Some Areas Addressed in Applying the 3L Legal Principle:
It is important to note that the proper 3LP analysis has no connection or relevance to any person’s personal opinions or preferences. A discussion about personal views is an entirely different discussion. For example, we can certainly respect the rights of competent adults to choose for themselves whether to eat ice cream. Whether we opt to eat ice cream is entirely irrelevant. If we do opt to eat ice cream, what flavor we fancy is also irrelevant. Our position on whether people ought to eat ice cream is also totally unrelated to a discussion about how we apply the 3LP. How any other person, or even a hypothetical reasonable person, opts to live their life is not relevant to a discussion about applying the 3LP. Exploring the 3L Philosophy, we should always be mindful of keeping these discussions separate.
We have an increasingly severe problem with social and news media outlets. It seems there are few, if any, news sources that are committed to presenting facts unbiasedly. Social media organizations have become shockingly better able to bombard us with skewed versions of the news they conclude we are predisposed to believe already. If you utilize social media, you probably live in an echo chamber of voices agreeing with your current constructions of facts. As a result, large groups have significant disagreements about basic facts on many issues.
Given that we do not usually have personal knowledge of the relevant facts for a given issue, this is a growing problem unnecessarily causing discord and chaos in our world. Others can now easily manipulate what we believe factually about the world. We should always remain aware of this issue. Because of this reality, we should each allow for the possibility that the facts underlying many questions may differ from what we currently believe. We should generally be more-humble when we assert our beliefs about important facts underlying issues we discuss.
Agreeing to legally prohibit individuals from violating the 3L Legal Principle but then allowing them to simply form groups, organizations, corporations, or governments to legally violate the 3L Legal Principle would defeat the entire project of advocating for a free and peaceful world. It would be the most explicit example of allowing the exception to swallow the rule entirely. Indeed, this closely resembles the legal situation we have today. While we legally prohibit individuals from violating the 3L Legal Principle, people whom the most prominent group employs, we refer to as “government,” are routinely legally permitted to disregard it for countless reasons. We can never achieve freedom and peace unless we oppose all violations of the 3L Legal Principle regardless of who is violating it, even if the government employs the person violating it.
What matters is not whether a person is also a member of some group, organization, corporation, or government, but whether the person or the collective group of people is aggressing against another. Exploring the 3L Philosophy, there are no distinctions between the individual and group or government, the same rule applies.
Competent adults should be free to believe and do whatever they want so long as they do not violate the 3L Legal Principle. That what they believe falls into the category of religion is irrelevant. The entire issue of separation of church and state becomes mostly irrelevant if we simply adhere to the 3L Legal Principle. Many people champion a strong separation of church and state because they either fear the state will forcefully impose religious mandates on those who reject those mandates or fear the state will forcefully prevent religious people from peacefully practicing their particular religion. Simply adhering to the 3L Legal Principle resolves both reasonable concerns.
As with all other issues, whether one likes or dislikes firearms and other weapons and whether one opts to possess or refuses to possess them is irrelevant to the question of what laws are proper. We get the appropriate answer if we fairly, reasonably, and honestly determine whether someone is violating the 3L Legal Principle. Stated simply, if a person, even a person possessing a firearm, is not violating the 3L Legal Principle, that person should be left alone. We are not addressing moral questions with this analysis. As usual, the relevant initial inquiry is always whether someone is violating the 3L Legal Principle.
War is the absolute worst expression of humanity. Given our technology today, almost any war can result in the mass murder of innocent people. While there may exist arguments to mitigate punishment in certain cases, any harm to any innocent person is always unjustified and deserving of legal consequences for the aggressor. We must urgently coalesce around a firm commitment to avoid all wars. The best way to accomplish this goal is to convince the reasonable people of the world to accept and live in accordance with the 3LP. War cannot occur without someone or some government resorting to the initiation of aggression. We should always employ reason and conversation as our best tools to avoid all physical disputes.
Our world is replete with endless mandatory regulations. Indeed, no person can be familiar with the countless compulsory regulations that apply to our daily lives. As such, it is easy to become anti-regulation generally. However, not all mandatory regulations are created equal. Regulations that are both in harmony with the 3L Legal Principle, and are necessary to prevent the 3L Legal Principle from being violated, are indispensable to a free and peaceful society and world.
There should be no doubt that a free society and world needs the services of police officers, courts, and national defense. It is fair to assume that, despite our best efforts, the world will always include aggressors. While we suspect most people will agree with them upon learning about and fully understanding the concepts underpinning the 3LP, some will not. While some of them can learn from their mistakes and conform their future conduct to the requirements of the 3L Legal Principle, it would be naïve to believe this will ever be the case with everyone. Exploring the 3L Philosophy, we will always live among aggressors, and we need to be prepared to determine who is an aggressor and to deal with them appropriately.
Competent adults are free to spend their money on any charitable or noncharitable purpose they choose. They should also be free not to spend any money at all. Many people already voluntarily spend their money to help others. While voluntary kindness is an essential ethical aspirational value in a civilized and virtuous society, forced kindness is not. We should strongly encourage and highly value voluntary kindness towards those less fortunate than ourselves.
As standards of living rise and people become wealthier, we should expect more people to voluntarily spend their money on those less fortunate. There are many opportunities to willingly help those less fortunate. The 3LM strongly encourages people to spend some of their money on charitable causes voluntarily. We acknowledge your right to live your life however you please so long as you do not violate the 3L Legal Principle.
It is safe to say we are not yet aware of all issues that could arise. However, we can reliably predict future issues will appear that will cause people to disagree. While we cannot intelligently discuss many aspects of that yet unknown issue, we can now say some things about that issue. If any person or group violates the 3L Legal Principle, we are against it and support immediately terminating the conduct. We would further conclude with certainty that yet unknown conduct should be illegal. On the other hand, if no person or group violates the 3L Legal Principle, we can now conclude that yet unknown conduct ought to be legal.
We can also further conclude now that, even if we determine the yet unknown conduct should be legal, if it violates the 3L Moral Principle, we would strongly advise against it even as we strongly support its legality. Even if the yet unknown conduct does not violate the 3L Moral Principle, we may strongly advise against it nonetheless because the behavior may violate another higher moral value we hold on any other conceivable basis we choose. We expressly reserve the right to peacefully advocate against any conduct we choose, on any basis we prefer, even if we strongly support the legality of that conduct because there is no violation of the 3L Legal Principle.