Concisely, preceding all harm as individually perceived by one is covetousness as individually conceived by another...

Comparatively, if another transgresses the individual’s rights hence the individual’s dissent, the transgressor have already coveted then presumed prior to the arrogance and act. By such transgression, not only are the individual’s Lockean rights certainly molested, firstly and gravely disregarded, grossly disrespected the Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on all matters, as exercised, elected and expressed per the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. This too is an equation as consistently so.

Concisely, preceding all harm as individually perceived by one is covetousness as individually conceived by another.

Why prioritized the right to consent or dissent as “firstly and gravely”? For any list, enumeration, bill, or declaration of rights, whether by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt (as first chair of UN Commission on Human Rights), are nothing more than political arrangements, justified only if unanimously consented else transgressions simply legalized. Thusly imperative, such conditions must be well founded on the only actual right as preferred and practiced by every human being since time immemorial so to reiterate; the propensity and preference therefore right to consent or dissent on literally all matters.

D.C. Quillan Stone

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.