We are responsible for our individual wellbeing to the limits of our capabilities. We are not directly responsible for the wellbeing of other individuals, except as we choose to be within the limits of their concurrence. There is thus a huge difference between respecting the rights of others and attempting to force them towards behaviors that we find useful, respectable or responsible. On the one hand, we can offer our ideas. On the other, we violate individual rights when we impose our beliefs through control tactics. The critical juncture is, of course, found when people of different persuasions live with or next to each other.

In general, we understand our individual rights to self-determined behavior and the responsibility not to interfere with other's rights in that regard. So we group ourselves according to our learned preferences and inherited/developed abilities and attempt to insulate ourselves from those who "choose," willfully or not, not to be like us. Our societies all attempt to define allowable behaviors for group settings that assure that we will not violate each other's rights. We call these things cultural mores or, in certain instances, laws. In theory, we arrive at mores and laws through assumed consensus about the common good. Realistically we understand that both are products of past practices and current power struggles via laws, so we do not normally participate, individually, in setting the rules. Instead, we either take "liberties" or attempt to confine the liberties that others attempt to take.

Destiny attempts to press home the fundamental rightness of the golden rule. It is that rule that best states our rights and responsibilities, for we can expect no better than we give. To point, we cannot expect as good as we give unless our counterparts are as capable and well motivated as we are. So it is that one of my contemporaries stated, "The golden rule is insufficient, for it still licenses us to force our ways on others because we would like to receive from them the behaviors that we respect." His point was well made. The golden rule is not a license to command or control, no matter how well intentioned we may happen to be. It is bounded by both laissez-faire and the knowledge that we are not licensed to do that which interferes with another's pursuit of happiness.

At a practical level, we come from so many diverse cultural backgrounds and personal experiences that we certainly have no reason to expect consensus with each other on many topics. About the only sensible thing we can say is that knowledge gained through education tends to make us closer in our understanding of life and more open to appreciate our culturally inherited differences. Even so, we still recognize that there will be collisions when we interact with people whose perceptions about life and learned values differ markedly from our own. Thus, Destiny demands maximum education for all of us to overcome the worst of our learned and prejudicial behaviors, and then the genetic engineering improvements to our mental and physical prowess to eliminate the physical basis for our ability differences.

Destiny is dedicated to and focused on the realization of the bounded definition of the golden rule as given above. Our individual rights and responsibilities are well understood in the context of maximum education and empowerment through enhanced mental and physical prowess. We will live in concert among each other in tribal or homogenous settings, by choice, not necessity. We will group ourselves according to our interests.