Uhhh okay I had to bore myself to death writing this out.
Okay here goes. How the rights are geometrically derived from the right of the person to exist. (on …lets say, terms true to the fact of his existence)
An Euclidean right is derived from the single point. The… Hyman.
One is the right to exist of he who exists. The axiom,
From this right, many rights are derived by noticing that there’s not one but many points, all of whom the axiom gives their rights.
Rights are derived by confronting the one with another one, and then two, and so on. Different rules come to the game, laws.
Lets see what happens. When we juxtapose one point with another point, we get a straight line.
This line, for whatever else it may mean, represents distance.
Therefore the right derived is, the right of every one who exists to have his distance from another person.
When a third point is inserted, we get a plane. There are two others to each one, and with each of these others, the one has a connection.
The right we can claim here is the right to connection
With four points, Euclidean geometry brings the three dimensional object. Matter;
to possess, oneself first of all. This is the fourth right.
Five gives the golden incision, which represents the mean universal measure of solid growth, the ration whereby things can grow in three dimensions while remaining stable in all directions.
One has the right to time, and development.
Six gives many things at once. It is the most stable cosmic form, carbon, the diamond, and living matter. The rights derived here have to do with society. Human organization comes into play here. Equilibrium; protection from having ones rights violated.
Seven gives ones own indefinable character inside of this society, the number seven can not be geometrically derived. Perhaps then, the Euclidean Rights end here.
So as we can see it all gets deeply complex with the sixth right. But, it does seem like there should be a method of thinking this out, which would mean to arrive at a meaningful justice system.
The mean of the law here is compromise, and absolute compromise. Beyond this compromise there is nothing except the law of one. What is birthed from absolute, equal compromise is a tapestry, a mandala. Depending on the time, state of technology, place of the nation in the world, number of citizen, conditions of the ground and atmosphere, etc, this mandala of life will appear differently and less or more exact. But it will not be disgusting, like what we have now.
All in all the right here defined is: the right to a self.
And this means, as they so keenly summarized; the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Not to happiness, not to satisfaction, but to a proper existence in time-space.
In no way was this expected to explain Parodites. I am sure he would frown heavily on such a literal take on his Euclidean reference. And Im not sure this is what anyone meant. But… hell.