Overview

• It is tempting to wish that there were a ‘right’ answer for everything. Unfortunately, there are many aspects of the fair implementation of the Legal Principle, or any legal system, on which reasonable people, equally committed to the LP in good faith, disagree. Many such “grey areas” relate to continuums, such as the proper age at which a child becomes a competent adult.
• There are two responses to this reality: either determine the answer by force (fight; ‘might makes right’), or peacefully allow local communities to decide on their preferred reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle. The 3L Movement is oriented towards global peace, so it naturally adopts the latter.
• Most of these issues have a deep legal history (common law) we can draw from as a guide. The heavy lifting has been done, so we do not need to reinvent the wheel.

Grey Areas - Where Reasonable Minds Disagree

Concepts

• Reasonableness
  • Reasonable minds equally committed to implementing the LP in good faith sometimes disagree on how to do so. As such, there can be more than one reasonable interpretation of the LP. 3L recognizes this reality and therefore strives to establish at least a reasonable interpretation of the LP everywhere. This is contrasted with an effort to identify and establish the “one true interpretation” or even your preferred interpretation of the LP everywhere. Such efforts would only lead to endless conflict.
  • The larger community, through its court system, must determine via its proven 3L judges and justices what constitutes the outer edges of a reasonable construction of the LP. There may be many reasonable options within this framework. Rather than force a one-size-fits-all interpretation of the LP everywhere, each local community must select which reasonable interpretation, rule, or law applies in its local community. Unreasonable interpretations of the LP must never be permitted, as these would lead to aggressing against others.
  • Determining the local community’s standards of reasonableness is fundamental to the law of self-defense (i.e., what constitutes ‘excessive force’), the law of negligence, as well as many other areas in the law. With each case that the community and jury work through, the overall definition of reasonableness can evolve. Without a community standard and justice system to determine reasonableness, conflict, vigilante justice, or injustice would inevitably ensue, as each defendant would adopt their own definition and effectively be the judge in their own case. The law should never allow a person to sit as a judge in their own case.
    • When construing what is a “reasonable” interpretation of the Legal Principle, we ought to weigh heavily the longstanding cultural norms of a particular local community and their reasoned judgment. While those cultural norms are not without limits, conclusions and determinations aligning closely with the 16-21 age range to achieve competent adult status should all be considered reasonable. A final decision on what is “reasonable” must ultimately be left to the highest court of competent jurisdiction to resolve by not imposing its personal preferences, but instead carefully balancing notions of genuine competency, such as informed, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent consent, against the strong interest in fostering a free and peaceful society.
• Substantial Risk
  • There are many potentially risky activities, and the local community must determine where the threshold for aggression begins to create regulations accordingly. For example, what degree of impairment (from mind-altering substances, etc) creates a substantial risk for someone operating a car or heavy machinery? Another example of a substantial risk that would require some degree of regulation is the transportation of dangerous substances—defining what constitutes ‘dangerous’ and determining what proximity to residential areas would be deemed too close.
• Threats
  • Exactly what constitutes ‘substantial’ and ‘imminent’ is also subjective. These definitions can be informed by the vast records of historic case law and refined by new cases over time.
• “Force”, “Fraud”, and “Coercion”
  • Complex interpretation issues arise in determining precisely what acts fall within the outer contours of the words “force,” “fraud,” or “coercion.” Just as common law has helped define such terms throughout history, case laws will continue to determine these outer contours over time.
    • For example, where exactly does one draw the line between a valid investment contract, consented to by competent adults, and a fraud perpetrated by malevolent actors to prey on older people?
• Competent adult
  • Exactly what constitutes ‘the age of maturity’, ‘being of sound mind’, and ‘not subject to coercion, fraud, or duress’ is for the local community to define clearly. This is not a trivial question.
  • These questions also relate to fiduciary duty. Specifically:
    • When does the responsibility of caregiving end?
    • What exactly is required before it ends?
    • What happens after it ends?

Topics

• Age of Consent
  • Reasonable people disagree about what age constitutes informed and voluntary consent. The local community must determine this from within a reasonable range.
  • The age below which a minor’s request for gender reassignment surgery must always be rejected as unreasonable must also be decided.
• Abortion
  • Reasonable people disagree about when rights begin for the unborn. If a community reasonably determines rights begin at conception, that’s compatible with the Legal Principle, but other communities might determine that the unborn is not entitled to the protection of the LP until it becomes further developed. As reasonable minds disagree on this issue, local communities must make these determinations. This is a clear example of when imposing a one-size-fits-all law will not ever reach a peaceful conclusion. All people should remain free to peacefully lobby a local community to adopt their preferred interpretation.
• Psychological harm, including cults
  • Whether extreme forms of psychological manipulation, used with the intent to deprive a victim of agency and property, amount to coercion is an area where reasonable minds can disagree. Threats of physical force are always a breach.
• Weapons - safe firearm ownership
  • Competent adults who do not pose any substantial risks to others are free to do whatever they prefer, even if what they choose to do involves a firearm. However, determining when convicted violent felons, mentally incompetent, or technically incompetent people pose substantial risks to others is an issue that must be reasonably determined. So long as these issues are fairly resolved to implement the LP and not just as a ruse to impose the personal preferences of others, local communities should make these decisions within a 3L-approved framework. Rules involving firearms are no different than the rules that apply to any other item. No person should be legally allowed to present a substantial risk or threat of harm to another person or property, whether with a firearm, a vehicle, or any other item.
• International borders
  • Precisely what constitutes sufficient evidence of a reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to deny entry to a person possibly intending to aggress at an international border is something that must be decided. We can say the same about what hearings are required to challenge such determinations, the burdens of proof applicable at those hearings, and the relevant appellate procedures involved.
• Animal rights
  • The extent to which cruelty to animals, and which animals, may be legally prohibited is a matter for local communities to decide.

Legal considerations