Now that we have logically determined the set of Fundamental Rights to which each Human is entitled, let us turn to the concept of Just Laws.

As Fundamental Rights cannot be modified by Just Laws, Fundamental Rights are superior to Just Laws.

Just Laws take priority over belief systems, as Just Laws are based on logic, and belief systems are axiomatic at best.

As Humans live in vastly different areas - for example, Alaska is far different than the Sahara - the sets of Just Laws that may be developed in each government or region may be vastly different.  The Logic Of Surak makes no such attempt to determine which Just Laws should apply where; that is up to the adult populace of those areas, and as they all have the Fundamental Right to elect officials to represent them in the creation and maintenance of these Just Laws, and as they also have the Fundamental Right to modify/replace/remove the government if they see fit, they are well equipped to legislate themselves into the future.

Howver, it is logical to establish some basic rules in the creation of Just Laws.  Let us first determine to which living beings any Just Laws apply13:

1. All logic and thus all Just Laws that apply to one member of a Classification must apply equally to all members of the same Classification, regardless of any different "aspects" that may appear to "distinguish" members of that same Classification.  Consider the major aspects that differentiate Human beings:  logic knows no racial, ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, gender nor national boundaries.  The first step in discriminating against a living being is differentiation, and in order to differentiate living beings, a method of "delineation" must be established.  How can one discriminate against one or more members of a "group" of living beings if one cannot differentiate those living beings from other living beings using some form of delineation?  In order to "group" those living beings, one must delineate, i.e., create a "criteria" of "grouping" in order to differentiate those living beings from other living beings.  Thus, Just Laws - which must be based on logic - cannot be limited in any way by these aspects.
   

Ex.:  If a given set of logic proves true and is applicable to Humans, it is as applicable to a white Anglican heterosexual man who votes for the Labour party as it is to a polyracial aethist pansexual androgynous person who has no political affiliation.


2. The logic for a given Classification of living being does not have to apply to a different Classification of living being.  While this may appear to contradict my previous statement, above, remember that this is a biological Classification, not a classification based on some artificial Human "critera" (e.g.:  race, sexual orientation, point of ethnic origin, etc.)
   

Ex.:  a given set of logic that applies to Humans does not necessarily apply to dogs, as Humans are members of the Classification "Homo Sapiens", and dogs are members of the Classification "Canus Lupus Familiaris".

By combining the two proofs above, we can arrive at this:



3. While the logic that applies to Humans applies to all Humans, and while the logic that applies to Humans may not apply to a non-Human Classification of living being, the logic that applies to that non-Human Classification of living being must apply equally to all living beings of that same Classification.
   

Ex.:  One can easily argue that a tiger poses a threat and is dangerous, regardless of the size, weight, or training of the tiger; thus, stating "all 'tigers' are dangerous" is a logical argument.  Should a specific tiger be 'domesticated', then:  (a) continuing to consider it dangerous would be a wise precaution, as it is still a tiger (albeit a "domesticated" tiger); and (b) as it is domesticated, one can further argue that is no longer belongs to the "tiger" Classification as it is now domesticated.

Ex.:  Some governments have passed "dangerous dog" laws.  These laws are illogical.  While a given Rottweiler may be dangerous, many are not.  Since it only takes one failure to prove a theory wrong, the theory that all Rottweilers are dangerous is illogical.  One can easily argue that an abused and potentially violent 200lb dog poses a non-trivial threat while an abused and potentially violent 5lb dog poses less of a threat and thus this argument is logical; however, stating that all 200lb dogs pose a threat or that all dogs of a specific breed pose a threat is not a logical argument.



4. A simple majority of the citizens of the government shall be required to enact, modify, or delete any Just Law.
   
   

Footnote(s)

13  The set of Fundamental Rights applies to all Humans by definition; thus, it is not included here.

Backup to the footnote reference.