Definition
- Reasonable people are those who employ words rather than force to resolve disagreements.
- In the context of the 3L Philosophy, âreasonable mindsâ refers to those who accept the Legal Principle and act in good faith to interpret it correctly.
- Reasonable-minded people disagree on many things - a free society should expect, welcome, and be prepared to resolve such reasonable disagreements.
- To disagree with the Legal Principle entirely is to conclude that it is permissible to aggress against another person instead of using conversation. By rejecting reason, a person essentially declares themself unreasonable.
- Of course, we can expect that in a world where we can aggress against others, others will aggress against us.
Reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle
- Determining what is reasonable vs unreasonable behavior is key to determining if the Legal Principle has been breached, but âreasonablenessâ is subjective. Through discourse, different people will draw the line on the continuum between unreasonable and reasonable behavior.
- Unreasonable disagreements with the Legal Principle should be ignored. People who unreasonably disagree with the Legal Principle include thieves, rapists, murderers, and trespassers. We should not be beholden to their unreasonable disagreements with the Legal Principle.
- However, among people who agree with the Legal Principle, reasonable disagreements arise over how to interpret or apply it. We can refer to these reasonable disagreements as gray areas or âcontinuum problems.â
- There are unavoidable gray areas or continuum problems that must be resolved. Instead of resolving these issues with a uniform solution applicable to everyone, it is best to allow the local community to choose from the existing reasonable interpretations. This way, we guarantee at least a reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle everywhere.
Examples
- There is no objectively correct age at which a child becomes an adult capable of making informed decisions for themselves.
- We can look around the world at countries with well-developed legal systems and conclude that a reasonable age of consent range internationally is 15-20 years old.
- Most countries set the range between 16 and 18 years of age. The country with the highest age of consent is Bahrain, at 21 years of age, and some countries in Europe set it as low as 14, with some additional restrictions.
- We can conclude that it is unreasonable to expect a 13-year-old or younger person to be sufficiently mature to legally sign contracts, possess weapons, marry, enlist in the military, or provide informed consent to engage in consensual sex. It is similarly unreasonable to prevent a competent 22-year-old or older person from doing so.
- Therefore, people aged 14 and 21 are each on the extreme ends or outside of the reasonable range. Very few countries consider either extreme a reasonable age for legal consent. Still, because some do, we should use persuasion, not force, to influence a more reasonable implementation of the rule.
- Local communities should select their legal age of consent among the reasonable choices and allow the market of people who live there and in other places to express any dissatisfaction with the local communityâs reasonable choice by moving or refusing to do business in that community. Economic consequences should discourage unpopular but reasonable selections.
Noise Complaint (tort thresholds)
- Another classic example of disagreement among reasonable minds equally committed to fairly implementing the Legal Principle is the issue of how much noise is sufficient to constitute a legally enforceable violation of the Legal Principle. Specifically, how loud is too loud for music at any given time of day in a given community?
- One neighbor might think music playing at 10:30 pm at a moderate volume is perfectly reasonable - after all, itâs the weekend, and they work hard all week. Another, with a sleeping baby or an early shift, might find it unreasonably disruptive.
- At some point, loud music becomes an actionable trespass, but at what point? Here again, reasonable minds equally committed to fairly implementing the Legal Principle disagree. We can expect such disagreements.
- Both are acting in good faith. Both appeal to âreasonableness.â But their standards differ based on context, lifestyle, and values. This is why local communities might decide to set specific quiet hours, not because the âreasonableâ cutoff is obvious, but because it isnât.
- The 3LP allows local communities to make differing, reasonable judgments about when an extremely minor trespass becomes actionable under the law. The same issues arise with smells and smoke. Merely because one neighbor can detect the smell of a food cooking from a neighborâs kitchen is not likely to be recognized as a trespass, but when an endless cloud of smoke continually creeps onto another neighborâs property, a genuine violation may be legally recognized. The 3LP must allow local communities to make reasonable decisions in these and other areas where reasonable minds differ on how to implement or interpret the Legal Principle.