One problem with your argument is that I don't intend to be the pilot and flying has been around a hundered years. It's about as safe as you can get statistically.
Not being allowed on a plane without the federal government making sure everyone's shit is searched reconciles with probable cause and warrants how?
It matters not that I have other options. It's that this option is being blocked if I choose to not surrender my rights. Clearly this is the best option in many instances or people wouldn't be choosing it by the millions. That makes it coercive.
Which right are you surrendering, again, exactly? The
right to fly on an airplane? And it being the best option - this means that it's a
right, and not a
privilege? So, when driving is the best option, then it becomes a right too? Oye, there are a lot of people out there being stripped of their
right to drive. It's almost like it's not actually a right to all, and it's clearly understood that stripping someone of their legal certification or their right to drive isn't actually stripping of them of their right to travel. On that note, is there a
right to travel which actually includes specific means of travel? Could you cite relevant passages pertaining to this right for me?
Governments can't be coercive and not infringe on your rights, rather than just not allowing you to exercise certain privileges? Companies? Hell, the other day I was going to see a movie and they took my backpack at the door when some other woman walked right through with a purse that was bigger than my bloody backpack. There was some coercion there, and some inequality of treatment insofar as her purse was fine and my backpack was not. You say "That makes it coercive" like that actually means something concerning rights vs privileges vs zippidy doo-dah. Companies, governments, and private businesses are coercive millions of times every single day and we aren't sitting here screeching "BUT MY RIGHT TO BRING MY BACKPACK/NOT WEAR A SHIRT IN THE RESTAURANT/WEAR NOTHING BUT MY BRA IN A SCHOOL/WALK DIRECTLY TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE AT THE CHECKOUT/etc etc etc" as if these were infringements of some rights. Using your line of reasoning, not every bag was being taken, therefore I should be able to keep my bag and just waltz on through to exercise my right to see the movie. I was coerced to remove my backpack, it was the best way to hold my stuff, and no right was being infringed upon. Companies exercise these kinds of coercive enforcements of rules all the time.
You say "one problem with my argument" and then go on to outline a host of incidental concerns, ignoring the very central issues... That A) your right to travel isn't being infringed - you are simply being denied one way of traveling. It being "the best" option really doesn't change this fact in the slightest. And B) that travel by a particular method isn't a right - it's a privilege. Hell, it's a service provided by private companies... If I act up enough at my local bar, I lose my "right" to go to that bar because it was never actually a right at all. Your
right to fly when you don't comply with the airline's requests isn't a right at all.
You know, before you go on, perhaps you could outline precisely where this
right of yours to fly on a private company's airplane is outlined. Use quotes. Something tells me, your use of
right fits more into the high-sounding word where someone takes my stuff BUT I REALLY REALLY WANTED IT WAHHH WAHHH WAHHHHHH type of right category, rather than the clearly outlined I actually have this right kind of category.
Lastly, you know, this
could be a infringement of some sort of right. I'm aware of this. The thing is, the case you've given presenting it as a right, the reasoning you have for it being a right, they're pretty flimsy. Your position boils down to "well, lots of people fly... I like to fly... I like to fly and I don't like to do what the airline asks me to before they let me on the plane. My right to travel is being infringed." You make this massive leap between "right to fly on this very airplane right now if I choose not to open my bag for them" and go from this very specific instance to "they're infringing my right to travel" when you could travel any number of other ways and the airline isn't stopping you from doing this.. Care to try again? Cite some legal precedents? An actual government document outlining the right to travel, pertaining to this specific type of case? Perhaps a discrimination law that pertains to this? Because right now, your position is verging more on tantrum than actual outlining of rights.
