I agree with most of what you said, and I think you are misunderstanding what I said because the context got complicated. So let me recap, in a nutshell.
Someone said that flying is a privilege. I said, no, it's not. He said, yes it is, because that's what the Supreme Court has ruled. I said, no, that's irrelevant: I'm making a philosophical point that would hold in _any_ country. The Constitution/Supreme Court is not the source of morality (including moral issues, such as what a privilege) is; reality is. It's a moral question, not a legal one.
> Constitution is not just not a source for our morality and values; it is deliberately designed to avoid those questions.
Exactly my point, although you seem to be trying to argue against me here.
Separately, I think the Constitution happens to be morally right with regards to the 4th Amendment, and that the government is not legally acting in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
The issue isn't that flying is a revocable privilege. I agree with you that it isn't. The issue is that any moment, you have the ability to present yourself or not present yourself for a TSA safety screening at an airport. The TSA search is thus discretionary. The TSA is not allowed to seek you out, and they aren't allowed to pick you out of a crowd at the airport while allowing everyone else to go to the gate unmolested.
As a result, TSA searches meet the tests for "administrative searches", just like courthouse searches do.
You & I probably agree that there is a moral imperative to respect people's privacy, and that the state has a moral imperative to minimize searches. My argument certainly isn't that there's no such thing as "morality", nor is it that your moral evaluation of TSA searches is wrong (again, I find them grossly offensive as well). All I'm saying is, the immorality of TSA searches does not make them unconstitutional; the Constitution defers most of morality to the legislature, and has often been an umbrella protecting immoral laws.
Someone said that flying is a privilege. I said, no, it's not. He said, yes it is, because that's what the Supreme Court has ruled. I said, no, that's irrelevant: I'm making a philosophical point that would hold in _any_ country. The Constitution/Supreme Court is not the source of morality (including moral issues, such as what a privilege) is; reality is. It's a moral question, not a legal one.
> Constitution is not just not a source for our morality and values; it is deliberately designed to avoid those questions.
Exactly my point, although you seem to be trying to argue against me here.
Separately, I think the Constitution happens to be morally right with regards to the 4th Amendment, and that the government is not legally acting in accordance with the 4th Amendment.