Some privacy advocates want to see a society as you describe, a society in which all tracking itself is totally impossible because no one can/should be trusted ever. While to others privacy (or a right to privacy) is giving people ownership over their data, giving them the final say in what can and can't be used, who is and isn't to be trusted with that data, and the right to be forgotten, etc. In my experience, the people who actually put in the hard work of privacy advocacy are usually the latter, so I'm going to call strawman on your first argument. Though, I admit, if privacy is impossible for average Joe I definitely want the rich and powerful to lack it too... Anyway, your argument makes me realize just how counterproductive the tinfoil hat folks are to the privacy movement. They prove the strawman.

For argument two, I don't believe owning your personal data is economic suicide. Imagine, instead of having ad companies track your every move and perform a bunch of expensive AI guesswork, they finally got smart and served opt-in ads that helped you research stuff in product categories _you_ tell them _you_ actually care about. Perhaps some of these services operate like "personal electronic shopping assistants". They're so good at saving people time researching cool new products people might otherwise never know about, people actually volunteer a little bit of their time in this process. Perhaps such heavily personalized ads makes clickfraud a thing of the past. Perhaps companies stop wasting money advertising diapers to 12 year olds watching minecraft videos on youtube. Perhaps this helps small businesses connect with customers and grow faster... Sounds like a better world to me.

Argument three falls apart when you remove the strawman. Privacy as data ownership doesn't stop you from allowing LEAs to issue amber alerts... Anyway, I'll leave it there since I need to go do other stuff.