Let us begin our pursuit into truth using logic by determing the set of Fundamental Rights; i.e., the set of rights Humans have that are fundamental to their existence.

Logic dictates that a property of one member of the set has to be the same for all members of the set, which is what defines the set.

If we say that "Human 'A' has the right to live freely", then all other Humans must have the right to live freely, otherwise, they are not members of the set "Humans".  This is called "The Equality of Logic" rule - all members of the set must share the same properties to be members of the set.  If some members of the set "Humans" have certain characteristics then the set is broken down into "subsets", each with their own characteristics.  Unless we want to prejudicially and arbitrarily group Humanity into subsets (e.g., "Straights", "Queers", "Whites", "Blacks", etc.) then all members of the set "Humans" have to have the same properties, and thus any Logic that applies to one Human will apply equally to all Humans.

Since the set of logic derived for Humans applies equally to all Humans, the set of Fundamental Rights that we are about to define - being based on logic - will apply equally to all Humans, as well.

1. All Humans shall have the Fundamental Rights outlined in this section on an equal basis due to the Equal Applicability Of Logic law.
   

Whatever Fundamental Rights we may define must be protected from deletion or modification by the relevant government, governmental bodies, and courts that affect Humans.  Humans have the right to elect governmental officials to create laws and judicial officials to institute justice. During the course of these officials governing the people and instituting justice, these government officials or judicial officials may attempt to take away one or more Fundamental Rights from the Humans being governed for any type of reason (good-intentioned, malevolence, prejudice, coup d'etat, etc.)

Therefore, it is imperative that the set of Fundamental Rights be permanent and non-modifiable.  Even if 99.9% of the citizenry that is eligible to elect governmental officials determines that they want to remove or alter a Fundamental Right, it is illogical to do so, as the set of Fundamental Rights are required by all Humans to live and function in a logical, safe, sane manner.  While democracy has many benefits, if a majority of the Humans that elect governmental officials decide to pass a law that states that people of a certain belief system, or people of a certain race, or people of any other particular affect are to be killed, that law cannot be a Just Law, as it infringes on those people's Fundamental Rights to exist7.

To defend against this, we have our next Fundamental Right:


2. No government shall deny the right of Humans to protect themselves by keeping arms8.  Humans must be able to keep arms of sufficient strength as to keep themselves protected against each other, invading forces, the government9, and whatever other random/unpredictable violence may affect them.
   

Ex.:  A virus that causes madness begins to infect Humans, and those Humans that are infected by the virus attempt to inflict violence on their neighbors.  The Humans that are not infected by the virus must be able to defend themselves against the Humans that are infected, in the event the medical community, the militia and the police are unable to control the infection.

Now that Humans have the ability to protect themselves from violence, whether imposed by other Humans, random events, or by their government / court(s), they need the right to peacefully change the government.  Quite often, Humans elect a government by vote, and then as soon as the new governmental officials are sworn in, they change the law(s) so that they are "leaders for life"10.


3. No government shall deny the right of the people to modify or dissolve the government.  The method of modification / dissolution of the government shall be decided by a simple majority of the citizens of the government.
   

Since a majority of the citizenry is all that is needed to remove/modify the government, minorities are now exposed to arbitrary decisions made by the government.  We need to protect any and all minorities from discrimination and prejudice..


4. In order to delete or change any Fundamental Right, a unanimous vote of every eligible voter is required.
   
   

OK, we've protected minorities by vote.  But who gets to vote?


5. No adult citizen of any government shall be denied the right to vote in any election duly held by the government.  The citizens of the government shall decide what age constitutes an "adult".
   

So now our government respects every citizen's Fundamental Rights and will continue to do so until every adult citizen votes otherwise, which thus protects any and all minorities that may exist.  Our government also can be modified/removed/rebuilt if a majority of the citizens feel it is right to do so.  Finally, our government cannot be overthrown, because each and every citizen has the right to be armed, and unless a majority of the citizens attempt a putsch, it will fail11.

We need to define rights that every citizen should have in any democracy:


6. No government shall deny the right of any Human to associate with any other Human(s), providing that such association is mutual between the Humans with whom the association is taking place.
   
   
7. No government shall deny the right of any Human to adopt any belief system, nor shall any government force any Human to adopt any belief system.
   
   
8. No government shall deny the right of Humans to peacefully assemble and protest in a peaceful manner.
   
   
9. No government shall deny the right of Humans to speak freely on any subject; however, the Human(s) speaking on any subject shall not have the right to disturb the Fundamental Right of Quiet Enjoyment of other Human(s).
   
   
10. No government shall deny any citizens, regardless of race, religion, point of ethnic origin, gender, quantity, or political affiliation the right to enter into a state of legally-perceived wedlock, and all people that enter into that legally-perceived wedlock shall be entitled, on an equal basis, to any benefit(s) that may accrue by Just Laws to people in that legally-perceived wedlock.
    
    
11. No government shall deny any person that is in a legally-perceived wedlock the right to a divorce, regardless as to whether or not the other person(s) in the legally-perceived wedlock agree(s) to the divorce.
    
    
12. Harming of others is illogical, and denies the ones being harmed their Fundamental Right to Quiet Enjoyment of their lives.  Knowingly adversely affecting someone else's life is illogical.  While one has the full right to affect their own life, they have no rights to affect the lives of others.  Thus to knowingly adversely affect someone else's life is illogical.  It would follow that inadvertently adversely affecting someone else's life is to be avoided at all costs, but how to do so?  The answer is simple:  (a) for adults, each person must be responsible for his/her own life, and must take all reasonable precautions when their failure(s) at controlling their actions will possibly cause an adverse affect upon someone else's life; and (b) for children, their parents are responsible for their life.
    
    
13. Leaving ourselves open to be harmed or to unnecessary risk is illogical.  To prevent other people's actions from causing us harm, each person must exercise all reasonable defensive postures.
    

Ex:  in the event of a food sellers strike, or a trucking strike, each person must stockpile enough staples (food, water, paper towels, gasoline, etc.) so that we minimize the possibility of other people's actions hurting us, even though the actions of these other people may be performed with their best intents and may not intend to cause us harm.

Ex:  if one lives in a neighborhood where there has been a non-trivial amount of crime, then one must protect oneself.  To depend upon the militia or police - even though the militia or the police have been given the charter by the government to protect the people - is illogical, because one cannot predict the workload of the militia or the police at any given instant and thus one cannot predict the response time of the militia or police to their predicament.


14. Each person has the right to Quiet Enjoyment of their life provided they do not harm others; i.e., they have the right to not be disturbed by others unless they have:  (a) violated one or more Just Laws; or (b) become part of a civil process (e.g., "litigation"); or (c) the applicable government hase determined that the person's Quiet Enjoyment must be interrupted (as in the case of a building inspection, search warrant, eminent domain action, etc.) In the case of (b), the complainant must prove Just Cause.  Should others disturb a person, the person being disturbed must have legal redress within the applicable government.
    
    
15. We own our bodies, and since we lack concrete knowledge about our creation, reason for existence, and direction, we can do with our bodies as we see fit, including terminating our existence.  We can ask others to help us end our existence, and if this request for assistance is made by a person with a sane mind and properly witnessed and recorded, then anyone choosing to help us end our existence cannot be held liable for murder.
    
    
16. The Logic Of Surak does not address sexual relations between consenting sentient beings of an appropriate adult age.  This is a private matter, outside the scope of logic.
    

Note:  for the record, it should be noted that I am in favor of the harshest punishment conceivable - short of the death penalty and torture - for adults that have sexual relations with children or for nonconsensual sexual relations.


17. With respect to reproduction, until the embryo/foetus has reached the stage where it can live outside the Human carrying it, then by definition it is illogical to consider the embryo/foetus a "living being".  Should an "artificial womb" be developed that can duplicate the environment inside the womb for an embryo/foetus outside the womb and that can transfer the embryo/foetus from the Human womb to the artificial womb with no deleterious effects to the embryo/foetus, and should the technology be made available to the mother without obligation12, then the embryo/foetus' status is changed to that of a living being.  It logically follows that - in the case of an unwanted pregnancy - the transfer of the embryo/foetus from the Human womb to the supplied artificial womb prevents a potential living being from being murdered (I have italicized "potential" because the embryo/foetus is not a living being until it is transferred, with no deleterious effects, to the artificial womb).  Should this technology not be available to the Human carrying the embryo/foetus, then until the embryo/foetus reaches the stage where it can live outside the Human carrying it, the Human carrying the embryo/foetus may choose to terminate their pregnancy and have the embryo/foetus removed from their body.
    
    
18. Every adult Human has the same Fundamental Rights, regardless of age.  The applicable government has the right to determine what constitutes an "adult".
    
    
19. Removing, deleting, limiting, or otherwise violating this set of Fundamental Rights is illogical, as any such change(s) would cause harm to Humans.  Should the citizenry of a government attempt to do so, regardless of the technique (new laws, judicial rulings, etc.), their attempts are illogical, and any laws thus passed that violate these Fundamental Rights are not Just Laws.
    

Ex.:  the citizens of a government vote in officials who pass laws that make it illegal for a woman to vote.  Once the right to vote has been given to some citizens of the government, it must be given to all citizens of that government, regardless of their gender or perceived gender.  To not do this violates the Equality Of Applicability Of Logic.  Thus, the lawmakers have attempted to limit the set of Fundamental Rights of the citizenry, and the law is not a Just Law.


20. Because we do not know what we should do, all Humans have free choice of the type of work they desire to perform, provided that there is an adequate supply of jobs in the chosen type of work, and provided that they have the necessary skill set to perform that work.  If we choose to not work, then we have no right to depend on others to sustain us.  If we choose to work, then any potential employer may require that we have the necessary skill set to perform that work; however, the potential employer may not violate our Fundamental Rights when considering applicants for the job, nor may any employer violate our Fundamental Rights while we are working in that job.
    

Ex.:  a person decides that they wish to be a Flight Attendant on an airline.  They have the necessary skill set and even have experience.  The applicant is older than the "average" Flight Attendant, but is physically fit.  The employer declines the applicant based on age.  This is a violation of the applicant's Fundamental Rights.


21. Because we do not know what we should do, we have free choice of vocations and hobbies ("pursuits");, i.e., sports, creation of wealth, social service, etc.  Our choice can follow any logic or criteria we desire.
    

E.g., we may choose to work in a factory, in an office, live the life of an athlete, do volunteer work, or we may choose to not work.


22. We cannot know whether or not that one or more given pursuit(s) is/are in the best interest of all people as a whole.  What we can know with absoute certainty is that we must not follow our various pursuit(s) if they cause others harm or cause harm to our "host" planet; i.e., Earth.
    

Ex.: if our pursuit is theft, that certainly hurts others, and thus we must not pursue the practice of theft.


23. Since we do not know who created us, we cannot prove who created us, and thus we cannot tell other people that our belief system(s) are provable.  It is not illogical to discuss or theorize who created us, how we were created, why we were created, what our pursuits should be, etc.; however, the individual(s) expressing these theories must bear in mind that they are unprovable theories and are thus axioms at best, until such future time as they are proven through scientific methodology based on empirical evidence.
    
    
24. Since we do not know what we should do, we cannot tell others what they should do (i.e., what vocation(s) and hobby(-ies) they should pursue).  We cannot tell others to follow or not follow The Logic Of Surak; we can only demonstrate how following The Logic Of Surak would benefit others.  We cannot tell others that The Logic Of Surak applies to them, and the followers of a given belief system cannot demand that all other sentient beings follow their belief system, because their belief system is an axiom at best.  It is up to each individual to accept, ignore, or reject The Logic Of Surak.
    
    
25. Since we do not know what we should do, and since we may freely choose our vocation(s), hobby(-ies), and pursuit(s), then we may choose to pursue working within our belief system, or we may also choose to not pursue working within any belief system.  We may choose to lead a hedonistic life, providing we can support ourselves economically (although it can be shown that living a hedonistic life is illogical, as the argument can be made that the pursuit(s) that are most valuable and rewarding are those that improve the quality of life for all sentient beings).
    

E.g.:  you have to drive an hour a day each way to work.  This costs you lots of money (gas, wear and tear on your car, commuter fees, tolls, train tickets, etc.) and is - in the case of driving - harmful to the Earth, as gasoline comes from a non-renewable resource, causes pollution, and may have other environmental effects.  If someone were to develop a renewable energy source that could power electric non-polluting motors that could be retrofitted into fossil-fueled vehicles, that would improve the quality of life for all sentient beings.  The pursuit of the development of this renewable energy source is thus a valuable, rewarding, and logical thing to do; however, it remains a choice, and is not obligatory.


26. Anyone may or may not express their beliefs as they see fit; however, as each person has the right to Quiet Enjoyment of their life, the individuals wishing to express their beliefs must observe the right of each person to the Quiet Enjoyment of their life, and thus must refrain from expressing their beliefs once they have been told their views on their beliefs are not welcome.  The refrain from expressing their beliefs applies to audible, visual, and any other transmission method.
    
    
27. All Humans share the Earth, thus causing the Earth harm, whether it be premature deterioration, depletion of resources, pollution, etc., is illogical.
    

Ex.:  As all Humans share the space in which we live - the Earth - and as all Humans have the right to live their lives as they see fit while not harming others - it is logical for each person to not harm the Earth, because Humans depend upon the Earth to sustain them, and harming the Earth is thus harming other Humans, which is illogical.


28. No one may use publicly-owned or governmental land, buildings, nor developed areas for the expression of their beliefs nor for the proselytizing of their belief systems.
    

E.g.:  a Human living in a given governmental area decides that their beliefs should be posted on public property (which is managed by the government) for all to see, because their belief system states that it is incumbent upon the believer to make others believe in their given belief system.  The people residing in the governmental area have the right to disagree with decisions made by the government as to how the public property is to be managed.  Should even one person disagree with the posted beliefs, then the fundamental right to Quiet Enjoyment of the person(s) who have disagreed will be violated.  Also, the Fundamental Right to choose a belief system will be violated by the posting of someone else's belief system by the government, as a posting on publicly-owned property implies that the government has given the posted belief system "de-facto" priority and apparent legitimacy, neither of which are logical, as governments can only require people to follow provable Just Laws that are not based on axiomatic-at-best belief systems.

Of course, one could argue that a given person's belief system can be posted on public property by stating that the government could allow all belief systems to be posted on public property; however, this is illogical because there is a finite amount of government property, a potentially infinite amount of people, and an infinite amount of different belief systems.  Further, some may not want their belief systems posted, and may consider the posting of other people's belief systems to be proselytizing.  Thus, expression of belief systems on public property is illogical.  Note that this analysis does not extend to expression of belief systems on private property, in such a manner as is not visible to the public, as private property is neither owned nor managed by the government.


29. It is logical that several or many Humans may decide to band together and form a government (or a "governing body"), to which they may grant the power of making rules and regulations regarding their behaviour, protection of borders, quelling of insurrection, etc.  Governments may enact laws of any form provided that they do not infringe upon the Fundamental Rights of the Humans that are being governed by the government.
    

Ex.:  a government is formed and enacts a law that slavery is legal.  This violates the Fundamental Rights of the sentient beings that will be defined as slaves by the government as it denies them the right to Quiet Enjoyment of their lives.  The law legalizing slavery is not a Just Law, and the "lawmakers" who enacted it have behaved in an illogical manner.


30. Given that we do not know who created us, why we were created, nor what any such "Creator(s)" want us to do, then any such governments founded on belief systems - which are axioms at best - are illogical.
    

Ex.:  Theocracies are illogical, as they are governments based on belief systems (by definition).


31. In the event that a Human decides to relocate for any reason, the government governing the region in which the Human lives shall not refuse the Human's request to exit for any reason.  To refuse a Human the right to leave a government is tantamount to slavery or kidnapping.
    
    
32. We must recognize that all living things are alive, even though there are different levels of "sentience" amongst them.  Thus, while animals seem to have more sentience or intelligence than plants, both animals and plants are alive.
    

Ex.:  someone approaches you and tells you to not eat meat, because it comes "from animals", and they do not want you to "harm animals".  By eating only fruits and vegetables, you will not "harm animals", and they claim that, "this is a good thing, because animals are living beings".  This is illogical for at least three reasons:  (a) fruit and vegetables are living things; (b) when a Human eats only fruits and vegetables, they require more fruits and vegetables to sustain a Human than if the Human was eating both vegetables and animals; and (c) by eating only fruits and vegetables, we are further depleting the food supply required by animals, thus causing them harm.


33. We should not harm any living thing; however, we have to eat to live, and unless we only ingest what we can synthesize from non-living things, some living thing is going to have to be killed or will have to die in order for us to survive.  While we should make every attempt to not harm other living things, in the event we must harm other living things (e.g.:  we must eat to live, and we must eat living things); then we should minimize any harm done to other living things.  Living things that have to be killed or will have to die in order to feed us should be killed or should die in the most "Humane" way possible.
    
    
34. We should recognize that there are those less fortunate than us and we should make some attempt to help them.  It is provable that Humanity as a whole could evolve to a "higher plane of existence", which would improve everyone's lives.  It is also logical to assume that this is either not possible, or made far more difficult, while there are Humans that are suffering.  Thus, the logical conclusion is that in order to put forth our best efforts to further evolve, ending suffering must occur first.  While we are free to do with our lives as we see fit, and thus no Human shall be compelled to help others, it is logical to help others when possible.
    
    

Footnote(s)

7  Ex:  what happened to the Jews under Nazi Germany.

8  It is not my intent to get dragged down into a "what's an arm?" argument here.  The Logic Of Surak pertains to logical concepts and proofs, not specific weaponry.

9  As Thomas Jefferson has stated, "When the citizens are afraid of the government, there is tyranny; when the government is afraid of the citizens, there is liberty".  While Humans behaving logically will never attempt a coup d'etat, the possibility exists (and it is therefore logical to assume) that some Humans - including those in governmental or judicial bodies - may behave illogically and attempt to overthrow the government.  If they succeed, they may try to modify or remove the Fundamental Rights of other citizens of the government.

10  In some areas this is called, "One Man, One Vote, One Time".

11  Of course, if a majority of the citizens wanted to overthrow the government, they would do it by voting, not by violence.  It can be shown that throughout history, all governments that have been unseated in a non-democratic manner were done so by a minority of the citizens who were better-armed than the ones being overthrown, and their governments did not give the people the right to modify nor to dissolve the government.

12  I.e., without cost.

Backup to the footnote reference.