Why letting local communities decide is essential for peace

While reasonable minds agree on much, objectively correct answers for how to peacefully co-exist are not always available. This should not deter us, just as well-intentioned 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 solution should be to let the local community choose how their reasonable interpretation of the Legal Principle should be implemented in the law, rules and regulations.

Benefits

Letting local communities decide is the peaceful option - it 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.

Costs

The main friction in this solution is the transaction cost of 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.

Letting local communities decide vs the alternatives

The alternative to letting local communities decide is that society would trend towards the strongest subjecting the weakest to their dictated interpretations. How ironic it would be to fight one another over fringe applications of a peace philosophy?

The peaceful alternative to using force is to use persuasion; to allow those who disagree with us to commune peacefully whilst we focus on living by the example we seek to proliferate.

When we force those who reasonably disagree to comply with our interpretations, we set the precedent for others to force their views on us, leading to conflict either way.

Determining ‘reasonableness’

The standard of reasonableness is subjective, so the ‘reasonable person standard’ must be determined by the local community. Determining what is reasonable is fundamental to the law of self-defence and the law of negligence. Without a community and justice system to determine reasonableness, conflict would inevitably ensue, as each defendant would adopt their own definition and effectively be the judge in their own case.

Conclusion

A diverse, free, and peaceful world can tolerate reasonable differences of opinion on complex issues. Why choose to ‘be right and fight’, when there is a peaceful alternative: ‘live and let live’?!