I can't think up much of a good response to "If you have nothing to hide, there is no problem if you are searched by the government". Yes, I can point to the fallibilty of the government, but I need something stronger than "The CIA might dislike my political beliefs!" or something like that. I need something more concrete that assumes the government acts for the benefit of people.
Also, R. J. Sawyers "Wake, Watch" series states that privacy is bad as it hides the activities of, say, hitmen or paedophiles. On one hand, the bad guys are in a secret government agency. On the other, it basically ends with a benevolent AI entity taking control of the internet and removing all privacy (though only it knows all, and it doesn't share with anyone else). Parallels with 1984 are drawn, but it seems to be implied that the only problem with 1984 was that a corrupt government had control of information rather than someone/thing with good intentions. I am pretty damn sure there is a problem with this logic, but I can't figure it out right now.
I have a lot to hide.
Easy, its the same as if someone says that waterboarding isn't torture; ask if you can waterboard them. If someone says there is nothing wrong with searches then ask them to let you search them. When they say "No" then just ask, "Do you have something to hide?"
I win arguments by looking for hypocrisy.
"In a modern democracy, no matter whom you vote for, the government always gets elected" -Christopher Westley
Simple, the purpose of these searches is not to find anything, the purpose is to get people used to being obedient enought to be humiliated a the whim of any govenrment agency. Finding something is a bonus. So it is not that you have anything to hide that is in quesiton, it is that you will submit to the riduculous whims of a bunch of people you do not know with the added problem that if these people find something then they will make your life hell.
The best example of this is by far the TSA. The TSA has found exactly ZERO terrorists but has humiliated and assulted millions of folks.
Couldn't you say you have your genitals to hide?
Funny how the argument is only true for you, but not for the government. If they would install cameras to monitor us, why not our cameras to monitor them? Our public servants wouldn't have things to hide from us? They can put their money where their mouth is and audit the fed, free Bradley Manning and instruct the police to not be nasty to people who try to film them. Then we can talk.
Great point, Marko. As dumb as this whole TSA situation is, you have to appreciate the fact that it has spilled over into the national discussion. LRC was the only place I saw any complaining about the airport security measures and then the other day I see most major news outlets talking about it.
Of course, conservatives (i.e., those for "smaller government") are the ones who say, "quit whining and suck it up." Liberals aren't doing much better, but there is a significant, non-partisan backlash by those who actually enjoy liberty and by those who don't.
Ever notice how exactly the agencies in charge of surveilance of the public are the ones the most secretive about themselves? You can expect some level of transparency from the likes of the wildlife and forestry service or the department of health and sports. But the non-uniformed police in charge of spying on you won't ever reveal anything about itself. You would be stupid to not have anything to hide from the people who have so much to hide from you.
Just tell them the truth. You don't trust them. I've heard about police intimidating people with questions like this. Detaining people for crimes, and when they ask to see their lawyer, saying "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of right?". It works surprisingly often. You need guts to stand up to the state. I'm not afraid of any cop, but I would be afraid of anyone higher up.
Sieben:Just tell them the truth. You don't trust them.
This. Also there's the fact that the incentives for police officers and prosecutors aren't to determine the truth, they're to gain arrests and convictions (respectively). The Innocence Project is evidence enough of this, IMO.
Sieben:I've heard about police intimidating people with questions like this. Detaining people for crimes, and when they ask to see their lawyer, saying "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of right?". It works surprisingly often. You need guts to stand up to the state. I'm not afraid of any cop, but I would be afraid of anyone higher up.
I wouldn't even answer that question. I'd remain silent or ask again to see my lawyer. If they ask that question again, I'd ask them whether they're now denying my right to remain silent and my right to counsel. Doing so is a federal crime (denial of civil rights).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Ask the policeman if they are qualified to give legal advice
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Just tell them the truth. You don't trust them.
I'd think about combining this with the whole "gun in the room" approach. I.E., say that you don't trust the government (and don't want anyone else violating your privacy) and say that you're not going to let anyone who wants to search in your house. Ask him, if he continues to support searches, if he's willing to be the one to initiate force to let the government search you.
Detaining people for crimes, and when they ask to see their lawyer, saying "If you didn't do anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of right?".
People get framed by police all the time and sometimes convicted. I knew someone that went through a long, costly legal battle from a setup.
If Rothbard was not shot dead because of his beliefs, I think we all are more or less safe.
This is what pisses me off most. It is not about the TSA scanners or the pat-downs. It never was. The main focus should be removing government from the scanning. We very well may get airlines that may make scanners mandatory. Or even the pat-downs. Attacking the scanners themselves is a mere distraction.
"I can't think up much of a good response to "If you have nothing to hide, there is no problem if you are searched by the government"."
Would you take a dump in public, right here?
"No."
Why? What do you have to hide?
*Statism implodes*