The elephant in the room in this case is that at a most basic level a State is an entity that maintains a (near) monopoly of violence in a given area. Being a normal law-abiding citizen just means that you are currently functioning in an area where the State's goals somewhat coincide with you living with some degree of freedom and comfort. Or at least they have no current incentive to mess with your life. But the whole system of laws we see as normal is just an abstraction that masks the balance of power which is in itself not that different from gang warfare at a higher scale.
When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor, and you subconsciously realize that your position is not as safe as it once was. But it was never truly safe, just stable in a certain point and time. The fact that you are not a criminal is irrelevant, because respecting or not respecting the law is very relative. The mental separation between the criminal and the law-abider is fictional in that both are just on a spectrum of usefulness and loyalty to the State.
OTOH, without the state, you have anarchy, which is inevitably and quickly filled by warlords or criminal gangs controlling whatever geographic and/or economic territory they can. The security situation in relation tho them is even less good, and you don't get nearly as much good infrastructure.
So, it's important to keep in mind the broader context and what really is a lesser of evils.
Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great)
> When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor
Oh yeah, I am painfully aware of the power imbalance and that we're left alone simply because the powers that be don't have the resources to pick bones with each and every one of us. No other reason. If these things can get automated -- robot/AI security personnel -- then I am sure they'll start searching everyone's devices because it'll be practical and quick for them.
As mentioned above, I am a fairly average citizen and like 99% of people I just want to go about my business without being disturbed. I am social, easy to put a smile on my face, and fairly casual in my demeanor. I discovered this works really well with figures of authority -- they automatically write you off as harmless and leave you alone.
Still, I dread the thought of having to divulge that I have a collection of erotic pictures and even some copyrighted material in my photo gallery (e.g. small snippets from movies). If somebody wishes me harm they can absolutely do it -- sadly.
And that's the part that's not OK. The rulers want us always guilty of something by default. Sigh.
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54.
The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
I am aware of the original definition and am not simply parroting it. I am questioning the idea of legitimacy here. Capriciousness is a highly relative term that is influenced by class and social differences i.e. what will appear legitimate and normal to an economically established person will be much more violent to a person of lower status.
The other problem is that even if you admit that legitimacy is a thing and not a circular construct (i.e. the idea is reinforced to promote the relative power of the group that sees itself as legitimate, and gains currency because the group is already powerful), you still have other states to contend with that are just against each other with no rules above them. And of course the capriciousness of a state against another state is seen as just normal diplomacy because we are used to it, when in fact it is often quite a brutal affair.
Legitimacy isn't what you'd emphasized initially, however, and my sense is that presenting Weber's definition and analyzing it with specific focus brings the issue to light more usefully.
I agree that the question of legitimacy is central, and highly concerning.
Intrastate conflict would fall outside Weber's definition, though how specifically that occurs can vary, e.g., within international zones (usually maritime, occasionally air or space, outside of Antarctica very seldom on land), or with border / sovereignty conflicts (India/Pakistan, India/China, China/Taiwan, North & South Korea, Israel/Palestine, Russia and numerous former Soviet republics, etc.), failed states (Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan), or geopolitics (numerous US invasions, incursions, regime-changes, etc., for example).
What the US is doing in terms of demanding device access and holding data for inordinate lengths of time, as well as numerous other examples of the state-capitalist surveillance apparatus is exceedingly troubling.
But getting Weber's definition correct makes for a better basis for discussion.
When you are disturbed by having your phone searched, what is happening is that the balance has shifted a bit against your favor, and you subconsciously realize that your position is not as safe as it once was. But it was never truly safe, just stable in a certain point and time. The fact that you are not a criminal is irrelevant, because respecting or not respecting the law is very relative. The mental separation between the criminal and the law-abider is fictional in that both are just on a spectrum of usefulness and loyalty to the State.