No longer allowed to 'opt out' of full-body scanners

[fps.sledge]

I use this news article to illustrate a principle of freedom that I think ought to be brought up more. It may appear off-topic, but I hope you will get the point.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Opt-Out-o ... 5.html?x=0

I've been thinking recently what it is to be a Libertarian, Constitutionalist, or anyone that fights for freedoms. The most common argument is typically something like "Give my neighbor the freedom to do what they want, even if I don't agree with it." (One might point out this is more of a Libertarian stance than a constitutionalist) While this is a good point to make whenever a new restriction is imposed, I think there is another point that needs to be made.

-What's the point of 'opting out' of a full-body scanner, when the consequence is to be stripped as far as those security guards are allowed and padded down.

-If a police officer lies about a crime you committed, you might think that fighting it in court might serve justice. What if the consequence for fighting for you rights meant that the court process costs you more money or time than to have just accepted whatever consequence the officer requested of you. Is there really much of a difference?

The point I'm trying to make is that the consequence for the laws made should be addressed just as much, if not more than arguing about the morality of the law.

Let's say that certain speech (hate speech) is illegal because it leads to violence among a certain group or sect. One way to approach this argument is the typical way of discussing the ethics of whether or not someone should have their freedom of speech taken away. The approach I wish is taken is what consequence is appropriate for those who participate is 'hate' speech. Do we make them criminals because of a potential crime. What is a just and equal punishment?

Firearms laws punish those who don't commit any crimes with their firearms. Yet firearms laws are presumably enacted because of crimes with firearms. Some think those laws will protect innocent people from violence and other bad things, but then those laws introduce violence and other bad things on the innocent anyways.

Elder Oaks described the intent behind the church's drive to get a constitutional amendment that defines marriage. He doesn't intent the definition to be used by a prosecutor to punish those who violate that definition of marriage, but rather to teach others what marriage really is. I think those in the Libertarian party will disagree with this cause because of the principle of ultimate freedom.

What are just consequences for the laws and rules in place today?

Should the libertarian/freedom thought be more about rights, or unjust consequences.