[Amadou]

There are a myriad of things that are legal for the government to do that are illegal for a common citizen. There's no irony in that.

If the government does not require a warrant to do something, then it should be legal for anyone to do. After all, the entire purpose of a warrant is to insure oversight in the use of government power.

[azernik]

The government doesn't require a warrant to take your property by taxation or for eminent domain.

The government doesn't require a warrant to prevent people from entering or leaving the country.

The government doesn't require a warrant to block off city streets or do any of a number of things to public property.

The only things that the Constitution requires the government to get a warrant to do are "search and seizure", which are terms with very specific meanings in the Common Law. The NSA somehow argues that intercepting people's traffic isn't a "search" until an analyst actually looks at it, which I think is a ridiculous argument; however, the response isn't "everything you do needs a warrant", but "that's a search, and searches need warrants".

[Amadou]

Your examples are just word games. The intent of a warrant is oversight, all of those examples require oversight, some more so than others, but all of them require some sort of accountability.

[pseingatl]

The government buys and sells illegal drugs all the time. Flies them into the country. Sells them on the street. But if you do this, off you go.