it-Mind- Rights -Truth

The principle of freedom is understood as the possibility to act. While laws regulate the events of procedure, they do not rule 'the lack of freedom,' and every committed crime is not stopped; instead, it is punished. To prevent something from being done is to deprive the freedom of the subject to act. No law commands the hands and the feet of an individual.

So far, there hasn't been any idea about rights that command pleasure or precise humanity. (For example, there is no such thing as the right/or the privilege to eat.) If we consider them given for pleasure, it will be a way to tell someone what to do.

Originating from just events, something must happen to earn a right. No request has been provided for something imagined to happen.

In terms of freedom, the plan of action taken constitutes truth, including every flowing mechanism considering your body, thoughts, and emotions. There is a common belief that good things succeed the bad ones and vice versa. The process of earning rights is merely the principle of economics of the truth. You make a right act for every violation of your possibility to do something. We can consider that if bad things did not happen but you thought they did because of your perspective or imagination, no universal truth could be tricked to reward you for something that did not happen. Hence, the examination of events as either good or bad becomes unattainable when limited solely to individual perspectives. Indeed, the concept of rights becomes intricately linked with the truth, and the truth itself becomes contingent on the judgment of a third party. The succession of positive or negative occurrences lacks a definitive trajectory unless anchored in an external, objective standard. Without such an impartial standard, the sequencing of events remains contingent upon subjective viewpoints, highlighting the necessity for an overarching and accurate judgment beyond personal interpretations. Discerning what truth is personally becomes a complex and elusive endeavor without a universally agreed-upon standard or objective reference point.

What if I decide to delve into someone's boundaries to pursue truth? The quest for truth might end up with me drained, trying to uncover every little detail about the other person, all while narrowing their perspective to match my own. It's like aiming for truth but accidentally stumbling into a maze of invading someone's space and, in the process, losing sight of the genuine diversity in their viewpoint.

Interfering with someone else's free will at a detailed level appears implausible, as the level of dedication required for such influence would necessitate the assimilation of the individual's will into one's own.