Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you make the mistake of thinking that people oppose all state violence. Many people approve of some state violence in the name of maintaining societal order, but oppose torture. And I would posit that coercive incarceration is a form of torture. It is a mistake to believe that people are ideologically consistent. And I would be hard pressed to believe that torture is not more extreme or less legitimate than o…
Thank you. That pretty much sums up what I was getting at. I understand the need for violence when one man attacks me or my family. And I understand the need for violence when one man attacks any human around me. These people break the Golden Rule and remove themselves from its binding contract of being treated equally. BUT, they still deserve to be treated fairly. Sometimes, even you can get them to see the error of…
However, attempting to trivialize the issue by abstracting it out to "giving a variable to a mathematical algorithm" is not persuasive. Any sort of cooperation could be extrapolated to a similar point of abstraction that makes it sound absurd; in fact, furnishing a physical key to a physical lock could be described with no modification to your terms. In that case, you're ultimately asking for the pattern needed to actuate the pins such that they stick up in the lock mechanism and cause it to disengage. That's just "providing a variable to an algorithm"; the physical key itself is an implementation detail.
If you do not believe the court should have the power to compel some types of individual cooperation with the police, you should take that up with your local legislator. The Fifth Amendment itself provides no such protection. It prohibits the government's usage of only a very specific tactic: mandatory testimonial self-incrimination. Allowing the police to execute warrants and complying with lawful orders pursuant to the state's interest in enforcing its laws is not testimony.