Identification of a consensus doesn't mean a regulation should be made in respond

Negotiation is the most important thing in social life.

As long as there is another person in this world, agreement would always be a relevant target to achieve.

There is a cost to negotiation, especially in time and concentration span, but I'll get back to that issue later.

The idea of right exist because of the existence of another negotiable beings. We can empathize that all of us want everything that we want and need to belong to us. And because of that it's only normal that we are friends that share the same idea of freedom. Unfortunately our friendship still hasn't produced the adequate technology to make us unobtrusive to one another (in our true form). So we create artificial rights, basically limitation to the true right of owning everything that we want and need. For example, property rights, human rights, the right to bring matters into court, etc.

The rule of thumb is, people wanted to increase the level of availability of mutual solutions, so that it became increasingly easier and easier for people to have their freedom and to acquire what currently are and inevitably are going to be their needs and wants.

Naturally the law is the negotiation technology to accommodate all the people in the world. It's not perfect, but it's the best we got. And it's so good that even the internet could only add on into it instead of replacing it. This is due to the nature of limited resources, concentration and time allocation, which are required to complete negotiations. The law is like an organism that has been living for more than 4000 years, keep on improving, keep on evolving, keep on auditing itself.

Now, the fact that to make something canon within the rule of law, you need to negotiate with 7 billion people if not more, I personally feel that it is disrespectful for people who felt that because some acts are hurting some people's feelings, then they would have the adequate legitimation to enforce some rules upon other people. I feel that they decided that it's fine to not consider my interests to be valid, based on some non utility or uncarefully considered reasons.

For example, regulation against people screaming and shouting in the office was worth it because, people in the office would be able to help a lot more people and satisfy their needs because of it. But regulating against people crossing the street when they saw some group of people coming, because it would hurt their feelings, is just unnecessary. Wouldn't it serve the purpose better if we just suggest people to train self control and strength of mind to manage own emotions, instead of spending other people's tax money (investments), time and concentration to deal with problems that are not going to help them in their lives?

I think people need to be reminded that controlling own's emotions are highly virtuous and worth investing. People who are good with it are attractive and precious to negotiate with, I would also find it sensible that they would have easier time reaching happiness and serenity, success in life.

The main reason I write this, is so that people would always aim for self control instead of controlling other people. Control over other people is obtrusive and should only be exercised unwillingly for the sake of the level of availability of mutual solutions because there were no better options figured out