This is a very hard question to answer but i have to go with peace. If you havent hurt anyone then no one has the right to hurt you. For them to hurt you when you hurt no one would be unfair. Objective morality is all about what is fair so if your peaceful you deserve peace. All ive wanted my whole life was peace. Before i was born things were peaceful and i dont have one complaint and now that im alive people want to hurt me, im addicted to pleasure that i cant experience most of the time because of my mental illness. I also suffer from paranoia and other things that make it impossible for me to enjoy my life. I spend most of my time wishing i had never been born and worrying that i wont be dead after i die. I dont want to live forever. Having kids is giving children something they dont deserve which is unfair and cruel because unfair and cruel things will most certainly happen to your offspring and eventually someone will suffer greatly all because you were selfish and chose to take someones peace by bringing them into the world for your own selfish desires.
To answer this critical question, I'll use a quote from a favorite book of mine: "Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. If that is allowed, all else follows" This basically sums up my opinion, that the most important and basic right a person has is the right to free speech. Unfortunately, this right is never assured unless one can defend it against oppression, and what better way to protect oneself than with arms? Thus, it follows that the right to bear arms is a necessary prerequisite to the right of free speech. If I had to choose between one, I'd say the latter. It becomes easier to speak your mind if you have the assurance of protection.
Wasn't sure which side to put this. This includes the right to live as you choose and die as you choose. Key to this is that it not take away the rights of others. You have the right to kill yourself but not others. You have the right to earn for yourself and keep what you earn, you do not have the right to take the earnings of others. You have the right to defend yourself against bodily attack.
Other than food and water, knowledge is the most important thing humanity can acquire for itself. Knowledge helps us create a better standard of living, it helps us protect ourselves and avoid danger, it helps us improve our health, and so much more. Your neighbor's increase in intelligence not only helps your neighbor, it also helps you. The world becomes a much more dangerous place when surrounded by idiots.
So, if there is something we are all going to aspire to providing for all humans, education is it. But I don't know if I'd call it a "right".
"Rights". Ask yourself: Where do they come from? Who or what grants "rights"?
There's a lot of things to be argued especially with all the issues that are in the world? I guess you can answer this question by asking another question; what is the largest injustice in this world that needs to be an unalienable right? In a way this can also help you answer the question.
I do not mean to be blunt but to say so absolutely that one right stands above all is tomfoolery. As we know, there are rights to self, rights to speech, rights to peace, rights to education etc. How does one give criterion to rights considering that it is a subjective topic?
I concede that there will always be unalienable rights such as education (note that education covers a broad spectrum, not just curriculum based learning but also the traditions and culture as well as the way of survival, hunting etc.). However the world is not just black and white, it's not even just grey. It is in colours! There will always be rights that will clash with each other. For an illustration, rights to self and peace will almost always definitely clash. When you think about it, a sovereign country is governed by laws. These laws in turn bind and shackle the masses to a accepted behaviour and thought process. Now think more carefully, who makes the laws? The very people the public vote for, those on the legislative and executive committee. This is done because the public trust them to make their lives stable and prosperous; to be in a state of peace. In doing so, the public would have lost their "self".
Detractors would say that that is not a loss of self, considering the public do not lose their individual reasoning. That they are able to make day to day decisions without the influence of others.
It is precisely because the public does not lose their individual reasoning and yet conform to the law that is the proof that the rights to self and to peace actually clash. Because they are deterred by the possible punishments. (please refer to social contract because there is an additional part on social obligation)
In a manner of speaking, no single right stands above all. The most important aspect is the analysis of circumstances and further refined definition of the rights (In the above example, you would be able to see that an ambiguous "right to self" and "right to peace" makes life very hard) in question, then and only then can any single right be give precedence over the other.