It is one thing to call out the injustices, corruptions, criminality and insanity that blights and rules our world and our societies, but it is quite another to provide a solution to any of it.
With full humility, the Nations Of Sanity offers precisely that.
Not to be confused with easy, the solution is actually quite simple and almost self-evident when we simply realize the implications of a principle that most of us already accept deep down, even if we don’t all yet realize this on a conscious level.
The principle is the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) and the solution is to establish this principle as the law through a peace agreement, specifically a 3 part peace agreement, which we assert is the only way to both define and create a truly free society with truly equal rights.
The NAP is the moral principle that comes from the concept of self-ownership, which asserts that every individual owns their own self and has right over only their own self.
This concept and this principle gives us an objective standard for defining crime.
If you have right over only your own self then you don't have right over others and violating anyone's right of self ownership would be wrong.
The principle is the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) and the solution is to establish this principle as the law through a peace agreement, specifically a 3 part peace agreement, which we assert is the only way to both define and create a truly free society with truly equal rights.
The NAP is the moral principle that comes from the concept of self-ownership, which asserts that every individual owns their own self and has right over only their own self.
This concept and this principle gives us an objective standard for defining crime.
If you have right over only your own self then you don't have right over others and violating anyone's right of self ownership would be wrong.
Acts of aggression, threats, ruling or enslaving others are all objectively defined as crimes by this basic principle and once you understand and accept this reality then it becomes self evident and undeniable that the NAP should be the only law that is enforced, with force, on everyone.
It is important to understand that the NAP is not a pacifist principle and does allow for the use of force, both in self defense and the defense of others. But it strictly prohibits the initiation of force against peaceful people.
This is why it is a perfect standard for law, as enforcing it requires only defensive force, by definition.
Establishing this basic principle as the universal terms of peace is the only way that everyone's basic right of self-ownership can be universally recognized, respected and protected under law.
It is quite literally the only way we can have equal rights as it is inescapably true that the only right that we can all have in equal measure is the right over ourselves.
Another important thing to understand is that the NAP does not cover all morality and we do not endorse all activities that don't violate the NAP. We can still use peaceful methods to encourage and discourage behavior in accordance with our personal preferences and ideals. We just can't use force, outside of enforcing the NAP.
The NAP only defines actual crimes and provides a universal standard for when force can be used. Hence why we assert that it should be the universal terms of peace.
Another important aspect to understand is related to the fundamental difference between rulers and leaders. You can choose to follow a leader but rulers rule you under the threat of force, without your consent.
The NAP as law would outlaw rulers but not leaders. This is important to understand as ruling governments would be illegal which means all governments would be forced to convert into voluntary collectives, that can still serve the same desired functions associated with government, like infrastructure, public services, even democratic representation if desired, but such an entity would no longer wield the power to rule us or otherwise violate our basic rights and freedom. We can still have non-coercive (voluntary) hierarchies, just as we can have non-hierarchical set ups and organisations, as long as it only involves willing participants.
As with everything in a free society, if it's voluntary it's fine, if it's forced it's a crime.
We can have additional rules within voluntary collectives that go beyond the NAP that people agree to be part of, but we cannot enforce such rules and standards on people without their consent.
The only "rules" we can enforce on everyone, regardless of their consent, is the NAP, because the NAP is nothing more than the moral principle that demands that you respect everyone's basic freedom and rights as self owning individuals. A right that belongs to everyone equally.
The reason why this is especially important to understand is because many people think that we need ruling governments to provide certain things, like law enforcement and general infrastructure. However, serving people does not require the power to rule them and the beauty of the NAP as law is that enforcing it as law does not require any power to rule people or any violation of rights, in fact it strictly prohibits such criminality.
There is a very good reason why we propose establishing the NAP as law through a peace agreement, essentially making this law the terms of peace between all people.
Part 2 is called the lines in the sand and this is where we draw the limits of tolerance over differing interpretations, separating the black and white which can be enforced from the grey area that must be peacefully negotiated.
Part 3 is agreeing rightful ownership, which is essentially about ratifying ownership through the NAP, invoking the property rights that exist as an extension of self ownership.
There is actually much more that the Nations Of Sanity offers with regards to providing specifics on the optimum ways of organizing and operating a free society, including voluntary alternatives to taxation and ways of improving public services and infrastructure, as well as many other aspects and implications, but the primary message of the Nations Of Sanity is that the only way we can have equal rights under the law is if the law is the Non-Aggression Principle and that is our defining goal.
These other ideas are just suggestions, but establishing the NAP as law is our non-negotiable demand and what ultimately defines this project.
While additional efforts and diligence will be required to maximize our potential, both collectively and individually, simply establishing the NAP as law will have profound and significant effects. It's not about creating a utopia, it is about creating a sane and free society and providing the foundations, upon which we can reach for higher.
This solution strikes at the root of almost all the problems we face as a species and while there remains good reason to doubt it will ever come to fruition, the undeniable nature of both the logic and morality demands that we at least try to make it so.
It is important to understand that the NAP is not a pacifist principle and does allow for the use of force, both in self defense and the defense of others. But it strictly prohibits the initiation of force against peaceful people.
This is why it is a perfect standard for law, as enforcing it requires only defensive force, by definition.
Establishing this basic principle as the universal terms of peace is the only way that everyone's basic right of self-ownership can be universally recognized, respected and protected under law.
It is quite literally the only way we can have equal rights as it is inescapably true that the only right that we can all have in equal measure is the right over ourselves.
Another important thing to understand is that the NAP does not cover all morality and we do not endorse all activities that don't violate the NAP. We can still use peaceful methods to encourage and discourage behavior in accordance with our personal preferences and ideals. We just can't use force, outside of enforcing the NAP.
The NAP only defines actual crimes and provides a universal standard for when force can be used. Hence why we assert that it should be the universal terms of peace.
Another important aspect to understand is related to the fundamental difference between rulers and leaders. You can choose to follow a leader but rulers rule you under the threat of force, without your consent.
The NAP as law would outlaw rulers but not leaders. This is important to understand as ruling governments would be illegal which means all governments would be forced to convert into voluntary collectives, that can still serve the same desired functions associated with government, like infrastructure, public services, even democratic representation if desired, but such an entity would no longer wield the power to rule us or otherwise violate our basic rights and freedom. We can still have non-coercive (voluntary) hierarchies, just as we can have non-hierarchical set ups and organisations, as long as it only involves willing participants.
As with everything in a free society, if it's voluntary it's fine, if it's forced it's a crime.
We can have additional rules within voluntary collectives that go beyond the NAP that people agree to be part of, but we cannot enforce such rules and standards on people without their consent.
The only "rules" we can enforce on everyone, regardless of their consent, is the NAP, because the NAP is nothing more than the moral principle that demands that you respect everyone's basic freedom and rights as self owning individuals. A right that belongs to everyone equally.
The reason why this is especially important to understand is because many people think that we need ruling governments to provide certain things, like law enforcement and general infrastructure. However, serving people does not require the power to rule them and the beauty of the NAP as law is that enforcing it as law does not require any power to rule people or any violation of rights, in fact it strictly prohibits such criminality.
There is a very good reason why we propose establishing the NAP as law through a peace agreement, essentially making this law the terms of peace between all people.
Traditionally law has been established through ruling bodies and classes, governments, monarchs etc.
Of course the NAP prohibits that anyone have the right to rule over another, so it cannot be established as law through governments or any ruling authorities. The only way it can be established, without contradiction or self-violation, is through a peace agreement. As the terms of peace between all people.
There is also a very good reason why our peace agreement is a 3 part agreement.
There are 3 dimensions that are required to properly establish the NAP as the law/terms of peace.
Part 1 is just the basic agreement to establish the NAP as the law or the terms of peace.There are 3 dimensions that are required to properly establish the NAP as the law/terms of peace.
Part 2 is called the lines in the sand and this is where we draw the limits of tolerance over differing interpretations, separating the black and white which can be enforced from the grey area that must be peacefully negotiated.
Part 3 is agreeing rightful ownership, which is essentially about ratifying ownership through the NAP, invoking the property rights that exist as an extension of self ownership.
There is actually much more that the Nations Of Sanity offers with regards to providing specifics on the optimum ways of organizing and operating a free society, including voluntary alternatives to taxation and ways of improving public services and infrastructure, as well as many other aspects and implications, but the primary message of the Nations Of Sanity is that the only way we can have equal rights under the law is if the law is the Non-Aggression Principle and that is our defining goal.
These other ideas are just suggestions, but establishing the NAP as law is our non-negotiable demand and what ultimately defines this project.
While additional efforts and diligence will be required to maximize our potential, both collectively and individually, simply establishing the NAP as law will have profound and significant effects. It's not about creating a utopia, it is about creating a sane and free society and providing the foundations, upon which we can reach for higher.
This solution strikes at the root of almost all the problems we face as a species and while there remains good reason to doubt it will ever come to fruition, the undeniable nature of both the logic and morality demands that we at least try to make it so.