...be it established that:
this draft Hierarchy of Rights be finalized and formalized as HBL:
Laws must be passed down from a higher authority. That authority derives from protection of rights. In this way laws and the authority that provides them are subject to things greater than themselves.
The highest order of rights is the planet itself (Gaia if you wish). Because everything we and the animals can do, want, think, wish, try, and so on depend on the good of the planet. It is by definition, all-inclusive. In the future there may be a higher order, the solar system, the galaxy, or even the universe, and the good of homanity itself my supersede the needs of a particular place, but for now Earth is all we've got.
The good of the planet is called environmentalism. This includes to some extent the good of species on the planet as they contribute to the good of the whole. In general, the right of the planet is to be kept in good shape. What good shape *is* is debatable but it is certainly not taken into account in the affairs of the day. This is something that must change. Every harm to Earth is a collective harm to everything *On* Earth. This is an absolute logical conclusion. Therefore, before anything else can be taken into account, the good of the planet must be weighed and measured. No steps may be taken without consideration that harm done to her is only on loan and MUST be repaid as soon as possible. If we do not repay them we will be faced with three options, and not necessiarly ours to decide. First is that the planet will simply die, taking us with it. The second is tha the planet will take over and repair itself and the cost to us will be large and beyond our control. And finally, the last option is to move on.
Given that the latter is outside the realm of possibility at the moment. Which of the first two would we like? I think the first sucks, and I think the second sucks, so how 'bout let's not go there. Let's keep her in good shape. To put this another way, the first (most important right) is to not harm the planet unnecessarily. What is necessary may be opwn to debate but remember, if we go too far it will be repaid, and without our concent or ability to decide.
Next, the rights of humanity. The rights of other species take place within a right which is greater than ours, but as we have no reason to belive that death or extinction matter to the species themselves, our right supercede them specifically, but not in whole. As human beings we have hopes and dreams, things we strive for and live toward. Since this is the case, our needs, the need to exist and try to advance are the second right. To put it another way, the good of humanity may not be harmed without it being absolutely necessary.
What is good for humanity, again, is up for debate. One thing that is certain is the sequence of evolution. Any reasonable person can see that less tyranny, more freedom (etc.) is the path which we are on, and it is the right one. We could well have been much further than we are except that few of the people making decisions about things take rights above their own into account. Some things are obviously bad for humanity, things like slavery, hunger, homelessness. These must be eliminated and there is no reason why they cannot be.
Government falls inbetween the rights of humanity and the rights of the individual. While they are representitive of the rights of a good portion of humanity, they exist as a measure of control and protection for the rights of individuals and therefore are subject to a lower rank.
Here are the rights which concern us most, the rights of individual people. Since we exist as individuals it is often difficult to look beyond ourselves and see that other things may superceded. As some philosophers put it, they have no reason to believe anything outside themselves even exists. That's another discussion. For the sake of this one we will say that everything we see and feel is real, it exists without regard to our perception of it. The reason for taking this side is that All Evidence points this way. That things which seem to exist may not is akin to the argument that since it seems that things are too complicated to have come about naturally that they must have been created. In either case the only means to make a correct decision lies in going with the majority of evidence which in each case points toward simple real things.
Human rights fall into three categories of three items each. These are rights because they are needs. Without them existance is meaningless. They corrospond roughly to "Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty".
The first is survival itself. You didn't ask to be born, you don't have to Earn the means to survive, it's your birthright. Without survival it is impossible to excercise other rights. Survival is comprised of three basic needs, nourishment, sleep, and protection from nature. If you have these three things you will continue to exist. Health is another matter but because it is so variable and because the default is to have enough to exist, it cannot be contained herein.
The second set of human rights is things which relate to having a life. Life is far different than survival. Someone in a coma or with an IQ of 3 can be said to exist, but cannot be said to have a life. While without survival itself there is no possibility of anything further, without the ability to make USE of survival to feel as though there is some purpose for it, survival itself is useless. The three things within this category are socialization, education, and gainful activity. When you have survival taken care of, these three things allow you to build yourself into something which seems worthy of being alive, something worth the trouble of trying, and give you the ability to try for something further.
Finally there are needs which protect you from others interfering in your rights. These things allow you to make use of all the human rights which came before it. The other things are necessary a) to survive, b) to be able to make use of survival, and now c) the tools necessary to prevent the other two categories from being infringed. The three items in this category are freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and freedom of movement. When these are granted (and protected by the government) they act as an extention of the second set. These are the tools used to actually permit the other things to be gained. Without these rights the others may exist but cannot be taken advantage of so they might as well not.
Finally the rights of government. First of all, it has the right to exist. As any study of anarchy will show, it is impossible for humans to exist without government. The purpose for governments existance Should be to provide for the good of the people under it's control. So long as the government can be shown to be for the good of the people it has the right to exist evey beyond the rights of individuals. The government must have the assumption of righteousness. If it is Not for the collective good of those under it, it is contrary to the very purpose of its existance. Elite Inc. Haven is specifically about this particular focus of government philosophy.
If the government fits existing and existing effectively for the right reason, it gains a further right, the right to govern. When it is there for the common good, since common good outweighs individual good, the government must make decisions on how to settle conflicts and more obviously and more often, how to logistically manage itself so that the other rights spoken of above are properly balanced. This means the government must take into account everything on this list in it's proper place and order.
The heirarchy of rights is beyond refute, It is logical to the utmost scrutiny and while it may be phrased differently, more thouroughly or more consisely than here, the order stands. As thinking beings with a path toward evolution of social structure, everything we are and do must fall within these guidelines or be out of place. If things are out of place we do not evolve, we do not matter, because the path we will be on will be toward a ramdon end. If you're a nihilist or an anarchist, that would be your fondest desire. As logical, reasonable people with a social "concience" we choose the other path.