> If it's technically possible to do it, but not technically possible to do it legally, then maybe it's a bad thing and don't do it at all

So it follows that you are against W2s encryption because it will be impossible to do securely and allow a backdoor.

"Look over here! This law is bad therefor all laws are bad" is not a very convincing argument.

It was claimed that any law that was passed whether or not it was technically possible was de facto good.

That's a gross exaggeration of what was claimed. The idea was that if a law is good but it prevents some companies from legally operating, that's ok. For example, if a company can't profit without using child labor then it's ok for that company to go out of business. Lots of folks feel the same about privacy. If you can't protect my data, then it's fine if you go out of business.

It's sadly not worth debating this person. When it's not exaggeration/oversimplification, it's a change of subject or broken libertarian dogma.