Version 0.6.6

Available to view and download this version via Google Drive here.

The Live and Let Live Movement: A Viable Path to Peace

Abstract

A society in which the law prohibits the initiation of aggression upon any person is a society free to achieve peace. Global peace movements are unable to succeed so long as they operate within models facilitating and incentivizing the initiation of aggression. The Live and Let Live Movement fosters networks and communities of individuals following a legal principle not to aggress and a moral principle to aspire for decency and personal excellence. The strategy appeals to cultural relevance, setting out to win hearts and minds. The overview of the Live and Let Live Movement herein describes the legal and moral principles and how they may be widely adopted to pave a practical path towards universal peace.

Contents

1. Introduction
2. Freedom and Peace
3. What is the Live and Let Live Movement?
4. Overcoming Institutionalized Aggressing: The Legal Principle
5. The Adoption of the Legal Principle
6. The Implementation of the Legal Principle
7. Towards Peace: The Moral Principle
8. Benefits and Opportunities
9. Passing the Hurdles to Freedom
10. Concluding Remarks

Glossary

1. Introduction

1.1. An Unfree World

Respecting self-sovereignty in human activity is a necessary element for freedom. Over several centuries in almost every society around the world, the institutionalization of the aggressive means for human interaction is either tolerated or preferred.

Rather than engaging in voluntary association with others, most adults in today’s world accept institutions forcing them to live, or die, in certain ways. Such force, whether by expropriating one’s resources, restricting human action or ending human life, aggresses upon the individual.

When individuals are aggressed upon they are not free. A peaceful society means people are free from having aggression initiated upon them. Societies which aggress are, therefore, unable to be peaceful societies. This is a primary reason the many important organizations and initiatives working for global peace are severely limited in pursuing their missions. They all operate within environments which aggress.

1.2. An Incentive for Freedom

The Live and Let Live Movement promotes an alternative to the model of aggressing currently prevalent throughout the world. The Movement emphasizes freedom is not the end goal but a necessary step to reach universal peace. Peace is the ultimate aim of the Live and Let Live Movement.

This aim for peace mirrors that of many of the world’s current peace efforts. Moreover, the Live and Let Live Movement holds the same axiomatic foundations as many other freedom-oriented initiatives. The movement’s strategy is based on two core principles which, when followed, reduce the incentives to aggress in society.

As the extent of aggressing reduces, there is a corresponding increase of freedom. Through frameworks based on the Live and Let Live Movement, individuals are free to live in any peaceful way they choose. This freedom lays a foundation from which peace may emerge.

2. Freedom and Peace

2.1. Self-Ownership, Self-Sovereignty and Freedom

If Alessandro accepts that Bethany has the authority to control her own body without interference by anyone else, so long as Bethany accepts the same towards others, Alessandro has acknowledged the concept of “self-ownership”.

Respecting self-ownership in interpersonal relations leads to “self-sovereignty”. Self-sovereignty is both the basis and the means of freedom in human interaction. Limiting someone’s self-ownership means negating that person’s self-sovereignty.

Negating self-sovereignty is the core element of what is herein referred to as “aggressing”. Aggressing is one type of model to facilitate human interaction. Although, it is a model unable to foster freedom. “Freedom” in this sense means the absence of aggressing.

2.2. Free Models of Human Interaction

Models for human interaction based on self-sovereignty lead to freedom. Such models are advocated through many philosophies. Such philosophies demonstrate how human interactions through freedom are the most just and why they are more effective to solve social priorities, as well as individual goals, than through aggressing models of human interaction.

A philosophy endorsing self-sovereignty is consistent with freedom. To the extent those philosophies promote non-violent means to reach self-sovereignty, the Live and Let Live Movement is aligned with such philosophies.

A society of free human interactions is vital for the universal protection of one’s life and integrity and it is what best enables one to prosper.

2.3. Peace

Freedom, though, is not enough for people to live in proactive harmony with one another. In this sense, “peace” is both an internal and interpersonal state of being, one which is aligned with the greatest potential of the individual. At its core, peace calls for people to aspire to good character and to be civil in their interactions with others.

The absence of involuntary physical violence is commonly what is meant when referring to the notion of peace. This is often in the context of armed conflict. The Live and Let Live Movement acknowledges involuntary physical violence as one of several forms of aggressing. Its absence, therefore, moves society in the right direction towards freedom, and, ultimately, peace.

However, there are other ways to aggress upon individuals beyond initiating physical violence. The cessation of armed conflict does not, then, necessarily mean the cessation of aggressing generally in human interaction. The Live and Let Live Movement seeks to reduce all forms of aggressing as well as to inspire proactive notions of peace.

3. What is the Live and Let Live Movement?

3.1. The Context

In an environment of freedom, competent adults have the choice to decide how they justly acquire and manage their resources and with whom they associate. By exercising self-ownership and respecting that same capacity of others, individuals are self-sovereign.

When rules safeguarding self-ownership emerge, self-sovereignty is maintained. When rules force subjective moral standards upon people, self-ownership is limited and, thereby, self-sovereignty is compromised. As such, those who impose moral standards upon others are aggressing. This is a common occurrence in political institutions, whereby self-sovereignty is negated by some people forcing particular moral standards upon others. By facilitating aggressing models of human interaction, the nature of politics in its current state is contrary to freedom. Political institutions often sanction aggressing and incentivize individuals to aggress, thereby enabling the institutionalization of aggressing.

The institutionalization of aggressing through politics has several philosophical rationales, all of which necessarily accept the negation of self-sovereignty to varying degrees. A model for human interaction aligned with the Live and Let Live Movement, by contrast, brings humanity closer to absolute self-sovereignty. The movement provides a pragmatic approach to reduce aggressing in politics to the greatest extent possible and to increase the prevalence of peace in a universal fashion.

3.2. The Movement

The Live and Let Live Movement is a way to foster a large-scale and interdependent network of individuals who view the opposition to aggressing as a common-sense, compassionate and mainstream position, rather than a fringe opinion, self-centered ideology or naive, utopian outlook.

Self-ownership is the most basic presumption of the Live and Let Live Movement. Universal self-sovereignty among competent adults represents the movement’s first objective. From this one presumption and this first objective stem two core principles:

1. one must not aggress (a “Legal Principle”); and
2. everyone should strive for excellence (a “Moral Principle”).

Read together, these two principles posit that all individuals must be free to live their lives as they choose so long as they do not restrict anyone else’s ability to do the same. Adopters of the Live and Let Live Movement recognize this statement as true.

4. Overcoming Institutionalized Aggressing: The Legal Principle

4.1. Do Not Aggress

The Legal Principle holds that no valid law can enable or promote aggressing. This is akin to the adage of first do no harm. The question arises: how does one know if he or she is doing harm? Or, from the Live and Let Live perspective, how does one identify when someone is aggressing or when a law allows for individuals to aggress?

There are many ways to negate self-sovereignty. Recalling that the meaning of self-ownership is the exclusive control of one’s own body, to aggress, then, is to limit that control without the person’s consent. In this framing, the forms of aggressing may be categorized as:

1. initiating nonconsensual physical force against someone or what has been justly acquired;
2. engaging in fraud;
3. engaging in coercion;
4. creating a substantial risk or threat of initiating nonconsensual physical force against another person or what has been justly acquired;
5. compromising due process;
6. breaching a contract;
7. engaging in unreasonable conduct causing harm to another person or causing nonconsensual physical force against what has been justly acquired; and
8. breaching a fiduciary duty.

The movement’s first objective of self-sovereignty requires, at least, a reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle in all human interactions. However, some of the above-listed forms of aggressing are subjective in their application, relying on context and on what is considered reasonable by an individual or under the standards of a network or community. Reasonable minds disagreeing in good faith about how the Legal Principle applies in difficult cases may employ one of several non-aggressing means to select from the reasonable alternatives, one option of which is local community delegation.

Ultimately, these above eight forms of aggressing lay out the priority areas for legal frameworks to address, should those legal frameworks be intended to safeguard self-sovereignty and, ultimately, contribute to peace. All forms of aggressing, irrespective of being categorized as per the above, can be identified by whether someone violates another’s self-ownership and, accordingly, negates self-sovereignty.

4.2. Universality of the Legal Principle

Under the Live and Let Live Movement, the Legal Principle is mandatory. This means the movement is not aligned with any philosophy or political institution which is flexible, or inconsistent, in the application of the Legal Principle.

The Live and Let Live Movement is neither anti-government nor anti-rules. The movement is pro-peace and, consequentially, anti-aggressing. All individuals are held to the standard of the Legal Principle, including collectives of individuals such as corporations, political parties, governments and all organs of the state.

An individual may exercise self-ownership by delegating certain decisions or actions to other individuals, including to individuals who control a collective. This on its own is no breach of the Legal Principle so long as delegation is voluntary. However, as the Legal Principle does not permit individuals to aggress, no individual can legally delegate another to aggress. This means any collective aligned with the Live and Let Live Movement, whether a company, government, religious group or sports club, must follow the Legal Principle.

5. The Adoption of the Legal Principle

5.1. The Law as an Instrument for Freedom

Societies maintaining self-sovereignty are enabled by individuals adopting the Legal Principle. Adoption of the legal principle is largely done through political institutions developing and enforcing law. As such, most laws today are defined and implemented through political means.

The law need not necessarily aggress and it is not the nature of any valid law to aggress. The law can be used as an instrument for freedom just as it can be used as an instrument for aggressing. The nature of an instrument is not determined by its properties, but by how it is used. This is why a primary concern of the Live and Let Live Movement is who controls the law and who is subject to any particular law.

To address this concern, the Live and Let Live Movement seeks to inspire a critical mass of people supporting the Legal Principle as a way to reduce the incentives for aggressing within legal frameworks, not least the frameworks enacted through political institutions.

5.2. Strategic Pillars

Freedom initiatives so far have not gained a critical mass of support. A key reason why they have not is because such initiatives tend to focus on the philosophical or ethical integrity of their messages in place of employing an effective strategy for widespread adoption. They neither establish the incentives to refrain from aggressing nor effectively showcase a viable, and prosperous, alternative for people to deny aggressing models of human interaction.

As such, the Live and Let Live Movement follows a cultural strategy to communicate self-sovereignty and peace as mainstream, achievable and welfare-increasing concepts. The strategy is founded on three pillars:

1. “Awareness” concerns bespoke communication methods to convey the Movement and its two principles to people in an effective manner. A key component of this pillar is the unifying nature of the Live and Let Live Movement to reconcile people’s differences;

2. “Belonging” refers to the facilitation of networks and communities, comprised of individuals who agree with the goals of removing aggressing models of human interaction and striving for peace. The interdependence among individuals and communities strengthens the incentives to assist people in their personal ambitions, business interests and in addressing wider social priorities; and

3. “Change” supports individuals as they seek to implement the Legal Principle in human interactions.

The pillars of Awareness and Belonging in the context of the Legal Principle predominantly seek that it is accepted as a necessary component for freedom and peace. The pillar of Change plays an important role in the implementation of the Legal Principle in human interactions, including those influenced by politics.

6. The Implementation of the Legal Principle

6.1. From the Ground-Up

Change involves not only agreeing with the Legal Principle but bringing about its presence in human interactions. The ways to implement the Legal Principle are numerous but come primarily from two directions.

A ground-up approach concerns the early adopters of the Live and Let Live Movement using the Legal Principle to assist in addressing personal ambitions as well as assist in resolving social priorities such as homelessness, environmental protection, access to healthcare and business pursuits. Such endeavors are supported through the networks and opportunities enabled by the pillar of Belonging.

The Legal Principle can also be implemented from the ground-up by developing free or private societies, such as communes, special economic zones, special autonomous regions and decentralized autonomous networks.

Ground-up approaches conveniently promote the benefits and the practicality of the Legal Principle as it is implemented and, by doing so, further support the Awareness and Belonging pillars of the Live and Let Live Movement.

6.2. From the Top-Down

In tandem with approaches from the ground-up direction, the Legal Principle can be implemented from the top down, such as through engagement within existing political institutions. By introducing the Legal Principle into the many arms of politics which currently aggress, the Live and Let Live Movement enables the whittling away of the elements most egregious in aggressing.

Traditional political activities such as election or appointment to public office, lobbying and engaging in public consultations are, therefore, a key mechanism to give effect to the Legal Principle. It will remain so that the incentives within political institutions compromise decision-making which would otherwise be in accordance with fairness and social well-being. This is due to the consequences of public choice inherent in political institutions. Such incentives cannot be entirely overcome by integrating the Legal Principle into those institutions.

However, individuals operating within political institutions who align with the Live and Let Live Movement can reduce the extent of aggressing to a greater degree than if individuals who do not adopt the Legal Principle remain with political influence. Importantly, the top-down direction facilitates ground up initiatives by increasing the scope within which the Legal Principle may be implemented outside of existing aggressing models of human interaction. As such, individuals seeking to introduce the Legal Principle in the top-down directions through existing political institutions, are to be encouraged despite the aggressing nature of such institutions.

6.3. Resolving Disputes

A key component of adopting the Legal Principle in any structure is the mode of dispute resolution. Fair and just arbitration requires a transparent and consistent application of the Legal Principle to resolve disputes. This includes disputes between individuals, or between collectives with delegated authority from individuals.

The pillar of Change does not necessarily mean replacing the elements in current legal frameworks which are effective in safeguarding self-sovereignty. The administration of law can be more secure from potential breaches of the Legal Principle than can the substance of the law. In other words, what a law says is a separate matter from how that law is enforced.

Legal disputes are an inevitable aspect of enforcement, which highlights the importance of a consistent legal procedure. Lawfare, for instance, a term referring to the use of legal frameworks and legal procedure for motives other than for effecting justice, is a breach of the Legal Principle. The ill-administration of law more generally is also a form of aggressing. Violating an individual’s self-ownership before a determination is made as to whether that individual has aggressed negates self-sovereignty. Compromising due process, therefore, is a form of aggressing. Accordingly, the Legal Principle must not only be integrated into the substance of the law but also into the administration of the law.

7. Towards Peace: The Moral Principle

7.1. Standards under Law and under Morality

Through the Legal Principle, the Live and Let Live Movement holds the standard for law as universal. The same is not so for any particular standard of morality. Imposing one’s subjective moral standards upon another without consent denies the exclusive control of that other person’s body. In any case, integrating moral standards in legal frameworks is a common function of politics and is one way politics institutionalizes aggressing. This is also a reason why many individuals tolerate aggressing models of human interaction–they are incentivized to see their own morals represented in legal frameworks or through other political action.

Networks and communities where respecting self-sovereignty is widespread can motivate people to adhere to certain moral standards without aggressing. Two examples are private law and social custom, neither of which, in fact, at all depend on political institutions to maintain a moral framework within a society.

When the law conflates moral standards as mandatory rules, it provides a direct route to the denial of self-ownership. Individuals in such a situation become subject to aggressing, which is inconsistent with the Legal Principle and, thus, is contrary to freedom and peace. Ensuring no morals enter the law is a key feature of the Legal Principle. From the freedom enabled in a society through the Legal Principle, there remains a need for people to identify with, aspire to and follow certain moral standards. When such moral standards are kept outside of the law, they enable a free society to move towards peace. Accordingly, achieving peace requires a voluntarily-adopted standard of morals.

7.2. A Fair Place for Morality

The omission of moral standards from the Legal Principle is what supports a free model of human interaction. However, freedom is not synonymous with peace. Freedom results from a mandatory and negative legal obligation to not aggress. Peace requires using this freedom to engage in proactive and voluntary efforts to interact with others in a civil, if not supporting, manner. A universal peace, therefore, requires a universal state of freedom. However, even if a person agrees with the merits of the Legal Principle, incentives persist pressuring individuals to prefer others to follow their values. These are two reasons why the Live and Let Live Movement concerns a second complementary and option principle alongside the Legal Principle. This is the Moral Principle of striving for excellence. More fundamentally, the Live and Let Live’s Moral Principle is to aspire to be a decent individual of genuine civility.

Along the strategic pillars of Awareness, Belonging and Change, the Live and Let Live Movement encourages individuals to be tolerant, at least to an appropriate extent, as well as kind, reasonable and honest. This is not because behaving in such manners should be a legal requirement, but because demonstrating these qualities is a civil way to engage with other people. Practicing civility within an environment of self-sovereignty is a direct path to peace.

7.3. Incentives to Keep Morals Outside of Politics

The Live and Let Live Movement incentivizes individuals to value freedom and peace to a greater degree than valuing imposing of one’s own morals on others. These incentives, in part, derive from the ability to punish individuals practicing subjectively immoral behaviors by means other than through political institutions.

For instance, social ostracization by refusing to voluntarily associate with individuals who are intolerant, unkind, unreasonable, or dishonest can not only be more effective than a legal punishment, but actually incentivizes those uncivil individuals to change their behavior. In such circumstances, incentives work from both ends–those wanting to influence the behavior of others and those who want to engage with specific people or in particular environments.

Moreover, applying the Moral Principle can facilitate the resolution of disputes concerning the interpretation or adjudication of the Legal Principle. Engaging with others through civility facilitates discourse and increases the likelihood of resolving disagreements. It simultaneously decreases the likelihood of those engaged in a disagreement resorting to aggressing, even if only one of the parties in a dispute is practicing civility.

8. Benefits and Opportunities

8.1. Resolving Power Imbalances

Critics of the Live and Let Live Movement will point to the imbalances in power structures which arise in the absence of a society controlled by politics. However, such imbalances are actually enabled by politics. Furthermore, aggressive models increase the resilience against attempts to resolve such imbalances.

In a free society, by contrast, where the law consistently prohibits aggressing, the margin for disparities in bargaining power is narrowed. An even playing field where no individual is given special treatment at the expense of others, or where no one is suffering disadvantage through aggressing models of human interaction, is what affords all individuals the opportunity to fairly improve their bargaining power.

The alternative is to rely on institutionalised aggressing, which is currently the most widely practiced and accepted option. This means political actors, as well as non-political actors who are connected with, or who are direct beneficiaries of, political institutions maintain unfair bargaining power.

8.2. Addressing Localized Issues

One means of encouraging the critics or skeptics of the practicality and benefits of self-sovereignty is to emphasize how, in a variety of forms, the absence of aggressing actually serves the interests of individuals in, or who are concerned with, adverse circumstances better than aggressing models do. Adopters of the Legal Principle are encouraged to engage in projects and illustrate case studies which address issues of social priority. Such issues may include, but by no means are limited to, social welfare and the alleviation of poverty, child protection, reducing armed conflict, public safety, overcoming forced segregation and discrimination, addressing drug and alcohol addiction, access to healthcare, access to education, combatting domestic violence and criminal enterprise, animal welfare, environmental protection, and security, policing and safeguarding against the risks of invasion.

Such subjects represent one of two categories of social priorities referred to as “localized issues.” Although prevalent and persistent in different parts of the world, localized issues are direct. They cause immediate adversity or concern in an individual’s life.

8.3. Addressing Existential Issues

The second category of social priorities in which people observe a real risk of the annihilation of humanity are “existential issues”. Existential issues include, for example, weapons of mass destruction, cataclysmic events, nano technology, Kessler syndrome, artificial general intelligence, and global warming.

Regardless of the veracity or proximity of the threats associated with such fields, many hold those in concern. If the individuals who are concerned with existential issues approach them in a way consistent with the Legal Principle, not only will the risks of those issues be reduced, but showcasing the risk reduction will inspire others to understand and respect the Legal Principle. This contributes to the strategy of achieving a critical mass of hearts and minds aligned with the Live and Let Live Movement.

Early adopters of the Live and Let Live Movement with expertise in existential issues will greatly assist in demonstrating how freedom, and the Legal Principle in particular, increases transparency. For example, adopters of the Legal Principle move resources away from the concentration of power under aggressing models, which otherwise increases the risk of such threats.

9. Passing the Hurdles to Freedom

9.1. Disagreements on the Interpretation of the Legal Principle

Because moral standards differ between people, disagreements are inevitable in human interaction. This is so even among those who comply with and seek to apply the Legal Principle. The challenge lies in how people engage with one another when reasonable minds disagree on the application of the Legal Principle in specific situations, particularly when an individual’s moral standards are concerned.

The Legal Principle establishes a common starting point from which disagreeing parties may come to a meeting of minds. This ensures the goal of each party is aligned with one another, that being to safeguard self-sovereignty. From this starting point, reasonable people disagreeing on which acts constitute aggressing can determine what is acceptable in certain situations. This is more clearly evident in matters falling on a continuum or spectrum, that is, questioning not what act itself is aggressing, but in which circumstances that act is aggressing. The Legal Principle ensures every person lives with at least a minimum standard of reasonableness, that being to preserve self-sovereignty and, in turn, prevent all forms of aggressing. This allows distinct networks and local communities to resolve disagreements on when the Legal Principle applies in specific matters on continuum. Applying the Legal Principle in this manner offers an objective starting point to determine when a form of aggressing has occurred.

Ground-up initiatives reduce the likelihood of such disagreements due to those approaches being largely enabled through law established by voluntary association. Yet, even in a public law setting, complying with the Legal Principle as a starting point necessarily means reasonable-minded people who disagree on its interpretation will avoid theft or bodily violence when attempting to resolve such disputes. In this sense, the Legal Principle avoids further instances of aggressing when an alleged aggression has occurred. This itself is relatively positive compared to outcomes resulting from models of institutionalized aggressing.

9.2. Opposition to Freedom and Peace

Individuals who wield influence and obtain benefit because of aggressing political institutions have strong incentives to reject the Legal Principle. This includes all people involved in the development and administration of aggressing legal frameworks and those who gain advantage through such legal frameworks. While approaches from the top-down direction implement the Legal Principle in political institutions, the incentive to aggress in those institutions will remain. As such, the Legal Principle is unlikely to be adopted by the influencers and direct beneficiaries of aggressing political institutions.

Approaching this uphill journey involves inspiring a critical mass of individuals who follow the principles of the Live and Let Live Movement. An increase in the number of adopters of the two principles challenges the incentives for political actors to aggress and for political beneficiaries to support aggressing. Aiming for a critical mass of individuals who agree with and live by the Legal Principle is facilitated by the strategic pillars of Awareness and Belonging. The former concerns campaigns such as demonstrating how localized issues are not only solved by free models of human interaction but are caused and made worse by aggressing models. This involves framing the Legal Principle as a common-sense and practical solution to the challenges different people face in their lives.

From here the pillar of Belonging becomes vital. Fostering ever-increasing networks and communities of individuals who have adopted the Legal Principle, in turn, spawns an increasing interdependence on one another for matters presently monopolised by aggressive models. The greater the voluntary interdependence between individuals adopting the Legal Principle, the less dependency there is on aggressing political institutions. This has the added benefit of the less resources being transferred to political institutions. All this reduces the incentives for aggressing models of human interaction.

9.3. Transition Considerations

The Live and Let Live Movement rejects the use of a violent revolution as a means to arrive at freedom. Instead, the Live and Let Live Movement favors a thought revolution and peaceful change. While a justification for revolution may be arguable against those who aggress, violent revolution in response risks grave consequences contrary to the Legal Principle. Furthermore, a revolution is directly opposed to peace, even if it is successful in achieving freedom. This illustrates the purpose of the three strategic pillars of Awareness, Belonging and Change, whereby a decentralised network of individuals voluntarily adopting the principles of the Live and Let Live Movement gradually supersedes the relevance of aggressive models.

A core challenge facing the Movement is the majority of individuals on Earth are, in one way or in several, integrally entangled with aggressive models of human interaction. This also happens to be the model many people consider as the most practical among alternatives. Still, the many people seeking to live in alignment with the Live and Let Live Movement will be, at present, limited if intending to opt out of the aggressive models under which they live. The ground-up and top-down directions promoted by the Live and Let Live Movement address this obstacle, albeit gradually, by showcasing the models which safeguard self-sovereignty and reduce the incentives for aggressing in existing public law frameworks. Acknowledging that complete freedom in the near-term may not be achievable for some people should not deter self-respecting individuals from adopting the two principles. By adopting the two principles of the Live and Let Live Movement, individuals will advance their own interests while simultaneously contributing to the freedom of those around them and reducing the limitations of generations to come.

Beyond the near-term, the effectiveness of voluntary non-aggressing interactions becomes increasingly beneficial to a greater number of individuals. These benefits create an incentive for people to find solutions for adopting the two principles of the Live and Let Live Movement in a more comprehensive fashion and to opt-out of aggressive models, even if in piecemeal fashion. This is how the aggressing elements of political institutions are minimized. The benefit from complying with the Legal Principle along the three strategic pillars and from the ground-up and top-down approaches will place aggressive models in competition with free models.

10. Concluding Remarks

By distinguishing freedom from peace and morality from legality, the Live and Let Live Movement sets the parameters for a realistic avenue to achieve universal peace. Aggressing is to negate self-sovereignty. The Live and Let Live Movement reduces the incentive to aggress in human interaction through its strategic pillars of Awareness, Belonging and Change. These pillars support two directions for increasing the protection of self-sovereignty in individuals’ lives. Approaches from the ground-up direction foster voluntary associations between people, benefiting individuals and resolving localized issues of social priority. Approaches from the top-down direction assist in reducing the extent of aggressing currently enabled in political institutions which, among other benefits, reduces the threats posed by existential issues.

The initial adopters of the Legal Principle and the Moral Principle contribute to a proof of concept of the Live and Let Live Movement’s viability as a peace initiative. They also enable others to embrace freedom and to strive for peace. Whether through their own projects or by directly, or inadvertently, advancing one or more of the three strategic pillars, adopters of the two principles demonstrate the practical benefits of a life free from aggressing and a life of civility. In this way, others become incentivized to reject models of aggressing human interaction. Instead of imposing one’s values on others, people are inspired to voluntarily be compassionate.

A state of freedom provides a platform from which universal peace may emerge. The mechanism to reach this platform relies on recognizing that morals, while outside of public legal frameworks, are imperative for peace. Adhering to the Legal Principle to not aggress will not always result in an ideal outcome. Yet, it is a basis for a model which is more just than the current models of aggressing presently accepted by most individuals. A seemingly endless struggle to impose subjective moral standards upon others using political institutions is not a path to freedom. Those who are victorious after such struggles must then resist the incentives to aggress inherent within those institutions. Moreover, individuals living under the influence of aggressing institutions are incentivized to impose their moral standards upon others. An alternative is to reduce those incentives through voluntary association where moral standards enforced outside of legal frameworks prove to increase individual well-being. It is this alternative which is aligned with the Live and Let Live Movement’s path to universal peace.

Glossary

4 March 2026