Oh hell no. Rights should be protected equally.

Even distribution of power is democracy, or as Aristotle called it, "rule by the poor".

The US constitution is honestly a pretty great model. We should probably go back to the framers' original plan for electing senators, and we obviously need meaningful campaign finance reform.

The question you haven't addressed is how that power would be distributed evenly; and, more importantly, how would the power remain distributed evenly?

If I may, take a stab...

(with some recently refined comprehension thanks to a friend on this same thread)

if we start from the assumption all power comes from the individual then the solution is rather simple: to ensure even distribution of power, all individuals just need to reject all concessions of power to another. In other words: you, and all others, must reject any & every third-party in any engagement and in all forms; particularly belief in idols posing as 'authority'.

This will fundamentally reshape daily life, but as they say no pain no gain.

For example this policy would, by definition, eliminate the the money system. Money represents a third party authority: an idol you subscribe your belief into for the facilitation of a trade involving you and another party... where said idol was not needed nor directly involved in the trade - thus is a concession of power and in fact a very empowering one for (((those))) who control said idol.

If instead you engage directly with another party, only trading items essential for your needs - the trade was even & involved no third parties, no delegation of authority over the transaction and thus no power was lost.

Fantasy idols like 'money' or 'politicians' who masquerade as authority but which serve only third parties would be the first to go with an embrace of this foundation - and the rest then is self explantory; in any situation you simply evaluate if a given choice represents concession of individual authority or not. In other words you discipline yourself and thus inspire those around you to do the same - the net effect on a large scale a neutralization & decentralization of power; an authoritative system where the individuals each represent equal authority.

The 'challenge' I suppose is that you therefore do not have the authority to 'redistribute power' among others - that part is on them and you can only act on your behalf; such attempts to control or directly influence others would represent a power imbalance. An obvious temptation, but not needed, and therefore a corruption of this model.