A stable currency is a basic human right.
(not unusual, of course, we got a tiny blip of this in the UK during the brief reign of Liz Truss, but the electorate are willing to punish that and do not prioritize culture war over economic stability. Yet.)
If you have a fixed monetary base and the economy grows, all that happens is that things get cheaper, which is what you'd intuitively expect if a society gets wealthier. Economists claim that this will trigger hoarding cycles but this is a strange almost pseudo-psychological claim. It doesn't happen in reality, where there are many examples of prices falling continuously over time in a sector without it causing recession within that sector.
This is just a complete misunderstanding of what a currency is.
Additionally I’m sick of people using “human right” to describe every conceivable characteristic of an ideal modern society.
Some things should be basic and a minimum and other characteristics should be add-ons you get for advancing civilization.
Pooling them all together waters down the most important ones.
But more importantly, my statement is not about external facts. It's a statement of who I am willing to ally with and befriend. Any person who substantially agrees with me about what rights must be protected is my friend and ally. Any person who substantially disagrees is at best a neutral bystander (if he does not try to interfere with my rights) and at worst a bitter enemy (if he actively tries to suppress my rights).
Not every culture shares your libertarian fantasies. Nor do they share your specific limits on free speech (such as copyright) or your disdain for their limits (such as limit on hate speech)
The US criminalises people using freedom of speech to copy a movie, many cultures are quite happy with that. The US limits incitement to suicide, libel, threats, all sorts of things. US law is even at odds with what many consider US culture -- they tried banning, and there's always larges movements to ban burning a piece of cloth.
The US world view is not the only valid one. It limits speech in one way and allows it in another, same with religion.
The merger of "economy" with "people" is another world view that not everyone agrees with. The American view is generally growth and free trade should be allowed, but even America has limitations on that, and those limits go more that others in some areas and less in others.
Many cultures -- including western ones -- look at Reganomics and deregluation as something that should not be allowed despite . A future civilisation will hopefully look back at the difference between how the rich live in their penthouses and how someone sleeping rough in San Francisco and think "how terrible was america to allow this"
You seem to think that the ideals of the American view of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and ever increasing GDP, are inalienable. That's a very myopic view of the world.
>If you banned the burning of oil in the US, that would be awful for GDP, but many americans would like that.
If I banned it, nobody would listen to me because people need to heat their homes, and get food to live. You don't get to pretend to turn off the power, lower the GPD a little and say "many Americans happy". That is fantasy.
https://time.com/5118026/gdp-metric-success-wealth/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/forget-gdp-for-the-21...
And many cultures think that a few large companies getting richer while the rest of the country gets poorer is not a worthy goal. You may not think that, but given that plenty of people think GDP is terrible now.
I'm not sure how you can assert a future culture will look back and go
"In the future, humans will look back on our era and wonder why we accepted the idea that governments should have so much power to interfere with the economy"
I personally think it's much more likely they'll look back in disgust at the companies that put GDP above other factors, and the governments which didn't interfere with the economy would be the ones to blame given that many cultures today think that.