Overview

• War is the absolute worst expression of humanity. Given our technology today, any war is likely to result in the mass murder of innocent people.
• We must urgently coalesce around a firm commitment to avoid all wars. The best way to accomplish this goal is to convince the reasonable people of the world to accept and live by the 3L Philosophy, the world’s only real peace movement.
  • War cannot occur without someone or some government resorting to aggressing. We should always employ reason and conversation as our best tools to avoid all physical conflict.
• However, we should expect some people to initiate nonconsensual physical force, and prepare accordingly. We should not be shocked when people of low character aggress.

Applying the Legal Principle

War in self-defense

• The existence of aggressors is an unfortunate reality of the world. Adherence to the 3L Philosophy does not require pacifism, but using force should always be a last resort, strictly proportional, and intentionally directed carefully at legitimate targets only, in accordance with ordinary principles of self-defense. Self-defense is only justified in response to another’s substantial and imminent threat of or actual initiation of non-consensual physical force.

War of aggression

• Initiating nonconsensual physical force against a person, group, organization, corporation, or government that has not violated the Legal Principle is never permissible.

Weapons of mass destruction

• It is never acceptable to use more force than reasonably necessary to repel another’s aggression, as that would violate the Legal Principle. As such, it is hard to imagine a justified use of a weapon of mass destruction. By their very nature, such weapons always initiate nonconsensual physical force against innocent people when used virtually anywhere on Earth.
• The reasonable people of the world should immediately insist that all governments urgently find ways to negotiate and enter into reasonable, enforceable, and verifiable agreements requiring all countries to reduce and quickly abolish most or all weapons of mass destruction. The very existence of humanity should never depend on the reasonableness of any person’s judgment, nor should it hinge on the perpetual avoidance of a single horrible accident.

Government defense

• The self-defense analysis at the governmental level is identical to that at the individual level.
• There is never a legal justification to use force against innocent citizens merely living under the rule of a hostile government threatening or initiating force.
• However, there may be a proper occasion for a strictly limited and targeted defensive use of force against individuals controlling the mechanisms of a hostile government violating the Legal Principle or any of its instrumentalities.
• Questions about national defense and defending free societies are often complex and especially fact-intensive.

Innocent victims

• Any harm to an innocent person is always unjustified and deserving of legal consequences for the aggressor. Those consequences should be calibrated to whether the harm to innocents was intentional, reckless, or negligent. Even in a justified war (i.e., defending against an invasion), innocent civilian casualties may be inevitable and unavoidable, but justified combatants should do everything reasonably possible to avoid harm to innocent people. This is why some level of economic restitution may be required even after successfully defending themselves in a justified war, while reasonably doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.

Applying the Aspirational Values

• We should always employ high character, open-mindedness, tolerance, civility, and reason in our best efforts to avoid physical force while also being cognizant that force is sometimes necessary to repel determined aggressors.

How would 3L resolve the world’s active conflicts?

• No one has a perfect solution: 3L must be compared with the status quo. If the status quo is currently failing to peacefully resolve a conflict, the fact that 3L cannot wave a magic wand to make it all better does not undermine the case for adopting 3L.
  • Like any long-running conflict where both parties vehemently disagree on the facts, it is challenging to apply the lens of the Legal Principle to ascertain without doubt who the first aggressor was, and therefore how to implement a peace plan.
• If people in the conflict area want to live in peace, they should first recognize that peace requires two things: the absence of aggressing and the presence of kindness.
• So let’s start by outlawing all forms of aggressing.
• Then let’s adopt the Aspirational Values.
• Once both sides have aligned all local laws with non-aggressing (probably involving major governmental reform) and are voluntarily civil, tolerant, kind, etc., they may be in a better position to engage in dialogue.

For world peace, a critical mass of people aligned with 3L is needed

• Our solution is first to win over a critical mass of hearts and minds globally, committed to the 3L Philosophy. When enough people clearly orient themselves not to aggressing against each other, the conditions would allow peace a chance. Our goal is to prevent aggressing from being initiated in the first place.
• For existing conflicts, conversation is our best hope, especially when informed by the 3L Philosophy.

Historic national borders