NEWS/ARTICLES

This is a message from the Nations Of Sanity to any and all sane people on this planet.
For Sanity's sake, we've got to get it together.

I know we've had our differences, all of us, and we will continue to have our differences. But those are subjective differences and while we will continue to disagree on virtually everything and anything (and so we should) we do need a common ground of basic sanity where everyone can come together and agree. 

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 Non Aggression Principle shows us the black and white.
So the Sanity Agreement will be based on that objective black and white distinction.
If you are definitely causing harm or loss to another, or threatening/attempting to, then you are definitely violating the NAP. If you are definitely not causing harm or loss to another (or at least threatening/attempting to) then you are definitely not violating the NAP and you should be left to enjoy your basic freedom with a consistent standard applied to it.
So lets get that in place as the first agreement.

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.

Can morality be universal or objective or is it always a subjective standard?

The Nations of Sanity, the Sanity Agreement and the Non Aggression Principle itself are all built on a foundation of objective or universal morality, or at the very least the assertion that there is such a thing as objective/universal morality.

When it comes to government a big problem comes from the fact that the thing we need to change about it is also its defining characteristic, the self appointed authority to initiate force against people.
So you could argue that a government without that characteristic is no longer government.

The Nations of Sanity talks a lot about uniting people on a common ground. A common ground of very basic, universally preferable and consistent morals.
Through the Non Aggression Principle (as defined by the Nations Of Sanity) we wish to unite all fair minded and good hearted people together.
However this movement is not only about uniting people it is also about dividing people.

Though there are instances where democracy seems the fairest and most sensible solution to an issue of potential conflict, there is some very inherent and very fundamental immoralities associated with even true forms of democracy.

The fundamental difference between rulers and leaders is choice. You choose to follow a leader, but a ruler rules over you against your will.
Obvious? When we consciously think about it then it is pretty obvious, but linguistic garnish in society has always been a good tool for misdirection and the distinction between rulers and leaders has been obscured through dishonest and misleading language.

The Sanity agreement is the first, and possibly the most important, goal of the Nations Of Sanity.
It is basically the Non Aggression Principle in the form of an agreement. Like a peace treaty for the entire world.