How is the One Law derived? It sounds like the NAP
Sanctuary excludes whoever is allegiant to Entities which coerce.
Being outside all circles of violence is to be inside Sanctuary
how ar misinterpreations ofthe violation ofthe one law determined
decentralized consensus vs authoritarian vs random lottery vs ...
Sanctuary is the power of those who repudiate authors of Harm
Sanctuary is only those who defy any authority of violence. Consider, for example, refugee floods: Most do not repudiate authorities [State,religious,etc] which can call for violence, randomly.
Sanctuary is for those who choose to abandon the arena of government intervention in favor of living amongst Beings who choose to prosper one another with Peace. [Peace is an economic resource.]
Sanctuary Learning Center - open to anyone who commits to The One Law. Non-Authoritarian learning environment Where on this planet to create such a place ? Not a school -> An UnSchooling.
Sanctuary Learning Center - A peek at the direction this might parallel in some ways:
The illegal numbers and primes are pretty funny:) Remember protesters printing the color code in a flag, it is the perfect symbol. The hard case would be if you could make nukes from algebra.
I am halfway to Manila now. My objective is to explore how to socialize BCH as a method of reducing Harm gcovernment inflicts upon innocent lives. Please memo here your (any) suggestions.
Sanctuary welcomes @For_God_Glory to the MEMO community
Sanctuary welcomes @AlexDGreat into the MEMO community
So "The one law" is simple enough. But obviously there are endless complications to it if you sit down and think about it. For one, most people eat plants/animals. You could argue both are beings
Further, "beings" is ill an defined term (may be defined somewhere, I have not studied this philosophy). Is an anthill (as opposed to individual ants) a being? Many claim it is a superbeing
Even "harm" is a difficult issue in reality. When a doctor prescribes a drug with disease-curing effects as well as side-effects (all of them have side-effects), does he harm the patient?
I mean, the side effects can be very harmful. Sometimes it seems quite clear to most people that (the side effects of) a cure are more harmful than the disease. This is not just academic either
If you cannot decide what is harmful, then you cannot use "the one law". What are you to do then? Also, sometimes (or should I say always) all choices, even non-action choice, will harm someone
Btw, this is hardly a new idea, which makes it funny that in the <1 min video above the guy walks away like saying "Done. Life solved in <1 min! You're welcome, now I'll go Solve something else"
