The Nations Of Sanity represents many ideas and proposals but its one and only truly defining principle, the foundation on which it is built, is the Non Aggression Principle.
The beauty of the NAP and the reason why it is presented by the Nations of Sanity as the only way to facilitate and protect a free society is the objective reasoning that defines it.

The lack of contradiction in a law built entirely on the NAP is its biggest strength and while that alone is not a guarantee that such laws will be adhered to, it does provide the foundation of a universally agreeable standard of law that everyone can in theory at least agree to, even if that is not the practical reality .

One of the problems of so many of the laws today is that they have no moral consistency, no logic, no objective standard but are rather just acts of violence used to impose a way of life that is based on subjective preferences, prejudices and standards.
The law today is self violating.
While laws against many violations of the NAP do still exist they are too often overridden by other laws that are themselves violations of the NAP.
Taxation and the laws that enforce it are violations of the laws against theft (not to mention the other violations associated with enforcing such laws, like assault, kidnapping, imprisonment etc.)
Drugs laws are also clear violations of the NAP, and as such are themselves criminal acts. Enforcing a drug law involves initiating force against people who have not hurt and are not hurting anyone else.
Even the funding of law enforcement violates the NAP because people are forced to, under the threat of extreme violence and imprisonment, fund the enforcement. The tax revenue used to fund law enforcement is stolen money and the vast majority of laws today, and sadly the vast majority of laws enforced today, are themselves criminal acts.

Law is a threat of violence, which is generally a violation of the NAP. To threaten violence against someone is to initiate force.
For this reason, declaring such a threat of violence against someone for an activity that does not harm, or threaten to harm, anyone else is by definition immoral and criminal.
However the threat of violence attached to laws is acceptable when reserved for violations of the NAP. By definition, violating the NAP is an initiation of force. As such acting against such violations and the perpetrators of such violations is not itself an initiation of force.
If you use violence to prevent a rape, murder, theft or assault then you have not initiated force but just responded to it (or to the threat of it). The person attempting to commit such a violation is the one guilty of initiating force and, while it demands that an acceptable response cannot spill over into its own initiation of force, the NAP does need to be enforced and that can and will require force to do so .

There is nothing wrong with laws that prohibit what the Non Aggression Principle prohibits (causing harm or loss). It is not a guarantee of stopping them but to make laws against murder (along with other NAP violations like rape, theft, assault etc.) is perfectly acceptable because it does not violate the NAP. Forcing people to pay for enforcers of such laws would violate the NAP, but the laws themselves along with enforcement of those laws would not be a violation.
It is not the concept of law, it is the perversion of law that is the problem.
Law against rape, murder, theft, assault and destruction and/or violation of property (basic harm or loss stuff) is not just acceptable but arguably vital as a basis for universal agreement of where a condition to freedom should exist. It is the only reasonable condition you can place on freedom.

The problem with law today is that it bares no relation to the morally consistent principle of the NAP and not only fails to enforce the NAP but actively violates it. Most of the laws of today are themselves criminal acts, not least because they force people to pay for their enforcement.
But even without the theft of taxation funding their enforcement most of the laws that exist today are completely immoral, contradicting, abominations that violate the basic laws against causing others harm (what some people refer to as common law).
Take away the immorality of robbing people to fund the enforcement and strip laws down to the basic principles of the NAP and there is no longer an argument against law, there is no longer a self violating contradiction to law, and no longer an inherent immorality to law.
The NAP must be how law is defined, simply because the NAP is by definition morally consistent and universally agreeable in an objective standard.

Do no harm. Be completely free, enjoy freedom without restriction save one exception, with just one condition attached to your otherwise absolute freedom and personal liberty. Do not cause harm or loss to another. Do not initiate force or violate another person’s person or property and you free to live your life how you choose. Sound fair to you?

The beauty of the NAP is that it guarantees true freedom and true equality and offers the only objective basis for a free society.

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