The fundamental problem is that all of these lofty natural rights we love to champion in the US are legally framed solely in terms of negative restrictions on T

The fundamental problem is that all of these lofty natural rights we love to champion in the US are legally framed solely in terms of negative restrictions on The Government. This was a workable approach when non-government entities were roughly comparable in power, there were many fully-competing options for businesses, and our society was not so interconnected (eg cash vs electronic transactions, and the surveillance databases read/written on every single interaction). The workability went out the window with massive scaling of centralization, especially as facilitated by the government created corporate liability shield. Banking is one of the areas where the nominally democratic government has not only failed at addressing this broken dynamic, but has eagerly embraced it to implement authoritarian mandates that couldn't possibly pass the substantive bar set by the legal system. For example you'd have a hard time passing a law that anybody with a scary sounding name is prohibited from doing something, but at a bank that kind of arbitrary capriciousness is routine and encouraged. [0] you might reflexively think that framing rights positively is unworkable because it creates contradictions between the same right of different parties. But what it actually does is leave the contradictions remaining front and center so they can be equitably weighed by courts. The negative framing of rights does not resolve these contradictions, but rather scuttles them in the background to be ignored until the hypocrisy grows so apparent that it boils over.