serve the people of any nation.
It is here where we would need to reach new agreements and new common grounds on how best to handle the transition, how to utilise the government/”public” resources that would be vacated and how best to move forward with various specifics and there is still room for discussion and debate when dealing with the finer details.
The Nations of Sanity do propose answers for all these specifics too, but such proposals do not define the movement and can be changed and moulded into a superior plan of action if challenges and scrutiny reveal such a need.
Things like the regulated market, along with various forms of voluntary support, can fund this replacement voluntary government. The Nations of Sanity proposes a clear path to make this change and ways to move forward in a free society, but the Non Aggression Agreement does not dictate how this is done and the path proposed may prove to be inferior to preferable plans of action when scrutinised in more detail.
In this sense the Nations of Sanity is fluid and adaptable and allows room for change, it is only the basic foundation of the Non Aggression Agreement that is the defining and unchangeable aspect of it.
This movement is only defined by its minimum requirement, its minimum demand. Everything beyond that is suggestions and offered solutions.
Basically we are setting new parameters which are firmly based in the most basic sense of sanity and morality.
At the core of this movement is an outright demand for sanity, as we see it. A universal morality that has an objective core that cannot be denied.
We’ll work towards ideal, for the best way things can be, but today we fight hardest for simple sanity in its most basic form.
That is the plan. To demand simple sanity and this most basic definition of freedom, as a minimum, while we work for better.
We propose to rally people together under that basic agreement while offering a clear route to achieve this and proposed answers and solutions to all the nuances and specifics moving forward.
The Nations Of Sanity will leave no stone unturned as it thrashes out ways to define the grey and, as part of its promise to its supporters, will provide a clear path moving forward. Better paths to take may be discovered through debate and discussion and alter the specific proposals for moving forward, as well as defining the grey areas where parameters are negotiable.
But step one is the Sanity Agreement. The implementation of the basic law defined by the Non Aggression Principle and consistent with an objective and universal morality.
The steps that follow may change as improvements and superior alternatives are discovered and presented, though the Nations of Sanity will provide and propose preliminary steps that will wait for such scrutiny and challenges to improve or change them. But the first step is the defining step and is the only first step we can take to reach the others, it is the fundamental core of the Nations Of Sanity and the freedom we represent.
We are essentially slaves and we want to be free. Not just to have our chains loosened or to be whipped a little less often or severely. We want to be free. So our plan must be to unite and demand this freedom.
That is our most basic demand. Where we go from there is up for debate, how best to utilise and embrace our freedom is up to us (as part of the freedom package) and something that can be debated and altered as ideas and ideals evolve.
But the minimum demand we have, which is non negotiable, is this most basic freedom.
The freedom to live our lives the way we see fit, with the only rules we must obey being that we cannot infringe on the rights of others, that we must not cause harm or loss to others, that we must not initiate force against another.
More than anything else, this simple definition will make us strong.
This movement is not defined by any idealistic preferences that may drive its support. It can accommodate all cultures, ethos’, ideals and ways of life as long as they do not violate the Non Aggression Principle in its basic form.
This movement is only defined by the most basic and universal standard of sanity and while we are open to change on other specifics when it comes to basic freedom, basic morality and what we define here as basic sanity we will not be moved.
If we cannot unite to replace an insane and criminal society with a sane and free one then there is no point looking at higher ideals than that.
But if we can unite enough of us to support such a simple and universal truth we can at the very least, the absolute minimum, create a sane and peaceful world. From there beautiful things can happen.