Please comment -- all input welcome

It was an interesting read. The setup made it seem like it was going to be 'revolutionary' structural change, but the outlined rights come across as American liberal, which makes sense as you stated you used the bill of rights as a starter. Not necessarily a critique, just an observation.

A couple quick word choice notes:

• You switch between gendered (he/him/his) and ungendered (they/their) a far bit. I'd suggest switching everything to ungendered.
• I feel "Mother Earth" is probably targeted at the "spiritual" crowd. You may want to change that to "environment" or something similar for a wider audience.

I like the general concept of this, it reminds of Kants categorical imperative.

However I'd be cautious to mix general concepts/principles and laws. I already found a contradiction between the right to life for everyone, including "Mother Earth" (I share @Vicinus@piefed.zips reservations on this term), and the explicit inclusion of the right to bear firearms with the explicit mention of hunting. I think it's obvious which of the two parts is not supposed to be in there.

Also the further one reads, the more it feels like the text adapts more and more to existing structures and problems, instead of getting rid of them. Why even include states and borders, if it explicitly mentions that they are to be ignored, and nationality and place of living can be chosen freely? In that case the concept of nationality and borders does not make sense any more