All these human rights declarations, the countless treaties about human rights are all unnecessary. They are made because of the ambiguity of the phrase “free”. When is someone free? Who can be free? Check, all the declarations of rights limit these rights, to citizens of that given state (like too many constitutions), or more generally, to humans. It’s so interesting that humankind couldn’t yet resolve this problem. The declarations and treaties list all what humans are free to do or what they have right to, but this is not the right way. This way, the rights and freedoms are inverted: it would be more practical to suppose that everyone is free to do whatever he/she/it wants. And then come all the limitations. First limitation: as long as it doesn’t limit someone else’s rights or freedoms. And all the others of what you’re not allowed to do.
Are these the same? Are the human rights actually just the limitations of the rights of the community? For sure, since we’re a race that has to survive, the community has to be put higher than all else (meaning that if one can reproduce, they have to). And an “embodiment” of the community is the state, which would explain why there are so many freedoms from the state.
Are we trying to write our own laws of humanics (after Asimov’s laws of robotics), the same way, just since we’re not born bound by these laws but impose them on ourselves, nor are we good, we have to detail them to minimize the damage possible. What’s the answer? How to deal with the whole of our race, and later, with the whole of lifeforms?
