Consent and Permission - The Only Moral Thing

Note

Intellectual Property doesn't count because it's an illusion.

This is sort of (almost) the same as the Golden Rule.

Usually I have a sense of this a lot. Of course, nobody is perfect, forgiveness is very important and needed to also not violate this.

Anyway, sadly, the USA, and a lot of other countries are not only for this, in fact, if they go for other things, then there are problems.

I believe that if someone in a person's home consents and the other person's agreed, then it's none of our business.. The same goes for solo privacy such as the right to do whatever you want with your body; hurt it, move any way you want, etc, etc. Technically, I believe people have (or should) the right to even damage it. Including suicide. Because of this simple "moral" factor, I have to believe in the right to suicide, and other (possibly) dangerous acts of your own. When you are alone, you own your own body, and for the Golden Rule, you cannot prevent the freedom's of someone Else's body. It's not property to someone Else's but yours.

The Lost Balance
The Golden Rule and the idea of "Consent and Permission" is very simple. When you are somehow originated to this idea or you accept it later on, you may discover a balance, and in this balance, there is a line that if it's crossed, then the whole thing collapses.

I might of discovered something shocking but it may be a theory though; which could be untrue or not all the time.

The "theory" is that if there is any form of another thing except the Consent and Permission, then Consent and Permission is violated! The Golden Rule gets violated.

Example: If it's illegal to, say, flip your own self off whether it's illegal based off prejudice morons or "not", then you are prevented from the natural right to do whatever you want with your own body, therefor; someone violates your natural right to your own body. Freedom if violated.

Another Example: Say two people consent and agreed to do something, but however, what they do was illegal (whether based on prejudice or "not" of course) and was stopped and probably punished. What the two people did was not violate consent and permission, so there was actually no issue in freedom it's self. However, when they were prevented off of a whole different group (or one person), then they violated there freedom of consent. It interfered with what they were agreeing to do! Therefor; The natural right to freedom (part of the Golden Rule) is violated!

This is the problem if there is more than just "Consent and Permission" laws, because if so, then the high law of the world gets violated.
That's probably why the Golden Rule is consider "Gold" because it's like the main ruler. So it must make sense.

____________________________

If I ever wanted to live on a good world with a society. This is all we would have at least probably. People have every single right to do whatever they want with there bodies, including the right to have freedom with another as long if the person accepts.. If there is consent of a living person, then it's none of the government's business or any other person's business. Our world would have no taboos, or no other "moral idea".. It would only be based off that very freedom. Even people have the right to consent into acts that may still be taboo here.
Would the world have a government? Probably not, I believe there is a better way.

Heck, as a deep thinker, I don't scientifically believe that "morally" exist; no such thing as Right or Wrong. However, I just get feelings for something that may be consider "morally".