This is a method of thinking about civil liberties in a way that incorporates three major forces behind death. Since no one knows for sure what happens to consciousness after death, it is rational to live in fear every day and analyze every individual, organization, and event for their potential to cause death. Life is the only state that we know, so it makes sense to prolong it at all costs. No person or group is one hundred percent certain of what happens to consciousness after death. Some religious or secular groups claim to know with complete certainty, but my response to them is: “How do you know for sure? Have you died before?”
You can think of the major causes of death as the corners on a triangle:
1. individuals (violent criminals, terrorists, people who cause accidents, impulsive people)
2. governments (genocide, police brutality, state sanctioned executions)
3. corporations (weapons manufacturing, addictive products, lax manufacturing standards, hospital mistakes, unsafe work environments)
Sometimes these three categories are allied with one another. This happens in wars where citizens, governments, and corporations join together to kill certain people. These groups are also united in the mistaken belief that death is acceptable due to its status as a natural process. That is the naturalistic fallacy in action. Sometimes everyone really is trying to kill you, or at least ambivalent whether you live or die.
Sometimes these three categories are at odds with one another. Individuals want to be protected from government and corporate exploitation. Governments want to be protected from violent individuals and corporate efforts to shrink government. Corporations want to avoid government regulations and consumer boycotts.
Personal freedom, government control, and economic freedom can each pose threats to human life. Personal freedom is dangerous if people end up being killed by their fellow citizens. Government control is dangerous if people end up being exterminated by their government. Economic freedom is dangerous if corporations pursue wealth while disregarding human life. A potential solution could involve a system of checks and balances like the following:
1. conducting neuropsychological tests on every person to determine whether people with a biological propensity for violence deserve further monitoring
2. having oversight boards to oversee government and military organizations and overrule actions that threaten human life
3. ensuring corporations follow certain safety practices and are subject to independent testing
Bits and pieces of these strategies already exist. Someone with more legal and organizational knowledge could create a more exact structure, but this is a start.
