Answers to common objections against the 3L Philosophy

• Limited imagination: “What would happen next?”
• Stubbornness: “When should someone be legally permitted to aggress against a peaceful person?”
• Making exceptions for governments (or other groups): “If individuals can’t aggress, where does the government get legitimacy to do so?”
• Fringe cases that challenge the Legal Principle?: “What possible scenario would justify aggressing if it undermined the integrity of a system that would bring peace to earth?”
• **Complex, unforeseen issues: “**Wouldn’t we teach a child to always find an alternative to aggressing?”
• Interpretation problems: “Do you prefer letting the local community decide, or continuing the endless cycle of law-fare?”
• Caution of utopias: “3L is not perfect, merely the best available”
• Imposing good moral views on others (for ‘equality’): “There is an infinite supply of worthy causes - does that justify infinite aggressing?”
• Disagreement with concept of ‘property’: “Do you own yourself? If not do you mind others controlling your body?”
• The Social Contract: “Did you sign your social contract? Can you opt out? Wouldn’t 3L be a better social contract?”
• There are other paths to peace: “How can we achieve peace while aggressing is legal?”
• The status quo is fine: “Why would we ever want to imprison someone for a victimless crime?”
• Maybe you are unreasonable: “Would you want to be aggressed against?”