Bitcoin Forum

My little theory about rights:

Each person and each group should and do have the right to form their own system of interactions, whether that is religious, political (or lack of) or anything else, providing they do it at will.

They lose that right when they try to take away other person’s, group’s right to do the same; and that is authority. I only see restrains in doing so, and no benefit unless one tries to restrain oneself.

But if it is you who grants control, power unto some God or gods or some leader well it is your own right to do so, and then it doesn’t count as authority.

In case it is not clear, I'm implying anything from complete anarchy, atheism, christianity, communism, national socialism, blockchain, fiat currencies, scientology, free market --literally anything is one's right to adhere to, as long as he doesn't try to impose that to others. If he does so, he get's restrained himself.

If we can't agree with each other, can't have one big system for all, but we can allow each other to have whichever system(s) we wish to, and that way we can have peace. (And that's a good reason for blockchain to exist too.)

When a child gets brainwashed by their parents, it is against their will. 

Indeed, one's own thinking system is one's own right too. Brainwashing is essentially the imposing (injecting) one's thinking inside another's without his will. (Like when you're put by force to memorize a book and then repeat it.) Or the prohibiting one from thinking his own thoughts.

unity , leadership and direct action main sources of getting right for anything ..

The fact is that a person has always tried to make a cat and dependent on himself, therefore in society It always happens. Everyone in the family has someone in the bathroom and imposes their ideas and thoughts, And children always go to subordinates. It has always been such a person's nature and I think that excitement in this plan can not be any.

Being able to do things according to their practices one's rights.
Being able to do things according to the law is right of the government.
Being able to live in peace is the right of the society.
Things that are done by the power of the people, or government or individual is their right.

I totally agree. Not everyone is able to accept another person as he is. What can we say about rules for everyone?

Unfortunately, inequality among the population does not depend on the people themselves

I believe in order for something to be against will, you have to have a will? Just saying, these children don't have a will when it comes these things, most likely they don't even really know what that stuff means, but they understand the emotional charge but it will take repition for it to click. So how's it against their will when they haven't got one in these matters? They naturally listen to their parents cause thats what they biologically understand, so if anything it's in their wills approval if they had one.

No, we can't. For example, muslims will never allow polyatheists to exist.
And why do you think that all people want peace?

Rights may be many kinds of side. Human rights or basic rights.Some basic rights food,education,live,shelter,treatment and entertainment.Every people have rights to live and if he lives properly he have to learn education because education is backbone of a nation. Like all that Rights idea is unlimited.

We can but we won't. That's basically it. If you look at it, it's really up to people to learn how to respect differences whether it's religion or race or culture. I just don't understand why many of us restrict ourselves from realizing that and think they're superior than others

egaliterianisme in documents human rights currently obvious, first, the pressure on the protection of discrimination, as well as on the similarity in the presence of the law. although manifesto-manifesto human rights born in the eighteenth century sometimes also launched equality in front of legal protections of discrimination is the development of new appear in the nineteenth century and twentieth. victory over slavery come at the nineteenth century, but the struggle against attitudes and practices are racist a struggle Central born on our century. demand equations for women around the field of life also just placed in the agenda of human rights.

this is certainly good until the rights of some don't border on the rights of others...what can be necessary for a one person - for another it may have bad consequences, how in that case be?

human rights , we all have it .

There is a thin line between Anarchy, and Tyranny.
Freedom without order is anarchy. Order without freedom is tyranny.
What we as a collective agree upon to be considered as rights, are actually privileges. Privileges should be earned, but never given.
   The difficulty lies within finding a natural balance between the two. This is why civilizations come and go, because nobody as of yet, has found the perfect formula. Artificial Intelligence will be the medium that will help us find the missing ingredients.