From the moment the foundational unalienable paramount right to life is granted each and every one of us by our Creator, we have needs.
Abraham Maslow accurately observed and identified those universal needs in his presentation.
Clearly, one’s need for life is foundationally paramount.
One then begins to move up the pyramid, with need for security of person understandably coming next, segueing into non-security of person needs of freedom of action becoming dominant as one moves to the very top.
These three basic needs – life, security of person and freedom of action – are expressed in the reality of rights as the mutual respect for universal human needs that we afford our self and others.
Maslow’s chart is a presentation of the reality of needs, and the reality of rights – the paramount unalienable foundational right to life, the right to security of person and the right to freedom of action – derive from our mutual respect for our self and others and our needs.
These rights are real and universal, just like the needs from which they are derived.
When one is self-actualizing at the top of the pyramid and suddenly one loses one’s job and one’s ability to procure life-sustenance, a conflict of need occurs.
The pyramid, by its very nature, presents the rational resolution of needs in conflict: those at the base override.
Thus, the same is true for the three classes of rights derived from the hierarchical pyramid of needs: when rights between people conflict, those more foundational rights override.
Thus, in general …
… When a person shows signs of mental-emotional instability that would put the lives of specific or general others in real and present danger if he kept and bared a gun, his security of person (self-defense) or freedom of action (sport shooting) right to own a gun is overridden by the right to life of any and all others not threatening his life, thus affording mutual respect in accordance with the reality of the universal hierarchy of needs.
… And when a person or group of people is outraged at the threat made upon the sustenance of their very lives and they take up arms to riotously protest, their freedom of action in defense rightly stops short of taking the lives of others when there is no imminent threat on their own, thus affording mutual respect in accordance with the reality of the universal hierarchy of needs.
… And when a person, bound and guarded and imminently endangering no one is convicted of a capital crime, he may be rightly deprived of his freedom of action rights to protect others, but those others, once so protected, cannot then rightly deprive that person of his foundational right to life and right to security of person, thus affording mutual respect in accordance with the reality of the universal hierarchy of needs.
… And when a person is newly alive and his very existence threatens only the convenience and economic freedom of action needs of others, those others have no right to murder that newly conceived person, as the newly conceived person’s foundational right to life and security of person rightly overrides all others’ right to freedom of action, thus affording mutual respect in accordance with the reality of the universal hierarchy of needs.
… And when a person is suffering such that his misery is threatening to the psychological security of others, those others have no right to obtain their need for personal psychological security at the expense of the overriding foundational right to life and right to security of person of that suffering person, thus affording mutual respect in accordance with the reality of the universal hierarchy of needs.
…And when a group of people fear their freedom of action and maybe even their security of person is at stake if another’s freedom of action with respect to that which he owns prevents them from buying what he owns, that group of people has no right to invade that person’s space and murderously slaughter those around him to steal from him his non-life-threatening ownership rights when that group of people had other non-life-murdering alternatives to shore-up their insecurities of person and regain their freedom of action, thus affording mutual respect in accordance with the reality of the universal hierarchy of needs.
It is our consistent application of mutual rights respect for this universal hierarchical reality of needs that will form the foundation for moving us safely into a more otherwise technologically dangerous era.
And the reality of these rights as derived from and related to the universal human hierarchy of need will form the philosophical foundation of the new or revised political party that will lead us there.
