NEWS/ARTICLES

The Sanity agreement is the first, and possibly the most important, goal of the Nations Of Sanity.
It is basically the Non Aggression Principle in the form of an agreement. Like a peace treaty for the entire world.

It is the fundamental defining basis for the Nations of Sanity and is the minimum we require as a movement.

The Nations of Sanity has many proposals for ways to move forward with a free society. We have proposals for ways in which social programs can be reformed to the point of greater efficacy in their new voluntary form.
We have clear and concise plans of action for transforming current governments from the oppressive initiators of force, that they currently are, to the non violent service providers, regulators and elective shepherds of societies that they could and should be.
We have proposals for what should be and plans of actions for how we get there.

However, long before we get anywhere near majority support we ask everyone to join us in demanding basic freedom for all people.
The Nations of Sanity, from its very conception, represents freedom and the basic tenants of the Sanity Agreement requires nothing more than that, but also nothing less.
That is the fight we want to rally people to join. That is the fight we can unite a genuine majority on. We just need to reach people and speak to that basic sense of morality and logic that is inherent in virtually all of us.
It may be dormant in many people, but everyone has a basic sense of right and wrong and no rational argument can be made against the logic of the Sanity Agreement, though we invite anyone and everyone to try.

The reason we propose calling it the Sanity Agreement, and why we name this movement the Nations Of Sanity, is precisely because our basic demand is so basic, yet logical and morally consistent, that the most appropriate description of what we attempt to represent is simply just sanity.
Perhaps a less condescending term would be to call it the Non Aggression Agreement, but calling it the Sanity agreement is in line with the basic premise of the Nations of Sanity and how we define what we are really demanding.
So to name it the Sanity Agreement seems appropriate enough and condescension would only apply to those who oppose the basic tenants of the Non Aggression Principle.
But ultimately the name is unimportant. The content is what actually matters.
Though it remains open to all challenges, there currently remains no rational or logical argument against the requirements of the NAP.
The entire premise of this agreement, and this movement, is that we are demanding no more than simple sanity, based on the most agreeable, consistent and universal definition.

The Sanity Agreement or Non Aggression Agreement is a treaty for all free people to embrace.

This agreement simply demands that which we all profess to support anyway.
The basic tenants of the Non Aggression Principle are already interwoven into a relatively universal understanding that we all have. It is just that we have allowed these morals to be corrupted when applied to our societal structures.

The Non Aggression Principle only prohibits causing harm or loss to another. Why is that not already the fundamental dictating and defining basis for all societies? Because our societies are built on oppression.
So how have we allowed such basic, simple and sane moral foundations to be discarded and disregarded by a system of contradicting morality and blatant criminality?
In a free society we would not have to demand freedom, we would already have it.

Anyone who claims that we are currently free can be rebutted simply by pointing out that this agreement, that only demands basic liberty, restricted only by the prohibition against causing harm or loss to another, is not already a met demand.
The fact that such an agreement, even in its most basic and universally agreeable form, would so drastically change our society is an indication of how far away from this level of sanity we actually are at present.

To oppose this agreement is to literally declare war on all free people of this world, on all people who believe in self ownership, liberty and freedom.
The demands made by the Sanity agreement are so basic that they literally only demand the right to not be robbed, attacked or violated.
The freedom we demand through this agreement is the freedom to live our lives how we choose, as long as we do not cause harm or loss to another.
To oppose such a demand is to oppose the idea that people should be free to pursue the way of life they choose, as that is all the Sanity Agreement requires. It is the defining principle of the Nations of Sanity.

Who else, other than a rapist, would oppose laws that prohibit rape? Who else, other than a thief, would oppose the prohibition of theft? Who else other than tyrants would oppose freedom and who else other than psychopaths would wish to oppose the Sanity Agreement?
The Nations of Sanity presents the Non Aggression Principle as its defining basis and the foundation for the Sanity Agreement/Non Aggression Agreement. Who else would oppose such a demand, other than those who wish to violate the Non Aggression Principle by initiating force on people who are causing no harm or loss to anyone else?

The Sanity Agreement is so simplistic in its demand precisely because we need to unite all decent people together against the worst of us.
We need to forget about the petty divisions and the finer differences. We cannot afford to let the nuances distract from the fundamental. We cannot squabble over subjective disagreements at the expense of allowing violations that go against our collective understanding of universal principles.
While many moral standards may be subjective there is an objective quality to the universal principles inherent in the Sanity Agreement.
Whether they will or not, everybody (in theory at least) can agree that stealing is wrong, that rape is wrong, that assualt is wrong. The opposite cannot be true.
The defining characteristic of theft or rape or any other violation is the lack of consent. So you cannot have a situation where everybody agrees to be robbed because their consent means that it is no longer theft. Same goes for all other violations. Rape is not done with consent, as it would not be rape it would simply be sex. Theft would not be theft if it was with permission. Murder would not be murder, it would be assisted suicide etc.
So when you actually think about it there is a universal morality with an objective foundation where everyone can, in theory, agree not to rob each other, not to rape, murder, assualt, or generally violate others.
Such an agreement can be made (regardless of whether it is honoured) and even if we fail to unite all people in this agreement the proposed morality does at least work, theoretically, as a universally preferrable principle.

We can still keep a rich diversity of culture and guarantee the freedom to pursue different ways of life. In fact it is only through the NAP that such freedom can be guaranteed.
We will still disagree on finer ideals and even more subjective morality, but all people can (or at least should be able to) agree on the basic principle that we must not cause harm or loss to another.

The only division we need in this world is between those who agree not to violate others and those who don't. That is division worth maintaining, a fight worth having. Everything else is just petty squabbles and manipulated madness, a distraction from the objective morality that really matters.
Those who want freedom must unite against those who want to oppress. Those who want good need to oppose evil.

Nations can still have their own laws in that framework, as long as they do not violate the NAP.
They can have conditions attached to services they provide and even impose rules with in their programs and on their premises. But they cannot initiate force against people, they cannot enforce any law that violates the NAP, they cannot dictate to people outside of the NAP.
They can go beyond the NAP in their rules, as conditions attached to any agreements they make or invitations they extend. They can say to be part of this or that you must adhere to that and this, just as I can invite you into my house but insist you remove your shoes (or not invite you if I choose). Conditions and rules attached to voluntary contracts do not violate the NAP.

The power of the Sanity Agreement is that it offers the same freedom it demands. It guarantees basic equality, basic freedom and a logical and sane approach to a civilisation worthy of the name.

Since this article was written another article has been added that describes the proposed format of the Sanity Agreement. Details of which can be found here

​

Add comment