Non-Security related analogy: although it's being litigated, Obamacare is stating that it is in the people's interest that everyone should have healthcare. The gov't is implicitly saying this by fining (whether through taxes or otherwise) those who don't get it, thus encouraging us to get it. We say healthcare is in our interest both from an overt, people should be taken care of, but more importantly, because it's in the general interest for everyone to have healthcare: It is the uninsured that pose a significant externality upon the majority of people with healthcare since they lack preventative care that would treat most maladies in a more efficient manner. We are removing this externality by paying for it through Obamacare. Lets take this one step further, we are saying that it is in society's interest for people to be given regular physicals and check ups, pap smears and prostate examinations, because it makes it net-cheaper for the rest of society but also because we say people should just see a doctor. Thus, your precious liberals have already stated that they want people to see us naked because it's "whats best for us" and moderates have partially signed on because they think it's whats cheaper.
Security Analogy: If, by now, you understand what I'm hinting at (that is, the gov't is saying we should have doctors grab us and say cough because we think it's good and also because it might be cheaper for society at large) you are probably yelling, "I can choose not to get the healthcare" (and suffer the fine) or, "I don't have to get the physical or pap smear even if I'm paying for Obama care." Well, you can not only opt in to whatever search you want by the TSA, but can opt out of the search entirely by seeking an alternative mode of transportation. The searches that are protected by the constitution are not those that people can opt out of. You are free from the police taking you and forcibly searching you. On the other hand, the gov't has already created non negotiable searches in areas that are in the national interest: Can you opt out of a search when you enter a Court? What about the National Archives, US Customs & Commerce building, the National Gallery of Art, Military installations? Can you opt out of being searched when you enter Wall Street or any of the Federal Reserve Banks? What about when you enter the country? What about when the gov't forces sensitive industries (Power, telecom, Defense, Urban sanitation/water servicesm, etc) to incur increased costs (mind you, with no compensation) by mandating them to implace security procedures against terrorist and cyber attacks, should the gov't be allowed to hurt these firms this way? We/not rights extremists/society/America say yes, because we need to internalize the externality of security. This isn't a new thing and this isn't a pathway to dictatorship. If Russia does a denial of service attack, if China obtains industrial technology and produces same good without spending on R&D for it, or a plane explodes at a massive international financial installation, we all pay for it even if we aren't hurt/killed by it. It is better for gov't to intervene in this case and force either a limitation on our rights, a policy mandate, or a tax, in order for the majority to be benefited. The bill of rights was not intended for externalities of someone's use of their civil rights to infringe on others, it's not a blank check and never was meant to be.
