I saw a monument in honor of a fellow who participated in creating the first draft of the Declaration of Human Rights.
He wanted to include; “You should never allow the rights of a collective society to outweigh the rights of the individual.”
That may sound good, but I totally disagree.
In the case of 100 people collectively and one individual, what if you pulled out one of the group and put the individual in the group. Then whose rights should be honored?
If the rights of the single individual were always put in front of the needs of the masses, then eventually the masses would dwindle and you are left with only a few individuals. Is that progress?
The entire concept that anyone, be they in a group or on their own should have their rights superseded by anyone else makes no sense. The only logical method by which a society can continue and flourish is the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, be that one against a hundred, or hundreds against thousands.
To give one the right over the many means that one is better and more important than the hundreds or thousands who have to comply to their desires. This can only create animosity and revolutions.
The irony of the Declaration of Human Rights is that it is meant to bring equality to all. Yet in this principle itself, it creates the opportunity for the greatest inequality. Maybe that is why it was taken out of the final version.
I think we should all live as we choose with one condition; ‘above all, hurt no one.’
There is one point it makes which I fully support in light of my previous post:
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.