The Non Aggression Principle shows us the black and white.
So the Sanity Agreement will be based on that objective black and white distinction.
If you are definitely causing harm or loss to another, or threatening/attempting to, then you are definitely violating the NAP. If you are definitely not causing harm or loss to another (or at least threatening/attempting to) then you are definitely not violating the NAP and you should be left to enjoy your basic freedom with a consistent standard applied to it.
So lets get that in place as the first agreement.
Even if we continue to have conflicts on the grey areas, the basic black and white of the Non Aggression Principle must be honoured as the defining principle of law and the universal agreement of our basic common ground.
The hope would be that the grey areas can be negotiated and decided, be it through a democratic consensus or some other methodology. But even if it cannot be, even if disputes within the grey areas still persist and even escalate into conflict the basic black and white principles of the NAP will remain an unchallenged common ground that binds and obliges us all.
Literally by definition, any attempt to violate the basic black and white standards of the Non Aggression Principle is a declaration of war on all free people. It would be an initiation of force and a violation of the Sanity Agreement, which would essentially be serving as a peace treaty/agreement that binds all people, not just those who specifically agree to it.
So even if you have not formally agreed to the terms of the Sanity Agreement you are still bound to its basic conditions and if you attempt to violate this then you will be in violation of the basic, objective and universal morality of the Non Aggression Principle. By definition your crime will be an act of aggression against all free people.
While we all have equal right to enforce the black and white standard of the NAP, we cannot compel others to bow to our standards, definitions and boundaries within the grey areas.
For this reason it would be wise to make efforts to reach prior agreement on such standards, definitions and boundaries.
However, when it comes to the black and white basics of the NAP, the authority to enforce it and the obligation to obey it is absolute and equally applied to everyone.
The differences in our subjective standards and morals along with the ways in which we define boundaries are all differences that we are all entitled to keep.
The right to clearly violate the rights and freedom of others, the right to violate the NAP, is not something that anybody is entitled to. No one can have or attain such an authority. We keep the NAP as the defining basis for law and we make that law absolute and universal.
That's it. That is the long and the short of it. That is the first, defining, non negotiable demand of the Nations Of Sanity. But it is not the only aspect of the Nations of Sanity.
The Nations of Sanity is actually made up of two parts.
The first and ultimately defining part is the non negotiable demand of the basic standard of sanity that is represented by the basic black and white of the Non Aggression Principle. Make that law override and define all other laws and rules. No person or government or entity of any kind has the rightful authority to violate the Non Aggression Principle and while the grey area remains a subjective subject, open for debate, division and even conflict, the basic black and white is not up for debate.
The second part is negotiable. It is how we address the grey area.
It is our ideas for how best to move to a free society without violating the NAP along the way. How we overthrow the government in the most efficient and peaceful way. How we establish and agree upon the standards and definitions of the grey areas and how we go about implementing the free society that grants true equality and justice for all.
While this second part is negotiable and subject to challenge and change it is still very important and while only the basic black and white demand of the NAP is a non negotiable (and ultimately defining) part of the Nations Of Sanity, the ideas and efforts that make up this second part are also very important and exist as an acknowledgment that it is not enough to simply declare the Non Aggression Principle the defining rule that facilitates a free society, we must also work on the practical efficacy of such a society and the path we take to get there.
It is not enough to win the moral argument by presenting the NAP as the objectively moral foundation that all law should be built on and adhere to, we must also deal with the practical real life implications, we must deal with the transition, we must solve the practical issues and address all the factors involved in actually bringing about a real revolution of sanity that facilitates the birth of a truly free society.
The Nations of Sanity represents the Non Aggression Principle (and the related demand of the Sanity Agreement) as its ultimate identity and, rather than a suggestion or proposal, actually demands adherence to the NAP, at least in its most basic form.
There is no room for negotiating when it comes to the black and white basics of the NAP and the Nations Of Sanity will not (and cannot) ever agree to compromise this basic principle by allowing clear violations of it.
However, the second part of what we are all about, of what we represent, is subject to change and the ideas and proposals presented are negotiable.
In fact they are presented with the direct purpose of being open to scrutiny and the revelation of a need to change, adjust, or even abandon, an idea as a result of such scrutiny is not just acceptable but specifically sought after.
There are no ego concerns here, just an honest desire to create a free society and while the Nations Of Sanity's self appointed duty is to provide the practical answers and proposals for the subjective standards (as well as representing the objective truth of the NAP as its non negotiable demand) the ideas and proposals for how to approach the grey areas and the various practicalities and subjective standards is not set in stone and can be changed if a need is revealed.
If better ideas come along that would alter, or even replace, many of the ideas put forward by the Nations Of Sanity then such change is welcomed. The only aspect that defines the Nations Of Sanity, to the extent that such an aspect can not be changed, replaced or altered in any way, shape, or form is the basic demand of the NAP (and by extension the Sanity Agreement).
We present answers for the grey area, for how to deal with the subjective standards that are not clearly defined by the NAP, because we recognise that it is not enough to just win the moral argument and present the NAP as the objective morality that it is. We must also answer the practical questions, we must also provide practical answers that address the real life implications, even if such answers maybe improved upon, or even outright removed and replaced, after they have been subjected to the desired scrutiny that others can provide.
Possibly a good example of the difference between what we demand, as part of the basic and objective sanity of the NAP,
and the grey areas we wish to guide you through is the issue of how we view the potential role for democracy in a free society.
The non negotiable demand of adherence to the NAP prohibits democratic rule over any person (without their consent) but as part of the second part of our mandate we do suggest that democracy be the most ideal way to peacefully resolve disputes over the grey areas.
For example, the idea that certain standards within the grey area is best decided through a democratic process (like giving an entire nation the democratic power to vote for certain standards within their nation or society, which can be applied as a condition of receiving certain benefits as a citizen) is not a demand but rather a suggestion for the best way to negotiate an agreement within this grey area of ambiguity.
Currently the Nations Of Sanity proposes that democracy be the best, and most fair, way to negotiate the grey areas in a free society (as well as being possibly the only peaceful way to obtain the required revolution to facilitate the birth of a free society).
As long as the NAP remains the basic standard for the black and white and the overriding rule of society, the Nations Of Sanity currently advocates for democracy as the "second in command" that can settle that which the NAP cannot.
But that could all change. Scrutiny, criticism, questioning and investigation could reveal a better way, or an inherent flaw in this method, that would persuade us to change, or even abandon, such an idea.
But in the black and white there is not ambiguity over where the Nations Of Sanity stand or possibility for compromise or change. The black and white principle of the NAP is what defines the Nations Of Sanity and that demand will never be removed, replaced or altered in any way.
The duty to provide ideas and answers for the numerous questions that fall into the grey areas remains a defining duty of the Nations Of Sanity. But, while the duty to address these issues will always be a defining duty, the answers we provide for the grey areas do not define us and may be changed when subjected to scrutiny.
So, in a nut shell, the Nations Of Sanity demand the basic black and white of the NAP (Non Aggression Principle). We promote and propose solutions for the grey areas and we represent the basic and objective lines between the two.
For the black and white we are outright demanding, for the grey area we are merely suggesting.
We insist that to have a free society, or even a sane society, we need the basic objective morality of the Non Aggression Principle to be the defining, and only, governing rule of law.
We demand that all people are free to enjoy the basic human rights and liberty that only the NAP can provide and we assert that those who wish to violate the NAP, by violating our basic rights and freedom, are declaring war on all free people.
We are the common ground for sane people to unite against the insanity that currently rules, oppresses and violates us all.
Both the free society we fight for and the path we take to get there must not violate the NAP. For the revolution must honour and respect the principles it fights for, or else the ends will not only fail to justify the means but objectively immoral means will outright contradict the proposed ends.
The NAP is our non negotiable defining basis and clearly sets out the black and white principle for universal law. The numerous nuances and subjective standards of the grey areas must also be addressed but for this we bring suggestions, not demands.
This is the spirit of the free society we propose. Suggestions for the grey, demands for the black and white and a clear distinction between these standards.