Ask HN: What would you like to see included in a 21st Century Bill of Rights?

When you know you don't have to enforce them you make make your declaration say anything you want. Real, worthwhile documents like the United States Constitution mean something because you can take it into a courtroom and enforce it.

These things aren't real declarations because they don't provide any real rights that you can enforce, just fancy PR documents.

Things like

>Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Sound great until you realize that most of the planet lives in poverty - how realistic is it to fight for paid holidays on a planet where most people don't even get paid enough to live? Plus the U.N. has done exactly nothing to ensure people get paid holidays. . . as a matter of fact, they've done nothing to enforce or even advocate for many of the rights in their declaration.

These people don't understand that rights were meant to be limitation on government power to secure freedom, not expansions of government power to chase pipe dreams

The right for the energy (food, fuel), insulation (clothes, room) and information (internet) necessary to live long and prosper.

Right to a defensive trial: If you are prosecuted, you should be allowed to do nothing, let the court sort it out with a free, publicly-assigned defender, and if you don't like the verdict, you can dispute it in a second trial. That way you only have to spend money and time defending yourself against suits with serious merit. Would seriously hurt patent trolls, and all nuisance/extortion lawsuits in general.

If the 2nd Amendment is for A) self-defense without the government, or B) eventual resistance against the government itself, then surely it should be interpreted to protect strong encryption.

I expect this post the become massive, as questions like this are so large a kind of bike-shedding exercise goes on, but my own 2c:

I think religious rights should have never evolved the way it did.

Religion is clearly different from creed color, etc, it also includes belief, personality, motivation etc. Instead of becoming power real estate for established religions to fight over (do 'cults', or atheist institutions get the same protections), it should have evolved into the right to believe anything that doesn't motivate you to break the law; in other words, protection against though-policing.

The flat-earthers should get the same protections as catholics - the right to hold any belief, be it on faith or otherwise.