Originally Posted by daw617

Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose that ten years from now, the street corners are rife with police checkpoints, and the police demand that all pedestrians must present their "papers" for inspection and must submit to a search of their person. Will you tell me that these ID checks are perfectly voluntarily? After all, if I want to avoid the "voluntary" ID checks, all I have to do is never leave my home. After all, I'm perfectly free to stay in my home my entire life; if the government deems that by leaving my house, I have implicitly consented to allowing the police to search me at any time, for any reason, well, what possible grounds for unhappiness could I possibly have? How can this be an imposition when I am perfectly free never to leave my home?

I hope this thought experiment illustrates the flaw in your argument, by magnifying the illogic enough that it is blatantly obvious that such logic leads to absurd conclusions.

The point is that "just don't fly" isn't a meaningful option for many of us. And it's not "just don't fly" -- if you want to avoid ID checks, don't take the bus; don't take the train; don't drive. What does that leave? The alternatives are dwindling day by day.

Perhaps you are prepared to argue that if I want to fly, then I have to "voluntarily" relinquish my civil liberties. Personally, I find that notion obnoxious and unjust. (If showing ID actually were effective at preventing terrorism, then that would be different. But right now the ID checks are pointless security theatre.)