"the core purpose of privacy: to ensure that who we are cannot be used against us unfairly."
No. Privacy is an end in itself. It is a human right. Falling back to economic justifications weakens the foundation of fighting for privacy.
Statement: I support the right to wear pants.
Response: The core purpose of pants are economic, safety and consent. You can use this necklace to wear your wallet, phone and keys around your neck. We promise to keep the thermostat at 72F, and that we will not do anything without your consent. No pants for you.
> no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
This sounds like you want the right to prevent people from talking about you at all.
I don't see even the vaguest mention of economics in this quote. Copy-paste fail?
I think it is in fact quite apt to say that the right to a speedy trial is to indefinite detainment as the right to privacy is to your information being used against you. Both are material consequences of lacking those rights.
The basis for the right which was, in part, ABSOLUTELY rooted in the idea that the because people and governments have a tendency to discriminate against you based on what you believe, then as long as you do not disclose your interests publicly, there should be no basis for discrimination. And why is this discrimination so important when NOT dealing with the government (which are nothing but glorified property protection rackets)?
Economics. Specifically, trade. That thing that mankind has been doing since before we've actually had recorded history? Whether it's bartering or seashells or labor or whatever, it's an essential part of being human, because it's how you get things you need to survive.
Again, we do not assign rights for which we cannot find a real purpose. You cannot be a functioning human being in a society without economic activity, whether you perform it or someone performs it on behalf of you.
You're flat out wrong.
For example, I like how the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There's no attempt to justify them, just a plain statement that "GFY, obviously we have these rights".
As to privacy in particular, I don't think it's a stretch to interpret (4th am) the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" as articulating support for our modern concept of privacy.
Sure, today's corrupt politicized SCOTUS could decide to interpret it otherwise. But it seems naive to think that justification based on fear of discrimination is going to prevent that disreputable politicized SCOTUS from interpreting it to some ends (i.e. outcomes favored by the parties lavishing upon them tangible gifts), no matter how well you argue it.
So, sure, go ahead, argue for our rights on any basis you can find. I hope you succeed.
Yes.
> by the argument that indefinite detention would unfairly limit our ability to obtain an auto loan?
No. It is justified by arguments like without it the state could delay your trial indefinitely keeping you in legal limbo (and possibly incarcerated) for as long as they want which would effectively negate your right to trial. They exact justifications used vary by country.