Madrid, April 24-26. Over a thousand attendees from 56 countries gathered for one of Europe’s largest pro-liberty conferences. The Live and Let Live partnered with the organizers to shared a booth with our friends from Liberty International and the Language of Liberty Institute.

The Conference

Anyone who has attended events like this knows the exhibition hall can generate as much value as the main stage. Quite often the talks can be watched later; the hallway conversations cannot. Over three days, Live and Let Live connected with students, academics, entrepreneurs, and activists working on liberty and peace initiatives across every continent.

Some memories from the event:

• Education (Bryan Caplan, James Tooley, Gabriel Calzada): Tooley’s book The Beautiful Tree documents how informal private schools emerge spontaneously in some of the world’s poorest communities, offering a compelling ground-level case for educational freedom. Calzada, founder of Hespérides University in Spain, is building something equally worth noting: a freedom-oriented institution that offers, among other programs, a Master’s in Bitcoin.

• Immigration and cultural identity dominated many informal conversations. In Europe, even among liberty-minded people, these remain genuinely polarizing topics. The Live and Let Live Movement seeks a world where such differences are welcomed rather than treated as grounds for exclusion to the Movement.

• Spain’s rising liberty movement: Spain has a growing and highly motivated liberty-minded community. One of its leading intellectual figures is Juan Ramón Rallo, well-known in Spanish freedom circles and a new discovery for me. His talk on liberalism, left, and right was precise and worth following. Spain’s Libertarian Party is still small but energetic, and the overall scene left a strong impression.

• Free Cities and Network States had a noticeable presence at the margins of the conference. These are some of my favorite themes, voluntary and decentralized governance models that represent some of the most forward-looking thinking in the liberty space today. It was encouraging to see the interest growing, even if most attendees are still discovering these ideas.

Live and Let Live’s Secretary and Executive Director of Language of Liberty Institute discuss planning for Moldova’s Liberty Camp for 17 to 22 August 2026.

Representing 3L: Finding the Right Frame

At an event with dozens of organizations sharing booth space, standing out matters. Part of the work was finding the most effective way to present what Live and Let Live actually is. A few approaches came up in practice:

1. The golden rule distinction. Libertarian philosophy centers on the Non-Aggression Principle, a framing of the “silver rule” that is don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to yourself. Live and Let Live adds a voluntary Moral Principle, be an excellent human, which is rooted in aspirational values found across the world’s major philosophical and religious traditions. As Live and Let Live co-founder Marc J. Victor puts it, a person can comply fully with the Non-Aggression Principle while still being a “close-minded, intolerant, rude, bigoted, hateful, mean-spirited, self-centered jerk.” Live and Let Live is a peace movement, not just a freedom movement, and that distinction matters.

2. Practical support. Live and Let Live is driven by a 501(c)(3) and a global community with the capacity to support grass roots projects, advocacy campaigns, and educational initiatives aligned with its principles. This tends to generate genuine initial interest, though the most meaningful conversations happen with people motivated by the principles themselves.

3. Event attendance as ambassador. Live and Let Live ambassadors can be sponsored to attend events like LibertyCon. That is how I ended up in Madrid. For people already aligned with the values, active engagement with Live and Let Live opens concrete doors.

4. Reaching beyond the existing coalition. This is perhaps the most important framing of all. The phrase “live and let live” requires no ideological initiation. It is recognized across cultures, languages, and traditions. Framing freedom as the only credible path to genuine peace reaches people that more technical libertarian language often does not, including those with no prior exposure to these ideas and those who carry preconceived negative associations with libertarian terminology. Live and Let Live is a big tent, built to welcome everyone who shares the values, regardless of the vocabulary they use. To reach critical mass, the movement needs to grow beyond these circles and speak to a much wider audience. This approach is best suited to make that happen.

Different framings work for different people and contexts, but they are all true. What matters is spreading the word and finding people who genuinely want a freer and more peaceful world. As Steve Jobs once said, quoted by the great Lawrence Reed at the event’s awards dinner: “The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.”

We believe that. We hope you do too. If so, consider becoming a Live and Let Live Ambassador

Want to learn more about Live and Let Live? Visit liveandletlive.org and join our Circle community to connect with others who share these values.

During the event, Live and Let Live signed a memorandum of understanding with the Language of Liberty Institute to bring the latter’s flagship program to Moldova for the first time. See here for more details about this five day in-person event on classical liberalism, entrepreneurship and the English language.

Live and Let Live Ambassador Bruno Jacques (author) and Secretary.

Subscribe now

A Proposition

When people are free to pursue their interests, solve problems and deliver value to others, innovation and wealth follow. Respecting one another’s freedom leads to greater opportunity within society to secure individual welfare. The range of opportunity is expanded when we embrace our freedom by being peaceful with others. Peace in this sense does not mean only the absence of aggression or violence, but the addition of civility and goodwill.

For anyone engaged in a full life with any one or a combination of work, study, family, sport, friendships and so on, global peace can look like just another priority. If you focused on this additional interest, your day or week would be shortened even further.

Some people are passionate about the environment, some about ending poverty, others about solving technical challenges or advancing science. Why dilute your effort for supporting peace if you have so much already invested in a pro-human endeavor? Even for the many of us who do agree with the sentiments of global peace, finding energy and time to dedicate to achieving peaceful relations between human beings seems too heavy a load to bear. In fact, peace does not divert resources from addressing any of your objectives. It enables them.

Peace directly facilitates your priorities.

Peace and your Priorities

Peace in the Live and Let Live context is merely the result of 1) free people making their own choices and 2) people treating one another as fellow human beings.

These two elements directly correspond to Live and Let Live’s two principles:

1. the Legal Principle to not initiate violence upon another and to not take another’s resources (do not aggress)

2. the Moral Principle to try and live your best life, including being a decent human being (aspire for excellence).

If you are not starting uninvited physical fights, creating an unreasonable risk of causing harm to another or stealing what belongs to someone else, you are already complying with the Legal Principle. If you choose to try and be civil towards others, you are embracing the Moral Principle.

A Moral Principle for Peace

Live and Let Live insists the Legal Principle be mandatory. This is the requisite for people to be free to pursue their interests, solve problems and deliver value for others. The Moral Principle, conversely, is and must remain optional. Forcing someone to live their best life and be a decent human being by using threat of violence or the threat of expropriating their resources directly conflicts with the Legal Principle to not aggress.

Peace cannot be forced. If people choose to embrace the Moral Principle, they go beyond enjoying their freedom for innovation and greater wealth. Interacting with one another in positive ways fosters reciprocity and collaboration. When more people enjoy working with you and trust your high character, more opportunities come your way. Peace increases the likelihood and rate of innovation and wealth creation. It widens the range of projects upon which you can embark as well as increasing the number of people with whom you can collaborate on such projects.

If your actions allow everyone to live in any peaceful way they choose, and you aspire to be the best version of yourself, then you are already aligned with the Live and Let Live Movement. You are promoting peace by living it.

To connect with others who share this commitment and if you are looking for or wanting to provide opportunities, connect with us on Circle.

Read the Live and Let Live white paper here.

Photo by Jamie Davies on Unsplash

If there’s conflict, violence, or a mistake, the instinct is to say: this is why we need more control, more rules, more authority.

But the real test of any system isn’t whether mistakes happen.

It’s what happens next.

I saw a clear example of this recently in Ciudad Morazán, a voluntary community in Honduras where governance is based on contract rather than politics.

A violent altercation broke out outside a small bar. A woman entered the bar and struck a man. The owner intervened and escorted her outside, where the situation escalated into a fight between her and her boyfriend.

A security guard was present.

He did nothing.

The fight intensified. The man knocked her to the ground and stepped on her stomach before others finally intervened.

This was a failure. The guard should have acted immediately to stop harm.

In most places, that would be the end of the story—or at least the end of public visibility. The incident would disappear into a report, and the system would move on without learning anything.

But that’s not what happened.

In Morazán, the incident was brought to a weekly operational meeting that is open to the public. The people responsible for governance—the developer, the administrator, the police chief—were all present.

Video of the incident was reviewed in real time.

The response was direct and proportional.

The woman who initiated the violence was banned from returning.

The resident who had invited her was allowed to remain until the end of his lease—because he had not initiated force—but his lease would not be renewed.

And the police were retrained to ensure that when a resident asks for help, guards intervene immediately.

The system didn’t pretend the mistake didn’t happen.

It corrected it.

That distinction matters.

No system eliminates human error. But systems differ dramatically in how they respond to it.

When governance is based on coercive authority, mistakes are often hidden, delayed, or absorbed without meaningful change.

When governance is based on voluntary relationships, the incentives are different. Problems are visible. Accountability is immediate. Procedures can be adjusted quickly because the system depends on delivering value, not maintaining control.

Freedom doesn’t require perfection.

It requires a structure that can respond to imperfection.

A system that corrects itself quickly will outperform one that promises perfection but hides its failures.

That’s the difference between control and consent.

And it’s where the principle of “live and let live” moves from idea to reality.

Learn more about Live and Let Live at www.3l.org

Helping people without limiting anyone’s dignity. This is the standard followed by the Live and Let Live global peace movement. Live and Let Live follows this standard using two principles:

• don’t aggress

• try to be excellent.

To aggress means to initiate the limitation of another’s self-ownership. This means the aggressor is preventing the other from living their life in any peaceful way they choose.

There is never any justification to aggress. Safeguarding one’s own, or another’s self-ownership is not aggressing. At the same time, safeguarding one’s own or another’s self-ownership from the interference of others does not mean self-ownership may be at the expense of others. This is to say that limiting another’s free actions is justified when the limitation prevents that other person from aggressing.

These concepts are not abstract. They have very significant effects on how humans interact with one another. They determine the extent to which peoples’ standards of living in a society increase or diminish. Initiating harm upon another when that person was not, or posed no reasonable threat of, aggressing is to violate the first principle of Live and Let Live, the Legal Principle to not aggress.

When one robs Peter to pay Paul, Paul may only see his payment. Paul doesn’t necessarily see that Peter was robbed. Such hidden consequences are the norm in political society. We notice the benefits of public aid and government-managed initiatives. This is not to say that taxation and subsidies must stop immediately or that government welfare programs should halt overnight. A large portion of society depends on such programs. What is inescapable is that such programs are ultimately enabled through acts of aggressing.

Moreover, aggressing does not increase overall standards of living in society. Again, what is seen is the assistance provided to those in need. This assistance is seldom weighed against the unseen, that being the diminished potential of others in society who have been aggressed against. For one, resources forcefully taken from someone who is not themselves aggressing limits that person’s ability to provide resources elsewhere in society. This limits economic prosperity by stunting innovation and limiting the incentives for the effective non-aggressing problem solving of society’s challenges.

Here is the place for the second principle of Live and Let Live. This is the Moral Principle to try to be an excellent human. Unlike the Legal Principle’s mandatory nature to not aggress, the Moral Principle is voluntary. People may choose to be excellent humans or not. In either there is no violation of the Legal Principle. There is no aggressing.

The Moral Principle encourages us to be decent to one another and help our fellow human beings, especially those who have a lack of opportunity in their circumstances. Live and Let Live fosters a growing global community of individuals who aspire to be caring, honest and generous. Paired with the freedom gained under the Legal Principle, where no one is aggressing against each other, the Moral Principle allows the full weight of human ingenuity and endeavor to benefit those in need.

The call to action is not burdensome. Live and Let Live welcomes all those who do not aggress. Live and Let Live further invites everyone to try and be excellent people. The less aggressing in society, the greater the potential exists for excellent human beings to help one another and increase the general standards of living.

If you would like to participate or learn from the discussion at Live and Let Live about implementing social welfare programs and financing solutions to social issues without aggressing, please join us on Circle, here, or email us at peace@3l.org.

A more achievable, yet still wildly ambitious goal, is to build the largest mutual aid network in history.

This is possible because th

e Live and Let Live philosophy is based solely on two principles; those being the least necessary conditions for peace on earth. A peaceful society is one where love for our fellow brother and sister human beings flows naturally. As such, this community expresses our highest values that all of us share in common. There is no belief or other entry criteria required. We’re open and agreeable to all who value peace more than controlling others.

Circle is the platform we have chosen to build our community and upon which to base this mutual aid network.

It’s where we host in-person and online events, collaborate on projects that advance freedom, make friends, and learn. Ultimately, it is for Ambassadors of Live and Let Live to lead local chapters and projects.

Live and Let Live is taking the approach of investing today in the infrastructure needed for long-term success. We’re serious about our mission, and we hope you are too. Join us on Circle where you’ll find:

• people who share your values - introduce yourself then click on your continent to join or create a local chapter

• then explore the spaces that matter to you, whether that be chatting or collaborating with people on specific ‘Topics’, meeting others who frame peace and freedom through the same spiritual lens as you in ‘Faith and Philosophy’, or share something you need help with in ‘Wellbeing’

• I’ve also been sharing insights into financial freedom. My highest conviction idea coming into 2026 was the energy sector, which was a contrarian idea at the time. Oil prices are now 71% higher, for sad reasons, just nine weeks after the post. Today, I posted an update on my expectations for another 30% move in oil price by the end of this month. This ‘Financial Freedom’ page is free to join, and is not advice

Finally, and importantly, Circle is where we house our ambassador training; a short multiple choice quiz that goes through the entire Live and Let Live philosophy. Once the quiz is complete, current ambassadors may endorse you to become an official ambassador for the community.

Looking forward to meeting you on Circle!

Join here.

Robbie

Humanity's Inclinations

Is it possible for everyone to live in any peaceful way they choose? The Live and Let Live Movement seeks to showcase not only the possibility, but the plausibility.

The movement is an appeal to the inner voice of humanity, that which tells us it is wrong to aggress against another and that it is healthy to be decent towards another. Live and Let Live is an initiative bringing that inner voice to life.

Raising Awareness

As a global peace movement, individuals who make up the Live and Let Live global community recognize that universal peace is unachievable without universal freedom. Achieving freedom, however, requires we accept that part of our inner voice which reminds us that limiting another's freedom is unfair.

Reaching an audience large enough to make the possibility of universal peace a reality calls for significant and culturally diverse outreach and communications approaches. While the ways to communicate must vary between distinct demographics, the underlying message must remain constant. That message is made up of only two principles:

• the law must prohibit aggressing: the mandatory Legal Principle, and

• people should themselves, and encourage others, to aspire for excellence: the voluntary Moral Principle.

Raising awareness, then, means to spread the word of Live and Let Live in ways which are understandable, relatable, and, importantly, relevant to one's audience.

Fostering Belonging

Beyond raising awareness of the Legal Principle and the Moral Principle, the movement must build and harness existing networks of people who agree with and adopt both principles. This supports people making mutually beneficial relationships with real value.

Facilitating individuals to coordinate and support each other enables a cohesive yet decentralized voice for freedom and peace. Live and Let Live promotes interdependence as much as independence.

The movement seeks to connect people who share a commitment to not aggress and to aspire for excellence. This includes showcasing the incentives for people helping one another as they pursue their own personal ambitions, whether in education and research, the arts, business, technology, social welfare, the environment.

Facilitating Change

While raising awareness and fostering belonging lead to a community of like-minded individuals, a further step is required to actually achieve a critical mass of people who follow the Legal Principle. This third step is referred to as change, whereby the supporters of Live and Let Live apply the Legal Principle and the Moral Principle in their professional, personal or social endeavors.

By facilitating change, the achievements through awareness and belonging can manifest into practical outcomes. As these outcomes increase people's freedom, and thereby provide the opportunity for peace, the incentives for others to live by the Legal Principle become greater.

A public charity, The Live and Let Live Community Inc., helps individuals identify opportunities for reform and for implementing the two principles, ranging from everyday choices and local problem-solving to creating large-scale initiatives or addressing existential threats. All the while reducing the extent of aggressing and increasing the amount of peaceful cooperation in society.

The ABC of Live and Let Live's Strategy

Together, these three pillars make up the ABC of the Live and Let Live Movement:

• Awareness

• Belonging

• Change.

To become a beneficiary of The Live and Let Live Community, you may apply for certification as an Ambassador.

Anyone is welcome to apply for Ambassadorship, and everyone is invited to join the online community. Both of which are accessible here, on Circle.

You may read the Live and Let Live white paper, here.

We encourage you to connect with us to share ideas, build networks and work alongside one another in bringing about a more peaceful world.

Can you force peace?

The term “peace” holds various meanings, usually dependent on certain contexts. For instance, what peace means in the domain of international relations is very different from its meaning in an individual context. In some circumstances peace refers to the absence of violence. However, an absence of violence does not necessarily mean there is no threat of violence. An absence of violence doesn’t even imply freedom.

Freedom is only achieved when someone is able to act however he or she chooses, so long as that person allows others the same. Forcing someone to act, or not to act, is restricting their freedom. Force can facilitate freedom by limiting those who are initiating violence on others. In other words, it is justifiable to use force against those who are restricting another’s freedom. However, if someone uses force to limit the non-violent actions of another, reasonable people do not consider this as any sort of peace. Peace, then, requires more than the absence of violence. Peace requires that people refrain from restricting the freedom of another.

Freedom is the ability for one to act in any nonviolent way one may choose. Freedom requires force only to the extent such force is used upon those who restrict another’s freedom. The mechanism humanity has used to facilitate force in protecting freedom is law. Law, however, is also a mechanism to for people to use force against freedom.

Peace with one rule and one suggestion

Is there any guiding principle humans can follow to keep the law focused on protecting freedom rather than restricting it? Indeed there is. All law must follow the general rule needed for freedom: no one is allowed to initiate violence upon another. Using force to restrict another’s freedom, then, is itself an act of aggression. This rule is referred to as the Legal Principle.

The Legal Principle means the law can never allow someone to aggress against another’s freedom. Implementing this principle invalidates any law which imposes force upon people who are not aggressing. Law today fails this standard. Many crimes, regulations, and legal processes actively restrict the freedom of non-aggressors. Using the law to force people to follow certain values or to behave with certain characteristics, even in the interests of peace, can never lead to peace.

What leads to peace is people using their freedom to choose to live by certain values and to behave with positive characteristics. The key element here is choice. If one accepts that people should be forced to be civil, trustworthy, or kind, then one cannot be in favor of peace. Being of high character, then, can never be a rule. It can only ever be a suggestion.

Voluntary morality

The Live and Let Live Movement is a global peace initiative founded on two principles:

1. a Legal Principle: the rule to not aggress, and

2. a Moral Principle: the suggestion to aspire for excellence.

Applying these two principles safeguards freedom and encourages real peace.

If in doubt:

1. forcing peace is initiating an act of aggression

2. initiating an act of aggression breaks the Legal Principle

3. breaking the Legal Principle prevents freedom

4. freedom is necessary for peace

5. forcing peace, therefore, is contrary to achieving peace.

Voluntarily pursuing peace is the viable, and necessary, alternative.

Learn more about Live and Let Live Movement: here.

Join the online community on Circle: here.

Anybody who agrees that everyone should be able to live in any peaceful way they choose must necessarily agree that everyone must have the opportunity to make decisions based upon all choices freely available to them. When one’s freedom of choice is restricted, one does not have the option to live in any peaceful way they choose. As such, freedom of choice is a requirement, for people being able to live in peace.

For peace to be universal, everyone must be free to choose how they act. When a person restricts another’s freedom of choice, that person prevents peace. The more powerful a person, or group of people, is then the greater the ability to restrict freedom. But there is one particular domain of human affairs where people are not only powerful enough to restrict freedom of choice, but are actually expected to do so. This is the domain of politics.

Political actors hold an authority to restrict another’s freedom of choice. However, by doing so, politics is one of the largest barriers to universal peace. While sporting clubs, corporations and churches, for instance, may have the power to restrict freedom of choice, they do not benefit from any authority to do so. Political actors in government do benefit from such authority.

Politics presents three challenges particularly relevant to achieving universal peace.

1. In the first instance, politics includes a continuous struggle by some people to hold an authority to control how other people make choices. The use of that authority in this manner is contrary to facilitating people living in any peaceful way they choose and, therefore, is contrary to peace.

2. Second, the nature of political institutions embodies incentives for even well-meaning political actors to make decisions against the interests of peaceful non-political actors.

3. Finally, where well-meaning political actors do resist the incentives to knowingly act against another’s interest, there are certain groups of people in society who are worse off as a result of political action. There are always people who lose out when a particular stakeholder group is benefited by political action.

In the context of universal peace, it doesn’t matter whether most people on Earth prefer, accept, or tolerate their personal choices being restricted by political actors. So long as there is at least one person on Earth who does not wish for others to restrict how he or she may live peacefully, universal peace can never be achieved. Politics, as it is most widely practised, is incapable enabling all people to live in any peaceful way they choose. In other words, the nature of politics today is incompatible with universal peace. Today…

2. Models for Freedom of Choice

There are many promising peaceful alternatives to the current political systems. The use of decentralized autonomous organizations and other digital networks, such as Bitcoin, tokenization and blockchain-based infrastructure, demonstrate how people solve social problems, invest, trade, share information, innovate and create value without dependence nation-state politics. Used this way, the digital realm accommodates humans aspiring to their full potential due to enjoying a greater degree of freedom of choice.

In the physical world, self-sovereign societies are growing in presence and showcasing an increasing viability. Special economic zones, private cities and special autonomous regions promote individual freedom by bringing benefits to political actors in exchange for the authority to self govern. In some cases, permission from political actors is not even required to establish a self-sovereign operations, as in the instances of seasteading and remote communes.

Whether in the digital or physical realms, these types of human interactions represent models for freedom of choice. They are initiatives growing from the ground up. Such models are in contrast to models for restricted choice established through political institutions. Models for restricted choice are currently more prevalent. Unless all people on Earth migrate or carry out activities away from the control and influence of models for restricted choice, peace will never be universal.

However, several existential issues posed or influenced by political frameworks threaten the wellbeing of all people no matter under which model they live. Such existential issues, including weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation and responding to cataclysmic events may affect everyone on Earth. Addressing such threats in a peaceful manner requires more than the ground-up initiatives. It also requires a reconsideration of how the institutions of politics are structured. This is one of the aims of the global peace initiative the Live and Let Live Movement. The movement’s vision is for all law to be structured in a way which allows everyone to live in any peaceful way they choose.

3. The Two Principles of the Live and Let Live Movement

Limiting the choices otherwise freely available to people living peacefully is what herein is referred to as aggressing. Aggressing comes in several forms, one of which is initiating violence upon another without consent, including interfering with what has been justly acquired by that person. Most societies establish laws which aim to prevent non-political actors to aggress. Political actors in a government, however, maintain an authority to initiate violence on people and to interfere with what people have justly acquired. Despite political actors some, or even most, of the time, using their authority to safeguard freedom of choice, there are always misuses which limit freedom of choice–misuses which aggress. As political institutions rely on legal frameworks to exercise their authority to aggress, it is legal frameworks which can be used to not both place safeguards against aggressing and to reduce the incentives to aggress.

The capability of law to permit some people to restrict the freedom of choice of others leads to the first of the two principles of the Live and Let Live Movement. The movement’s Legal Principle requires that people never aggress upon others. This means the law must prohibit, and never facilitate, aggressing. Following the Legal Principle best prevents political institutions from restricting freedom of choice and, thereby, enables greater freedom for people to live however they peacefully choose.

The Live and Let Live Movement’s second principle is the Moral Principle to aspire for excellence, including to be a civil towards others. While the Live and Let Live Movement insists the Legal Principle is mandatory, the Moral Principle remains optional. The discretionary nature of the Moral Principle is necessary, as freedom of choice is not possible when someone is forced to aspire for excellence or to be civil. A law which requires people to behave with particular qualities or characteristics is a law which enables aggressing and, therefore, a law which breaches the Legal Principle.

The Moral Principle is important for at least two reasons. On the one hand it helps emphasize the distinction between law and values. Subjective preferences on how one should behave must never be imposed through politics. Legal frameworks forcing people to act in accordance with a moral standard necessarily breaches the Legal Principle. This is the practical purpose of the Moral Principle, that is to distinguish between obligation (don’t aggress) and preference (be excellent).

The second significance of the Moral Principle is strategic in nature. When a critical mass of people agree with and follow the Legal Principle, models for freedom of choice become more prevalent in how humans engage with one another than models for restricting freedom of choice. Freedom, however, does not necessarily mean peace. Respecting everyone’s freedom of choice does not require being a decent human being towards others. Two people interacting without violating one another’s freedom of choice can nevertheless be unpleasant or offensive towards each other. The Moral Principle encourages people to use the freedom of choice enabled through the Legal Principle to elevate their experience with others so as to facilitate peaceful interactions.

4. Why the Live and Let Live Movement

There are several freedom-oriented initiatives around the world, some with a long heritage of successfully increasing freedom of choice. There are arguably even more initiatives making strong efforts for peace. Why is yet another movement needed in this sea of good-intentioned and influential initiatives? The Live and Let Live Movement is not an alternative to such efforts. It is complementary, and necessarily so. What the Live and Let Live Movement offers is a practical and intercultural-appealing framework to increase freedom of choice from which universal peace may emerge.

The framework, founded on the Legal and Moral Principles, works through two directions. From the top down, the Live and Let Live Movement is present in political institutions. Anyone who is committed to narrowing the scope of law so that is prohibits only acts which aggress should never advocate for subjective moral standards being implemented through legal frameworks. Political institutions are environments in which incentives are inherent to use political authority to the disadvantage of certain stakeholders. Live and Let Live addresses the incentives challenge in political institutions from a ground up direction. The Movement supports self-sovereign initiatives among individuals, whether in business, research, social welfare, private law, environmental protection, or many other fields.

As the range of initiatives increasingly become successful through safeguarding participants’ freedom of choice, institutions embodying the Legal Principle become more appealing to members of the general population. This appeal comes by way of the greater opportunity for prosperity and personal benefit to be gained through freedom of choice while still (and more effectively) providing all the benefits which political institutions seek to deliver.

5. No Activism, Only a Commitment

One doesn’t need be engaged in any advocacy, public relations or political campaigning to Live and Let Live. Nor does the movement itself expect individuals to engage in any activism. Rather, the invitation is to ask oneself three questions:

1. do you agree that everyone should have the opportunity to live in any peaceful way they choose?

2. are you are willing to not restrict another’s choice to live in any peaceful way they choose?

3. do you aspire to become the best you can be?

If your response is “yes” to all three questions, then you are aligned with the Live and Let Live Movement.

The Live and Let Live Movement is spearheaded by a public charity. The purpose of the charity is to coordinate support for people seeking to:

• raise awareness of the Legal Principle and Moral Principle

• foster local, interregional, intercultural and interdisciplinary networks of people who agree with the Legal and Moral Principles

• implement a standard to not aggress and aspire for excellence in their projects and their own daily life.

Mechanisms to pursue the charity’s purpose include administering an Ambassador program for supporters and beneficiaries. Also in support of the movement is an online community hub for promoting one’s expertise and uncovering opportunities through the expertise of others. Those interested to contribute or benefit from the Live and Let Live community are welcome to join the online forum on Circle. This online community is also a place to challenge and refine the ideas and strategies of the Live and Let Live Movement.

6. Concluding Remarks

Agreeing with the concept of peace requires agreeing with everyone being entitled to freedom of choice. A universal peace means anybody with special privilege to limit the freedom of choice of others should have an ever-decreasing authority and capability to do so. The Live and Let Live Movement is foremost concerned with limiting institutions which enable aggressing while promoting those which do not rely on aggressing in any form. As political actors hold an expectation by others to aggress, and do so using legal frameworks, the Live and Let Live Movement works for the law to prohibit all acts of aggressing.

Keeping the obligatory Legal Principle to not aggress and the optional Moral Principle to aspire for excellence separate from one another is necessary to achieve a sustained freedom of choice. Focusing on encouraging people to adopt the optional Moral Principle as we work to achieve freedom of choice allows societies to become peaceful in a universal fashion.

The movement’s vision is ambitious. For everyone to live in any peaceful way they choose, a great amount of institutional change must occur in how we humans maintain order amongst one another. Live and Let Live approaches this goal along the individual, local and global paths. The first challenge is successfully conveying the Legal and Moral Principles across distinct cultures, languages and interest groups. Winning a critical mass of people who agree and act in accordance with the Legal Principle is no small feat. Aiming so high may mean falling short. Nevertheless, we can expect to do well, leaving our world a more peaceful place in each passing moment.

Read the Live and Let Live white paper here .

To register to support and enjoy benefits as an Ambassador for the Live and Let Live, sign up here .