Overview
- The 3L Philosophy deliberately provides the minimum necessary conditions for global peace, so that all reasonable people find common ground in this urgently needed framework for coexistence.
- How free societies effectively implement the Legal Principle is something each community can determine. We cannot deduce all legal rules from an armchair using principles alone - grey areas are inevitable. We do not need to let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of huge progress.
- The 3L Philosophy does not prescribe all the answers, determine who answers them, or dictate how their conclusions are reached. Instead, it provides a fundamental principle from which to reason.
- Local communities may even choose not to adopt any law when reasonable minds disagree on a complex interpretation question, opting instead for arbitration or another method of dispute resolution. Local communities should be free to experiment - we cannot predict how bright and creative people committed to the 3L Philosophy can resolve challenging interpretation issues.
Why letting local communities decide is essential for peace
- While reasonable minds agree on the core 3L Philosophy, objectively correct answers for how to implement it for optimal peaceful coexistence in some areas are not always available.
- This should not deter us, just as parents should not be deterred by the lack of an objectively correct formula to raise good kids.
- There are many scenarios in which reasonable minds disagree on how best to apply the Legal Principle, even between those equally committed to it in good faith. Rather than fight over these reasonable disagreements, the peaceful solution is to let the local community select from all existing reasonable interpretations of the Legal Principle and determine how best to implement that reasonable interpretation into the law, rules, and regulations.
- If a person does not agree with their local community’s reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle, they are free to form their own community or move to another community that more closely aligns with their reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle and values. This is an imperfect solution, but there is no perfect solution.
Benefits
All people would be afforded at least a reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle (even if their preferred interpretation is slightly different).
Permitting local communities to select from a list of reasonable interpretations allows for experiential learning about which reasonable interpretations lead to the most prosperous communities.
- Society will naturally converge on those interpretations that work best, whilst allowing minorities to interpret differently.
- Local communities should compete to attract productive people who desire to live in a free community. This will lead to the communities naturally adopting the best reasonable interpretations over time.
Conflicts between small groups are preferable to those between large groups because they cause less chaos and potential harm to others.
For those who disagree with the local rules, it is a lower transaction cost to move to or do business with a different local community than to move to or trade with an entirely different country.
Costs
- The main friction in this solution is the transaction cost of physically moving to, or doing business with, a different local community that better aligns with your reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle.
- Seceding from a larger community to form a smaller one would increase the individual cost burden of funding a functioning legal system, which that community is likely to want to pay for to resolve any local disputes that may arise.
Letting local communities decide vs the alternatives
- The alternative to letting local communities decide is that society would trend towards the strongest, subjecting the weakest to their dictated interpretations. How ironic it would be to fight one another over fringe applications of a peace philosophy? This is why 3L opposes a one-size-fits-all solution on complex legal questions where reasonable minds disagree.
- The peaceful alternative to using force is to use persuasion; to allow those who disagree with us to commune peacefully, whilst we focus on living by the example we seek to proliferate.
- When we force those who reasonably disagree to comply with our interpretations of the Legal Principle, we set the precedent for others to force their views on us, leading to conflict either way.
Determining ‘reasonableness’
- The standard of reasonableness is subjective and somewhat flexible, but must always be firmly anchored to the LP. As such, what varied reasonable interpretations of the LP can still fit within the ‘reasonable person standard’ must be determined by the larger community in a way that most flexibly allows for local preferences. Unreasonable interpretations of the LP must never be allowed to influence the law, as this would lead to aggression against others.
- Determining what is reasonable is fundamental to the law of self-defense, the law of negligence, and many other areas of law. As such, any legal system must necessarily grapple with defining reasonableness. There is no escape from this conclusion, no matter what legal system is adopted.
- Without both larger and smaller communities, as well as a functioning justice system committed to due process and fundamental fairness to determine reasonableness, conflict would inevitably ensue. Absent these concepts, each defendant in any particular case would adopt and seek to apply their own personal definition of reasonableness and effectively be the judge in their own case. It has been a longstanding concept of justice that no person can serve as a judge in their own case. As such, disinterested parties must determine reasonableness in any conflict.
Who decides how the Legal Principle is interpreted
Ultimately, courts staffed with proven and committed 3L judges and justices must resolve these difficult questions and establish the outer boundaries of what’s reasonable, contrasting them with unreasonable interpretations of the LP.
The 3L Philosophy does not guide how a particular reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle should be either selected or applied at the local community level. Some form of local democracy could play a role, but there may be other fair ways to achieve it.
- For example, Respected members of the community could be elected to form the community’s legislative branch, which would select the reasonable interpretation to apply and determine how to implement that choice, interpreting the Legal Principle.
“And while libertarian philosophers can help systematize and identify the abstract, general libertarian principles, we have to be wary of the limits of theorizing. We cannot deduce all the legal rules that would flow from abstract libertarian principles. Law should develop organically and in response to real disputes where solutions may be found and used to develop the law further in subsequent legal disputes.” – Stephan Kinsella.
Conclusion
- A diverse, free, and peaceful world can tolerate reasonable differences of opinion on complex issues. Why choose to ‘be right and fight’, when there is a peaceful alternative to win: ‘live and let live’?