Overview

• Many rules that are required for peaceful coexistence within a community have a range of what would be deemed a reasonable and fair implementation of the Legal Principle on a particular topic. This is an expected and manageable challenge for any free community.
• Rather than ‘reinvent the wheel’ on many of these legal issues, we can simply import the existing legal frameworks which have been developed over hundreds of years of common law by thoughtful judges and juries. As you read the topics below, you’ll realise that much of the heavy lifting has already been done for us. Many of these rules relate to tort law, property law and contract law, all of which are already generally well aligned with the Legal Principle in most jurisdictions where the rule of law is respected, like the USA or UK.
• There is no reason to be daunted by the need to create these local rules. Once communities are free to start implementing and experimenting with their own reasonable interpretations of the Legal Principle, it will be clear which interpretations maximum the quality of life for inhabitants. These community’s rules can then be copied by others.

Areas requiring local community rules and considerations

As well as defining local interpretations for the inevitable grey areas, local communities will need to implement additional rules, including:

• Driving Rules
  • Reasonable people may disagree about traffic conventions such as which side of the road to drive on. The local community must adopt a consistent and reasonable standard.
• Licensing for Dangerous Activities
  • Local communities may reasonably require a person to demonstrate competence before engaging in conduct that could cause substantial harm to others—like driving or using dangerous tools.
• Environmental Regulations
  • Smoke, loud noises, and pollution can all be considered forms of aggression if they cross a threshold of substantial interference. Communities can reasonably set de-minimus thresholds that allow minor breaches.
• Zoning Laws
  • Reasonable people may disagree about how land use impacts others. It’s reasonable to restrict certain types of activity in certain locations, as long as such rules are not arbitrarily discriminatory and are based on preventing substantial interference with others. The local community must determine fair restrictions within a reasonable framework of peaceful coexistence.
• Location-Based Gun Restrictions
  • Reasonable people may disagree about where it is appropriate to restrict firearms for safety. The local community must decide such limits within a reasonable interpretation of the right to self-defense. For example, it is reasonable to prohibit firearms in courtrooms or private businesses… as long as such policies do not amount to a general denial of self-defense.
• Public Drug Use
  • While the Legal Principle protects your right to ingest any substance, it does not protect your right to endanger or disturb others while doing so. A community can reasonably restrict use in public places
• Voluntary Prostitution
  • If a person voluntarily exchanges sex for compensation with another consenting adult, this is not aggressing. However, communities may regulate where or how this occurs to prevent harm to third parties.
• Public Nudity and Sexual Expression
  • We must recognise that reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes public decency, so communities should be free to establish their own reasonable standards.
• Assisted Suicide
  • Reasonable people may disagree about whether and when a person may end their own life with assistance. The local community must determine boundaries within a reasonable ethical and legal framework.
• Appropriate Punishment
  • Punishment for breaches of the Legal Principle must not exceed what is proportionate to the crime. However, exactly how criminals are punished is open to different interpretations, and something local communities must decide.
• Statutory limitations
  • The age of a legal claim to remain valid is something local communities might choose to determine. Statutes of limitations are often employed because of the inherent unreliability or unavailability of evidence to support or refute a claim.

Disputes and neighbouring communities