Not sure if you're open to hearing an answer to your "why should" question, which may have been rhetorical.

The electronic data is a lot richer and more personal than just documents. It's more like an extension of your brain, than an extension of your home.

It also features live incoming personal and private data from friends, family, and other contacts who may be put in danger if their information (location, for example) is exposed to unsavory people. (Note, governments can and do sometimes have unsavory people working alongside the good people.)

To the extent that encryption protects all this information, yes it should be considered as much a right as the right to have private thoughts, which seems to be fairly widely accepted.

It certainly does. Whether or not that's a substantial enough difference is going to be one for the courts - I note in the US that cops can't search your phone (but can search your wallet) on a routine stop for exactly the reasons you outline.

I guess my point was that it doesn't seem prima facie to me that your electronic data is more privileged than your non-electronic data is all, and your non-electronic data is certainly subject to warrant

The use of a warrant and the use of encryption should be completely orthogonal. It has nothing to do with "privilege" of electronic information. It's simply about the format in which information is stored.

Except that using encryption can directly affect the ability to execute the warrant, similarly to how you would use a shredder on physical documents.

The files are in a state which is extremely difficult to work with, for the express purpose of preventing their access even with a warrant. Is that obstruction of justice? It would be with a shredder or a safe wired to burn papers if forced open.