Local Community Courts
- Local communities will retain control of implementing the Legal Principle within the strict bounds of ‘reasonableness’. 3L defines an uncontroversially minimalist vision of what a legal system based on first principles looks like. Specifically, the first principle is: that no-one wants to be involuntarily aggressed against, so outlawing aggression is easily agreed upon by all cultures. By minimising the law into its essential elements, we minimise the potential for conflict and maximise the potential for human flourishing. The Moral Principle emphasises tolerance, but 3L is intolerant of non-adherence to the Legal Principle, without exception. It is irrelevant why you do or do not agree with the principle of not aggressing against one another. Local Courts will naturally be needed to resolve local conflicts, and they should adopt the narrowest range of interpreting the concept of ‘reasonable’ application of the Legal Principle.
Federal Courts
- From these minimalist essentials, it is clear that some subjectivity inevitably remains. Specially, reasonable minds that are committed to the essence of the Legal Principle will still disagree on specific details of its application - this is a feature, not a bug, for 3L. For fringe, grey-area cases, a higher court must be available for local courts to appeal to. This ‘Federal Court’ must adopt a less strict interpretation of the concept of ‘reasonableness’, such that there is not a creep towards centralisation of power at the expense of the freedom of people in local communities.
International Courts
- International 3L courts will serve multiple functions, including acting as a court of appeal for grey-area disputes at the Federal Court level, providing impartial yet unenforceable opinions as to whether the Legal Principle has been egregiously breached in any particular country or community, and resolving disputes between 3L societies that have entered into voluntary international agreements.
- These international courts must have the broadest interpretation of ‘reasonable’ application of the Legal Principle. Just as for Federal Courts, this imperative for the least strict interpretation at the international level is essential to avoid the tendency for control to be centralised at the expense of individual people in local communities.
- As more and more communities recognise the benefits of adopting the 3L Principles, the need for international courts will increase. In particular, this will be important for allowing free trade and maintaining geopolitical peace. When there are disputes between these international communities, an International Court will be required to resolve disputes in accordance with the terms of these voluntarily treaties.
graph TD
%%Colours%%
classDef blue fill:blue, stroke:#000,stroke-width:2px,color:#fff
Local(Local Courts: strictest <br>interpretation of <br>'reasonableness') --> Federal(Federal Courts: less strict <br>inteprretation)
Federal --> International(International Court: least <br>strict intepretation, for only <br>the most obvious and <br>eggregious breaches of the <br>Legal Principle)