I call my power back

That conclusion follows well. “An ye harm none, do what ye will” is not only a prohibition against deliberate injury; it also requires considering the effects of one’s will. A spell can be intended as self-protection yet still be ethically problematic if its wording is so broad that it disrupts other people or damages the practitioner’s own healthy connections.

The “life is change” perspective recognizes that giving and receiving are part of existence. Power and energy are not necessarily possessions that must be withdrawn from every relationship; they can also be exchanged, transformed, and circulated. If a working attempts to reclaim everything from everyone, it rejects that natural reciprocity and may cause harm by treating all connection as unauthorized loss.

There is also an important distinction between consent and interdependence. People should not be coerced, drained, or bound without consent. But not every influence or exchange is a violation. Care, teaching, love, ancestry, community, and shared experience all change us. A responsible spell would therefore need to identify the actual harm and remove only that—not attempt to undo every exchange that helped form the person.

In that sense, the ethical flaw is not simply that the spell “takes back power.” It is that the will expressed is unlimited, while the Rede’s condition is precisely a limit: do what you will only where harm is not done.