Overview

• The 3L Philosophy deliberately provides the minimum necessary conditions for peace on Earth, so that all reasonable people find common ground in this urgently needed framework for coexistence.
• How free societies effectively implement the Legal Principle is something each community can determine. We cannot deduce all legal rules from an armchair using principles alone - grey areas are inevitable. We do not need to let pursuit of perfection stand in the way of huge progress.
• The 3L Philosophy does not prescribe all the answers, neither who answers them nor how their conclusions are reached.
• Local communities may even choose not to adopt any law when reasonable minds disagree on a complex interpretation question, opting instead for arbitration or another method of dispute resolution. Local communities should be free to experiment - we cannot predict how bright and creative people committed to the 3L Philosophy can resolve challenging interpretation issues.

Why letting local communities decide is essential for peace

• While reasonable minds agree on the core 3L Philosophy, objectively correct answers for how to implement it for optimal peaceful coexistence are not always available.
• This should not deter us, just as loving and caring parents should not be deterred by the lack of objectively correct formula to raise good kids.
• There are many scenarios in which reasonable minds disagree on how best to apply the Legal Principle, even between those equally committed to it in good faith. Rather than fight over these disagreements, the peaceful solution is to let the local community choose how their reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle should be implemented in the law, rules and regulations.
• If a person does not agree with their local community’s reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle, they are free to form their own community or move to another community that more closely aligns with their values. This is an imperfect solution - there is no perfect solution.

Benefits

• All people would be afforded at least a reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle (even if their preferred interpretation is slightly different).
• Letting local communities decide allows for experiential learning about which reasonable interpretations lead to the highest vitality communities.
  • Society will naturally converge on those interpretations that work best, whilst allowing minorities to interpret differently.
  • Local communities should compete to attract productive people who desire to live in a free community. This will lead to the communities naturally adopting the best interpretations over time.
• Conflicts between small groups is better than conflict between large groups; there is less chaos and potential harm for everyone else.
• For those who disagree with the local rules, it is a lower cost to move to a different local community than to move country entirely.

Costs

• The main friction in this solution is the transaction cost of physically moving to, or doing business with, a different local community that better aligns with your interpretation of the Legal Principle.
• Seceding from a larger community to form a smaller one would increase the individual cost burden or funding a functioning legal system, which that community is likely to want to pay for to resolve any local disputes that may arise.