1. Provide 4 necessities for yourself- Eat, Drink, Breath, Sleep
2. One man may not take the life of the other, unless in defense of his own.
3. Provide 4 necessities for the less fortunate other.
Humans all need the four basic necessities of food, water, air and sleep. What argument can one make against this point, without resorting to absurd, useless and desperate tangents? Every single human cannot survive with any single one of these needs deprived. If you deprive yourself of your necessities by your choice, then it is tantamount to ending your own life. If another person or state deprives you of your necessities, then it is tantamount to murder, oppression or torture. It seems to me that this simple ideal has to be agreed upon, in and of itself. What objection could there be to this idea? None.
Once we move past this basic ideal, we can move forward with some basic inferences. When a person is able, it is the person’s duty to do what they have to do, for themselves to provide these basic necessities for themselves. When the person is not able, for instance, due to incapacitating illness, it is up to the people,in general to help out. The situations for examination multiply greatly with this implication, but our examination is at first and second levels at this point.
Every functioning human being has the capability to end the lives of others, and to end their own life. I have not met a person yet who could argue convincingly that any person has a right to take the life of another, without a reasonable defensive cause. It is widely accepted that the #2 axiom in my doctrine is reasonably indisputable. To deny this is to deny civilization.
Now, the #2 axiom is more disputable than #1, and #3 is more disputable than #2, and this leads to some important patterns I am soon to point out.When we have control of law and order, then we should turn our attention to providing for, the sick and less fortunate. We should never turn that gaze away until we are sure it has been handled entirely. Complacency is a killer, so do not be an accomplice in this most deplorable inaction.
Now looking over the system generally, we can make a few observations. First, the #1 necessities are personal, and individual. The second axiom steps up another level, and adds the gaze of the other. Now we have a clash of governed wills. Now you know you can kill that person, and you know you can be killed by that person. As long as there is more than one person on planet Earth, the #2 axiom will always be relevant. When the people agree to the social contract implicated in the #2 action, then as individuals they can hear the call to provide for the #1 necessities of those less fortunate. I will not try to say that the #3 axiom is indisputable. It is the most disputable of the three, but I would not dare to take possession of the heart that would truly stand against its implications. In a final glance, we see this succession as:
#1 Individual necessity
#2 Group necessity
#3 Individual, and group ideology
When we realize that clarity is the essence to a frictionless system, sometimes the most mundane generalities end up being profound. This system is an observation of one human, not a creation of one human. I have simply thrown sand over an invisible complex universal system to explain what already is. So do not discount the universal observations based on my simple human inferiorities. Understand clearly for yourself.