You're right in that I could be saying that, but I think my reasoning isn't fallacious, facetious maybe, but not fallacious.
It would be wrong if you could garantee no more restrictive laws based on reactionary law makers.
Patriot Act? Freedoms restricted under the guise of protecting freedoms.
I've had this talk with a number of people. They argue that if you have nothing to hide why hide?
Well, what if they make something illegal that is a basic right.
What if alcohol was illegal?
What if being homosexual was illegal?
What if being black meant you were not allowed to vote?
What if being female meant you were not allowed to vote?
But your right, it's not like the US has a precedent of have laws like that.
All crimes are committed by the living, therefore living is a crime (Judge Death, 2000AD)
If you introduce an ID card (basically formalising/simplifying your social security number system) and nationalise the driver's licenses the right wingers will freak and they will dedicate all their efforts in stopping it. This will allow the health care reforms to settle in and become accepted.
...where in Seattle does she work?
If you bought a DVD player that, according to the label, would play anything and then it refused to play a DVD someone lent you would you be upset?
The DVD you've put in contains half a dozen Divx files. Still upset?
Probably not, but most of my social group still do not understand why that would be.
I think John Q. Public isn't going to realise that undergoing a research project, prior to buying what is rapidly become just another consumer electronics device, is required. They will want what it says on the box.