0) Every being has the right to live in conditions that facilitate their personal growth. These conditions should be an evolving set of wants and needs defined by each being for only themself. Negotiations with the communities the being is a part of should occur as necessary. These will determine how these conditions can be met while violating the conditions of others as little as possible. In those cases where harm cannot be avoided, we should attempt to arrange for the least harm possible.
1) Every being has the right to any information which could aid them in deciding what their ideal circumstance are.
Different people have different needs. One of the main problems with America's current Bill of Rights is that it is simply a list of specific things all people should have. This means that many groups are left behind by the original wording, and in order to fix that we have to either have a massive difficult vote to change the wording, or hope to hell that the Judges on the Supreme Court are willing to do some impressive mental gymnastics in order to fit the new group in. In addition, it is very hard to tell what happens when two different rights conflict with eachother. It falls to the Judges to draw a hard line on what should happen. That sort of rigid rule making can have dire consequences for people in seemingly similar, yet crucially different, situations.
An individual being inherently understands their own desires and needs better than any other being possibly could. Another being should only be allowed to dictate or interpret what a being desires and/or needs is if the first being cannot adequitly comunicate. See the next section for rules on how to handle cases where a being cannot comunicate in some way.
Every living thing as well as any sort of spirit, soul, or other supernatural entity. Anything under this catagory will be refered to as a being for the rest of this document. All beings have an equal claim to these rights regardless of species, gender, corporial status, occupation, citizenship status or any other catagory. It is, however, much harder for some beings to access these rights and/or advocate for their needs. The following section is dedicated to ways that can help these beings access their rights.
In cases where a being cannot communicate or their ability to communicate is severely impaired (such as babies, non-verbal autistic beings with only a limited ability in sign language, trees, chimpanzees, ghosts): they will be represented by a being who can fully communicate. If the being gains the ability to fully communicate, they shall no longer have a representative, and should be consulted on how well the system of representation worked, and how it might be improved.
In cases where a being can communicate their own wants and desires, but at times may not be fully capable of figuring out how to fulfill them (such as children, mentally disabled, mentally ill): these beings shall have at least one datzhi to help them figure things out.
A datzhi is a person who takes on a guiding and nurturing role similar to a parent, mentor, teacher, and/or therapist. The datzhi should have little to no power over the being they guide.
This is the process that we should use to choose datzhi: All those who have no reason to want to harm the being, and live in the communities the being shall live with, will come together and choose no less than 5 willing candidates for the position of datzhi. The being will then choose who among the candidates will be datzhi to them.
Many of you who are reading this may be understandably concerned about viruses, ghosts, trees, and all manner of other things having equal rights as you. You may be asking: What is stoping parasite rights activists from declaring that the hundreds of tape worms within me have an equal right to life and should therefore be allowed to stay? Does this mean that I could be charged for murder if I chop down a tree for fire wood? I'm an Atheist who doesn't believe in souls, what the hell does it even mean to respect ghost's rights? Does this mean that we have to accept the bible or the pope as Jesus's representative? If so what does this mean for the Prodestant/Catholic divide?
These are all vastly good questions, and I don't have all the answers right now. (I suspect most solutions will revolve around the definition of community and the fact that beings do not have equal needs or equal capacities to suffer.) This is a work in progress, and I've barely even started it. I shall modify and clarify this as necessary until I physically can't anymore. Once I feel that this draft of the Bill is finished, I will open up some way to comment, critique, and ask questions.
Additionally most of the logistical concerns of how to enforce this whole can of moral worms will be taken care of in separate supporting documents. I already have plans for ones outlining rules for negotiations/debates, an inferior bill of rights designed to function like minimum wage laws, and a whole section dedicated to dealing with people who have caused harm or broken laws.