The Nations Of Sanity proposes, what we believe to be, the only way to truly save the world from the madness that currently engulfs and rules it.
As is mentioned numerous times, it is not proposing any form of utopia based on any specific ideals but rather it proposes a basic agreement for a simple, sane and logical approach to society.

Not only do we insist that this is the best way to truly change the world for the better, but it is truly the only way to create a fair, free and sane society.

The fundamental basis for the society we propose is the Non Aggression Principle, as it is defined by the Nations Of Sanity.
With this principle in place as the defining rule of society we can guarantee freedom for all and while there is room for debate over various nuances and specifics, the basic foundation of the Non Aggression Principle is not negotiable.
It is such a basic form of morality it can and should be something that can unite even the most diverse cultures, as only those who wish to violate others would oppose this simple foundation.

For the most part every aspect of life, every facet and factor, should improve drastically by implementing this simple rule, because the one thing that the NAP guarantees above all else is freedom.
Indeed true freedom cannot really exist with out the NAP.

The rule of the NAP will legalise all victimless crimes, will end all prohibitions that impose on personal liberty and basic human rights. But will also allow proper focused enforcement of all laws that are truly about protecting people from harm or loss.  Real crimes can be dealt with but they must be real crimes, with real victims. Not impositions of subjective moralities that attempt to impose ideals outside of the NAP.

When using this basic logic of objective right and wrong, where harm or loss is tangible, it is clear what constitutes a "real crime". When a person robs another person, for example, the thief has violated a very clear and universal morality.
Rape, murder, theft, assaults of any kind and destructions of people's belongings and property are all clear violations of the Non Aggression Principle.
Drug use, unregulated trade and refusal to contribute to social programs is clearly a personal choice that all free people have a right to and not only do such activities not violate the NAP but any laws that criminalise such behaviour are themselves violations.

It is not a violation of another person's rights if you choose to consume a specific substance or trade outside of the regulated market, the only violation would be when others attempt to prevent you from exercising this freedom and personal liberty.

In the society we propose freedom of choice is absolute as long as you are not infringing on anyone else's right to that same freedom and liberty.
If you are not causing harm or loss to another, or threatening to, you are not violating anyone else's rights.
If you are not violating the liberty of another then you are not committing a crime. It really is that simple.
It is not perfect, nor does it try to be, but it is truly the only just and sane approach to societal structure.
A society built on the Non Aggression Principle can put an end to the countless injustices that blight society today and can change the world in such a drastic way that it would be almost unrecognisable in so many ways. It is really the only way to make society fair and equitable.

For the most part every change it would bring about can only be seen as positive. More freedom is guaranteed and the only limitation to that freedom is the prohibition against causing harm or loss to another.
So, in addition to granting liberty to those who are not causing harm or loss to others, the NAP can also allow more productive focus on those who do cause harm or loss to others.
The rule of the Non Aggression Principle is literally the ethos that if you are not violating others, if you are not causing harm or loss to another, or threatening to, then you are free to live your life the way you see fit.

The Nations Of Sanity lays down the challenge to all people to attempt to find flaw in what we propose.
By definition, both the Non Aggression Principle and the Sanity Agreement built on it are representations of a universal morality that is basic but undeniable.
While there are areas of grey remaining, that can be negotiated, the basics are clear. The black and white is... ...well, black and white.  

So what is the worst consequence to such an unprecedented level of freedom?
Is there an undesirable price to pay for granting people such absolute liberty?
Is there any crime that should remain a crime but could not be under this proposed societal structure?

When challenging what the Nations Of Sanity propose, it is hard to imagine any potential abuse of the liberty granted that would cause us to reconsider the wisdom of implementing such freedom.
By definition, the Non Aggression Principle does not allow the criminalising of anyone who is not causing harm or loss to another, or at least threatening to do so. But it clearly defines real crimes where harm or loss has occured or been threatened.

So is there any real drawback to living in such a society?
Well, while the objective moralities of the Non Aggression Principle should be pretty effective at uniting people, the subjective moralities of different people can cause big disagreements and even conflict.
It would be, and is, madness to attempt to impose laws based on any individual's, or group's, subjective ideals. In fact such a desire to do so is the very essence of oppression and fascism, and precisely what is wrong with the world today.
Many people may disagree, on a moral level, with certain activities, like the use of various drugs for example, but that does not justify criminalising people for such activities.
It is our right to disagree but not to impose onto others what is our own subjective moralities.
Unless a drug user is violating others he is not committing a crime, no matter how immoral you may find his behaviour.
It is equally true to say that you cannot force someone else to pay for a cause you believe in. Charity is charity, theft is theft and if we force someone to donate to a cause then we are stealing from them.
People have the right to live their lives how they see fit and the only restriction on freedom that can be imposed, with out violating the NAP, is to prohibit people from causing harm or loss to another.

When you understand that the Nations of Sanity, the Non Aggression Principle promoted within and the Sanity Agreement proposed here, is all just about simple freedom.
About finally, for the first time in recorded history, granting the people of the world true freedom. Not a looser, less imposing, form of oppression. But actual honest freedom. Then you can understand that this basic moral foundation is the only universally acceptable principle that can be applied with consistent logic.
Which literally makes it the only way to grant a universal freedom for all.

What is the price we would have to pay for such freedom?
Well, in a word the answer to that question is tolerance. We must tolerate other people, no matter how different their way of life is to ours.
Unless they are causing harm or loss to another, or threatening to, or violating other people, they are free to live their lives how they choose just as you are free to do the same.

Society will undoubtedly find it easier to self regulate under such a basic and universal moral foundation but the Nations of Sanity is not so naïve to think that all people will cooperate in such a society and that there is no room for abuse of the freedom granted.
What is important to understand is that the lines are drawn in the most important places when it comes to defining the freedom that is granted.
By definition, the NAP demands that no one will be allowed to harm others, or violate their rights and freedom.
But people will test these boundaries and undesirable situations can manifest when freedom is granted in such an absolute manner.

An obvious issue that may turn off many is the issue of public nudity.
Depending on how you define a public place the Non Aggression Principle/Non Aggression Agreement does not and cannot outlaw nudity.
Even though publically owned, and privately owned, and all property belonging to others can have any rules they wish to impose, including rules against nudity, without violating the rights of anyone, as a matter of universal law such prohibitions cannot be applied.

Without violating the Non Aggression Principle, rules against nudity, or indeed any rules, can be applied by the owners of any place.
So when people say "in public" they may refer simply to being out in public, on land that is not owned by anyone, individuals or groups, or they may refer to publically owned land, which would be collectively owned land in a free society.
This is an important distinction because people cannot impose any rules/laws onto other people, outside of the Non Aggression Agreement, when those other people are in their own homes, on their own property or even on unowned land, "out in public" so to speak.
Such imposition would be a violation of their liberty.

Places where no individual or group has claim of ownership there is no authority to dictate or impose rules over people, outside of the NAP.
However, people can apply rules to their premises, property and especially their homes.
Whether it is owned by an individual or by a collective group of people the freedom to choose what rules apply to such places is also guaranteed.
So public nudity is not something that would necessarily be a big problem in areas where it is unwelcome. But the basic principle of outlawing nudity and "indecent exposure" will be a thing of the past.

As undesirable as it may be in certain situations the only true morality is a consistent one and when it comes to the Non Aggression Principle/Agreement we cannot pick and choose when and how it will apply. If you are not hurting anyone else, causing loss, or violating, or threatening to violate the rights of others then you are not committing a crime. It really is that simple.

It is important to understand, however, that just as we cannot prevent people from doing what they want, within the limits of the Non Aggression Principle, when they are in their own homes, on there own property or even on unowned land (areas not belonging to others) we also cannot prevent people from implementing various rules in their homes, on their premises and properties and any collectively owned areas.
The simplest way to look at it is the obvious difference between setting rules in your home and attempting to dictate to people what they can do in their own homes.
When you extend an invitation to someone to enter your home you can make any request you deem necessary, as a condition attached to such invitations, and withdraw your invitation for them to enter your home if they refuse to abide by such rules. But you have no such authority over another person otherwise.
So you can invite someone into your home but insist that they remove their shoes before entering. You cannot, however, demand they remove their shoes when they enter their own home or when they are out in public (unless they enter an owned area that has such rules).
The only authority you have over others is that which they grant you, such as would occur when accepting an invitation on the condition that such adherance is observed.
This may be an obvious example but if we apply the same logic consistently then all other scenarios and situations are easy to resolve as the same logic applies.
We cannot outlaw nudity as a law of the land but we can prohibit it in any places where we have the right to impose such rules (areas that belong to us).

Though it is likely to be rare, it is still within the realms of possibility (even if outside the realms of probability) that people will push the boundaries of the freedom granted by the Sanity Agreement to the absolute limits.
As exhibitionists, along with all sorts of strange and undesirable people, have the same rights to freedom and liberty as all of us we may find that the price we pay for true freedom is that we must tolerate those who wish to abuse this freedom by pushing tolerance to its limits. We would expect such tolerance to not be tested to such extreme degrees on a regular basis, and of course the Non Aggression Principe protects people from any forms of violations, but the price we pay for living in a truly just, fair, free and sane society is that we must tolerate the diversity of people that we share this planet with.

The price to pay for living in a free society where you and your way of life is protected and must be tolerated by others is that you must also tolerate them.
We share this planet and no one has the right to impose their way of life onto others. We can set rules in our own house but we cannot dictate rules for the houses of others. That is the consequence of true freedom and that is the price we pay for it.

Add comment

Security code

Become A Volunteer

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

Join Now


Connect with Us