The Nations Of Sanity is made up of our demands and our proposals.
Our demand is for the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to be the new rule of law and for all people to be granted the freedom that the NAP demands. With that demand we have a proposal for the optimum way to implement this.
The Nations of Sanity proposes a Non Aggression Agreement or "Sanity Agreement" as the ultimate vehicle for implementing the Non Aggression Principle as the rule of law and as a result create a free society.
We present an agreement that lays out the 3 basic parts of the Non Aggression Principle that need to be agreed in order to implement it as the terms of peace and the universal rule of law that comes from those terms..
This is the format for the Non Aggression Agreement (AKA "The Sanity Agreement") that is proposed by the Nations Of Sanity.
THE NON AGGRESSION AGREEMENT
Part 1 - The Basic Agreement (Agreeing to the Non Aggression Principle as the defining rule of law)
Part 2 - Lines in the Sand (Defining the black and white and declaring the limits of tolerance)
Part 3 - Rightful ownership (Agreeing rightful ownership)
Part 1 is the basic agreement which puts the Non Aggression Principle as the overriding, overruling, universally applied, governing principle of law.
Agreeing to this is agreeing to have the Non Aggression Principle define the terms of what is essentially a peace treaty/agreement between all people of this world.
By agreeing to this you agree that you cannot initiate force against people who have not caused harm or loss to you or another, or at least threatened/attempted to.
Force will be used against you if you violate the NAP, regardless of whether you agree to such terms, but only if you violate the NAP.
This agreement protects the basic freedom of all people and establishes the principle (the Non Aggression Principle) that dictates law.
The only law that can and must be applied universally.
Part 1 - The Basic Agreement (Agreeing to the Non Aggression Principle as the defining rule of law)
Part 2 - Lines in the Sand (Defining the black and white and declaring the limits of tolerance)
Part 3 - Rightful ownership (Agreeing rightful ownership)
Part 1 is the basic agreement which puts the Non Aggression Principle as the overriding, overruling, universally applied, governing principle of law.
Agreeing to this is agreeing to have the Non Aggression Principle define the terms of what is essentially a peace treaty/agreement between all people of this world.
By agreeing to this you agree that you cannot initiate force against people who have not caused harm or loss to you or another, or at least threatened/attempted to.
Force will be used against you if you violate the NAP, regardless of whether you agree to such terms, but only if you violate the NAP.
This agreement protects the basic freedom of all people and establishes the principle (the Non Aggression Principle) that dictates law.
The only law that can and must be applied universally.
While this basic agreement deals with the basic principle, no specific standards or parameters are defined. It is only the Non Aggression Principle itself that is defined by part 1.
As a result there is still much potential for disagreement over where to draw certain lines that define violations of the NAP.
The basic principle is clear but disagreements over certain standards and definitions are not addressed by part 1. That is why part 2 is needed.
Part 2 is the lines in the sand.
Part 1 tells us what the law is enforcing (the NAP) but it does not deal with the details of such laws. It does not deal with standards and definiitions that dictate where we draw certain lines.
Part 1 tells us what the law is enforcing (the NAP) but it does not deal with the details of such laws. It does not deal with standards and definiitions that dictate where we draw certain lines.
Basically, when we look at what does and doesn't violate the Non Aggression Principle we have the black and white and we have the grey area. Black and white being that which is deemed to be "definitely a violation of the NAP" or "definitely not a violation of the NAP" while the grey area represents areas where there is room for debate on exactly where to draw the line.
Part 2 is called "lines in the sand" because it is drawing the lines that define the black and white, not any standards within the grey.
This means that while people can agree to disagree to a certain extent there is still a limit to how much difference of interpretation we will tolerate.
The grey area is where we can agree to disagree, but the black and white is the definitive limits to such an agreement.
The grey area is where we can agree to disagree, but the black and white is the definitive limits to such an agreement.
By defining the black and white and drawing the lines that display the limits of our tolerance we essentially reveal the grey area in between where people can peacefully coexist, even if they choose to disassociate based on their disagreements within the grey area.
The black and white is where we will NOT simply agree to disagree, where the line that defines crime will be enforced.
In between those restrictions is the grey area where we are free to disagree over standards and where finer definitions can be voluntarily agreed in the interest of societal cohesion and consistency. .
But if you violate the black and white standards of the NAP then you break the law, no matter who or where you are.
The black and white is where we will NOT simply agree to disagree, where the line that defines crime will be enforced.
In between those restrictions is the grey area where we are free to disagree over standards and where finer definitions can be voluntarily agreed in the interest of societal cohesion and consistency. .
But if you violate the black and white standards of the NAP then you break the law, no matter who or where you are.
Part 2 is only about agreeing what is black and white, and while this act will reveal the grey area and the limits that contain it there is no standards set within the grey area by part 2.
People are free to agree to be part of societies with more precise standards if they want and may want to incentivise agreement to more precise parameters within the grey area that is revealed by the limits of tolerance set by part 2. But they can never impose/enforce such standards on those who have not agreed to be bound by such parameters.
Part 3 is the agreement over "Rightful ownership".
It has nothing to do with actually defining the NAP itself, but rather is about agreeing legitimate ownership (which obviously effects the application of the NAP).
It is all well and good having property rights but we need to establish rightful ownership to be able to apply property rights and the NAP in general.
So that is it. The 3 parts that make up the NAA (Non Aggression Agreement) or "Sanity Agreement".
The order of each part is intentionally set as a natural progression of agreement.
After all we need to agree to the basic principle (part 1) before anything else becomes even applicable. Once we have agreed to this basic principle as the law we need to draw the lines in the sand that draws a limit to how people can differ in their interpretations and, while we acknowledge the grey area as too subjective to enforce as law, the black and white represents what we can and will enforce as law.
After all we need to agree to the basic principle (part 1) before anything else becomes even applicable. Once we have agreed to this basic principle as the law we need to draw the lines in the sand that draws a limit to how people can differ in their interpretations and, while we acknowledge the grey area as too subjective to enforce as law, the black and white represents what we can and will enforce as law.
The lines drawn by part 2, signifying the black and white boundaries, is essentially what shows us the limits of the grey area we are working in.
When the principle is in place as law and the black and white defined and declared, the only thing left to agree is rightful ownership and while that may seem to be no mean feat in itself, as a final piece of an agreement based on a principle that is already accepted at that stage this will ultimately prove to be as self evident as part 1 and 2, and as a result it should be universally recogniseable. At the very least such areas would be far easier to resolve when we are united over the underlying principle and the basic approach to interpreting the black and white within that principle.
That said, part 3 could remain the final hurdle for world peace, but with part 1 and 2 established we have everything we need to take that final step to something unimaginable. Freedom, equal rights and, dare we say it, world peace.
When the principle is in place as law and the black and white defined and declared, the only thing left to agree is rightful ownership and while that may seem to be no mean feat in itself, as a final piece of an agreement based on a principle that is already accepted at that stage this will ultimately prove to be as self evident as part 1 and 2, and as a result it should be universally recogniseable. At the very least such areas would be far easier to resolve when we are united over the underlying principle and the basic approach to interpreting the black and white within that principle.
That said, part 3 could remain the final hurdle for world peace, but with part 1 and 2 established we have everything we need to take that final step to something unimaginable. Freedom, equal rights and, dare we say it, world peace.
It may be a bold claim to suggest that an agreement faithful to the above would hold the key to establishing peace, if not peace, at the very least sanity.
But that is why we invite you to scrutinise our claims and that is why we request that all challenges to these ideas are brought to bear.
The Nations of Sanity insist that the Non Aggression Principle is the key to a free and sane society and we present the 3 basic parts of a Non Aggression Agreement that would establish the NAP as law and create a universal standard of basic morality that can unite us all.
Comments
>Our demand is for the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) to be the new rule of law and for all people to be granted the freedom that the NAP demands.
If people don’t want to be granted this freedom, we don’t want to force them, do we? Better to say something like we demand that those who desire freedom not be thwarted. If some statists want to have an S/M colony and rule each other, why should we object, so long as any who get tired of it are allowed to emigrate or secede?
> you agree that you cannot initiate force against people who have not caused harm or loss to you or another, or at least threatened/attempted to.
This ignores consensual force, such as boxing matches, or else jargonizes the word “initiate”. Force can be initiated if the subject of violence consents. If I agree to a martial arts workout, I can be punched, if I agree to an operation, a doctor can cut me open. I consider restorative, defensive or retributive force consensual, as a criminal in a sense gives consent to this by committing a crime. If I commit murder, I must either freely admit I am at fault and must provide restitution or I must deny it. If I deny that murderers owe restitution, then how can I object to being murdered as punishment? This is an extreme version of what Stephan Kinsella calls libertarian estoppel. Basically, I have no right to protection that I deny to others. Persons who commit a crime implicitly deny it is a crime, and so can’t object to others doing the same to them. This has libertarian implications, as the maximum penalty for smoking pot would be that the pot smoker can’t stop other people from smoking pot. Only aggressive action works as punishment, so only aggressive actions can be punished.
Oops, typo!
> may want to incentivise agreement to more precise parameters within the grey area that is reveled
Another typo.
> At the very least such areas would be far easier to ressolve
Another typo.
> we request that all challenges to these ideas are brought to bare. Bear
Another typo. Sorry to be the typo guy. Maybe delete this comment after fixing the typos.