Why do you speak of "the sanity agreement"?
Because in my mind, we do not need the consent of others to validate the NAP, as it's an objective truth.
We do not really view the sanity agreement as a form of permission. As you quite rightly say, it does not require the consent of others to validate it, because the NAP is objective truth.
The purpose of the Sanity Agreement is not to give us permission or to validate the NAP, but rather to provide a declaration of peace for people to support. It is an agreement to adhere to the NAP.
A way for people to register their support and, perhaps more importantly, declare their desire to honour the NAP.

The way I see it we are currently at war with the violent governments of this world and all those who actively endorse and support the use of state violence against us. I want the Sanity agreement to be a way for people to show their democratic support for the basic freedom we demand and to declare their allegiance and adherence to the NAP.
It is basically just a vehicle to rally people together. I suppose the Nations of Sanity itself could act as such a vehicle too (as could other movements, proposals and ideas) but I thought the Sanity agreement would serve as a more specific proposal/demand.

The Nations of Sanity does and will present numerous ideas for dealing with practicalities (like providing ways to make the transition from government oppression to free society and various ways that desirable infrastructure and services can be retained in a voluntary collective form) but such ideas are suggestions and are not "written in stone" demands, so I don't want people to confuse many of the ideas presented, that may be challenged and changed, with the basic demand that is non negotiable.
So I view the Sanity Agreement as the embodiment of that basic demand, that the NOS makes, and while the NAP is valid regardless of how many people support it (whether that support is registered through the Sanity agreement or is just represented as a stand alone stance for many people) if we can actually register that support in the form of an agreement then we can represent the support for our demand.
Democratic support is not required to validate the NAP but if we are going to peacefully transform our societies into free societies then democratic support could provide a way for us to do so without conflict or violence.
I hope that makes sense.

Basically I am saying that it is not enough that we know that most people (deep in their hearts) can and should understand and agree to the basic principles of the NAP. We need to create a way for them to actually make that agreement and to register their will.
It would probably be best to think of the Sanity agreement as a contract (or, as I have presented it, a peace treaty). 
Imagine if we could get a democratic majority of a specific nation to sign up to the Sanity Agreement, theoretically such an achievement would override the claim of democratic endorsement that many governments falsely claim to have.

The NAP needs to be made the overruling law of the land, to guarantee our rights and freedom, and the only possible way I can see that happening (on a theoretical level) is by registering that as the will of the democratic majority. Our demand for the NAP is valid long before we get the support of a democratic majority, but when we achieve that support we would actually be in a position to peacefully implement the NAP as the overriding rule of law, which would dissolve governments by default and grant all people true equality and freedom.

Are you a libertarian/Is this a libertarian movement?
The short answer is yes and no. The long answer is below.

It is difficult to answer with a simple yes or no because it depends how you define libertarians/libertarianism.
Many libertarians may well identify with this movement as being nothing more than a representation of the libertarianism they already embrace, others may deem it similar but slightly different and others may insist that it is too different to fit the criteria of a libertarian movement.

The simple devotion to the Non Aggression Principle and universally objective morality is something that many people will embrace and identify as something they have always embraced, whether they identified as libertarian or not, while the Non Aggression Principle itself has long been associated with libertarians (though the definition of the NAP has not always been consistently defined among self proclaimed libertarians).
On the other hand many other self described libertarians would insist that this movement is too similar to anarchist philosophy to qualify as libertarian, at least as they define it.
For some, anarchists are a branch of libertarians, for others they are distinctly different.
This movement holds a lot of similarities with basic libertarian ideology, or the "classical liberal" view as it was once called, in addition to the numerous similarities with anarchist philosophy. But you could argue that there are distinct differences to both that prevents this movement from qualifying as either anarchist or libertarian.
For example, many libertarians will accept government power, even in the form of state violence, the initiation of force and the basic theft through taxation to fund what is considered acceptable government duties (protection of property rights, law enforcement, national defence etc.) where as this movement does not allow the initiation of force, even to fund legitimate programs (so in that sense is more inline with anarchist philosophy than traditional libertarianism).

Many of the services provided by governments are themselves acceptable but using taxes to rob people in order to fund them is never acceptable, according to the Nations Of Sanity.
So while it does not violate the Non Aggression Principle (as it is defined by the Nations Of Sanity) to fund military defence and police protection of individual rights, it is a violation to force people to contribute to such programs.

Anarchist philosophy varies but is generally defined by anarchists as being an ideology of rules but no rulers.
In that regard it is very similar to the ethos of the Nations Of Sanity as we too insist that while people can choose leaders we must not have rulers impose on us. Yet while we reject the notion of rulers we are ultimately defined by a very basic and objective set of rules (based on the Non Aggression Principle). Though some self described anarchist may insist on no rules or rulers, most appear to subscribe to the ethos that rules are acceptable but rulers are not. How we decide the rules without a ruling authority is where the Non Aggression Principle comes into play, providing an objective and morally consistent, as well as universal, basis.

Also, and again this will vary from anarchist to anarchist, many anarchist (specifically those who called themselves AnarchoCapitalist) rely completely on the free market for societal structure and while they usually profess a dedication to the Non Aggression Principle many reject any form of authority that can enforce the Non Aggression Principle, which leads many to question the devotion to the NAP and whether it will truly be abided by in an Anarchist Capitalist society.
What may or may not set the Nations Of Sanity apart from other libertarian or Anarchist movements is the societal structure which demands adherence to the Non Aggression Principle to the point that neither state of free market entities may be allowed the power or authority to override it.

That is the key to this movement and the hope is that both collectivists, even including many previously devoted to socialism, and capitalists, along with all other groups and individuals can and will embrace a free society as proposed by the Nations Of Sanity. Democracy can still be practiced but it cannot override the NAP. Free markets can flourish but cannot override the NAP. The NAP is the overriding agreement for a free society and nothing can be allowed to violate this basic principle in its most basic form.

There is room for debate in the grey areas but the black and white is clearly defined by the Nations Of Sanity, through the Non Aggression Principle. As to whether this makes us a libertarian movement is open to debate and interpretation, but is ultimately unimportant. The Nations of Sanity stands for freedom and moral consistency. If that makes us libertarian we are happy to embrace that label, if not then we are happy to be deemed as something entirely different.

Why do you say "as defined by the Nations of Sanity" when referring to the Non Aggression Principle? Are you claiming ownership over the term?  
No, the Nations Of Sanity did not invent the Non Aggression Principle, nor does it claim ownership over it.
The reason for the clarification is because some people are confused as to what the Non Aggression Principle is, others may even dispute that the real meaning is as described by the Nations Of Sanity.
So in an attempt to avoid confusion, the definition of the Non Aggression Principle has been clarified and, while others may dispute whether the Nations Of Sanity's definition is inline with the standard definition, by clarifying how the NAP is defined by the Nations Of Sanity a lot of potential confusion should be avoided.
Though many would argue that such a clarification is unnecessary as the Nations Of Sanity simply defines the Non Aggression Principle by its proper definition, at least by clarifying this definition we eliminate a lot of potential confusion.

Though most interpretations of the Non Aggression Principle appear to understand that "Aggression" is defined by the initiation of aggression, rather than all forms of force (like using force to defend yourself or others from attack).
It is not a pacifist principle and does still allow for force or "aggression" in response or prevention of a violation, it only prohibits the initiation of force. Also the force it prohibits is not limited to physical force, as some leading proponents have described (for example Ayn Rand has on occasion refered to the NAP as being a prohibition against physical force, which may suggest to some that non violent violations like theft are not included, this is not how the Nations Of Sanity defines the NAP). Theft is an initiation of force and a violation of the Non Aggression Principle, even when using non violent methods, so the Non Aggression does not only prohibit physical force or violence but also any violations of a person or their property.

By clarifying that the Non Aggression Principle referred to in this body of work is the Non Aggression Principle as the Nations Of Sanity defines it, we hope to eliminate a lot of potential for confusion or misunderstanding. We still call it the Non Aggression Principle because as far as we are concerned the definition we have assigned to it is the proper and rightful definition, but just in case others disagree that such a definition is "the" definition such a debate is bypassed by simply clarifying the definition that the Nations Of Sanity is assigning to the Non Aggression Principle.

Become A Volunteer

Join the Nations Of Sanity and help us create a real revolution of simple sanity

Join Now


Connect with Us