US citizens do indeed have a constitution that confers lots of rights.

My contention is simply that these rights are legal fictions and political footballs, and should not be in-scope for a constitution. They shouldn't be baked-in; they should be simple legislation.

I mainly don't believe in these "rights". I think people should be treated fairly and equitably; and I think that should be a matter of law. But constitution is about meta-law - how laws are made, not what their effect is.

They're political footballs because people don't want people they don't like or are who are doing things they don't like to have rights and monkeying with definitions is easier than the full frontal assault of amending the constitution.

How many times have you seen people on HN advocating, to much popular support, for infringing upon the 4th amendment for people who are involved in specific types of business or the infringing upon 5th amendment protections for people engaged in certain activities?

I see all the rights under constant attack all the time. By Americans. It's heartbreaking.

The fourth is effectively a law that constrains the authorities from carrying out searches under many circumstances.

The fifth constrains courts from forcing people to testify against themselves.

These rules are often framed as "rights", but they are really restrictions on the power of government officials.

I'm not sure why you have put this in terms of "specific types of business" and "certain activities". What types of business, and what activities, receive special protection under those amendments? What are you getting at?

Fortunately, you still have those rights - whether you recognize them or not, and whether or not the government recognizes them.

They're inherent to being a human being - those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

The US Constitution did not create those rights, it recognized them.

> those "inalienable" rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence

/me not subject to USA law.

I've already said that I think "rights" are a fiction; so to me, inalienable rights are an inalienable fiction. Just because they've been written down doesn't make them real.

What are these rights? (I'm not asking for their enumeration; I want to know where they come from, what they're made of, if you like). I did philosophy at University (a long time ago), including a module on political philosophy. I don't know of any basis for the notion of a "right", other than privileges freely granted by others.

So, for example, I have a right to a state pension; I've paid for it all my working life, and I'm over 65. But the government can infringe that supposed right simply by passing a budget that abolishes it. It's a privilege, not a right.

The US constitution claims to protect these "rights" from infringement by legislators, enforced by the Supreme Court. But I have to say, the Supreme Court nowadays looks more like just another legislative body than a superior appeals court.

They come from human nature. The evidence comes from how well a society thrives, or fails to thrive, under particular sets of rights. The US has thrived, so its concept of rights is more accurate than, say, communist rights, under which people do very poorly.

Well, OK. Or maybe they come from garden compost, or the luminiferous aether. You're just making bald assertions.

As far as "communist rights" are concerned, I don't think the idea of rights has much prominence in communist thought.

And your linking of rights (as you conceive of rights) with "thriving" (which you haven't defined, but I assume you mean wealth) is pretty fishy. Many people in the USA are not wealthy at all.

Ya know, the point is lost when one starts to debate the meanings of words. You and I both know what "thriving" means.

I don't know what you mean by thriving, which is why I asked.

And you still aren't addressing my question, which is what are rights, and where do they come from.

That’s begging the question. If you define rights specifically by enumerating how they are defined in the bill of rights of course the US comes out on top. That’s before your hedge about implementation.

In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties.

Here is one methodology https://knoema.com/atlas/ranks/Civil-liberties-index?mode=am... but you can find similar results across many others.

Just take our prison population per capita if you want a glaring metric on how poorly we do at freedom.

Yeah let's just say that any list that places Canada sixth on a list is very much suspect.

Nothing says "human rights" like criminalising protests, confiscating money, and prohibiting unvaccinated people from leaving the country.

>In practice the US performs rather badly when scores on civil liberties.

Which IMO is mostly a reflection of a country in which a large subset of the electorate do not really believe in human rights beyond the extent of a useful legal fiction to be quietly ignored in the pursuit of specific outcomes.

If the people had a hardline stance on human rights and civil liberties the government would reflect that.

The USA — with the 'most rights of any people in the world' — incarcerates the most people, by far, in some of the most inhumane conditions (slavery is explicitly legal in such contexts) among the developed nations.

We're 'free' in an Orwellian sense. Freedom to be educated, have health care regardless of one's employment|wealth, welfare with dignity for those in need — none of these concepts come into consideration into what 'freedom' actually means in practice.

My political leanings started libertarian. Over the years, I have traveled and read, and came to see the US for the farce it is, and encounter the deluded population convinced America is 'the greatest nation ever'. It has potential for sure, but when will we unlock it and truly taste real freedom?

Getting free stuff is a privilege, not a right.

None of the Bill of Rights is guaranteeing free stuff.