You say:

Mona says:

"I also share Glenn's well-placed mistrust in allowing the state to determine what should constitute a true/false or good/bad idea."

Does Glenn really believe this? Are you mistrustful of traffic laws (speeding, running lights, crossing train tracks when the guard is down, etc)? Environmental laws? Zoning laws? Construction laws/regulations?

Given that Glenn has repeatedly stated that is his reasoning going as far back as his old blog, I do not doubt him. Traffic laws are morally neutral; whether you drive on the left side or right side of the road, whether red means stop or blue does, are irrelevant, as long as everyone understands and abides by the orderly driving protocols their nation has adopted. No one has an arguable right to drive so dangerously as to threaten the death or maiming of others.

If you don't see the difference between mundane traffic laws and govt control of ideas, I don't know how to explain it to you short of a treatise.

Looks like you are a libertarian! Explains your "mistrust" comment and it is not for me, but I think I understand the appeal. Is Glenn? I never got that feeling.

I don't speak for Glenn; except when there is something he has publicly written I can quote or reference I don't claim to know his position(s). Once in his (vanished) comments section he said he tended to identify with those who call themselves libertarians. But as far as I know, he resists labels, and is a thoroughly independent thinker.

Why does not one have the right to drive dangerously? Because we have values; in this case the value of one's life. Traffic laws are "safety" laws and are moral statements on our values: It is wrong to run red lights because we value life. At least, this is how I always understood law: Rules of right and wrong with regard to our values.

One has no right to significantly risk killing people. If you don't see the difference between a guy doing 100 mph on a highway, swerving and ignoring stop lights in 3 thousand lbs of metal, on the one hand, and on the other, expression of a noxious political opinion, I can't educate you. I do know which I'd rather face, since traffic accident in the U.S. kill 50K annually.

Where there is significant disagreement among people of good will, as in the debate about the state's role in governing abortions, or in re-distributing income, clarity vanishes, and politics comes to the fore. (It's also where political labels come into play, is it not?)

Yes, I suppose there are *some* anarchists, left and right, who even oppose mundane things like obeying traffic lights, but who takes them seriously? That's a far cry from allowing the govt to lock you in a cage for expressing Opinion X. (And X could = espousing Communism, preaching the Wiccan religion, that Jews are not better than rats in their World Conspiracy Plots, or that blacks are inferior.)

The problem with such rules, whatever political stance you take on the employer's right to enforce them, is that they always wind up being problematic, if for no other reason than the standards being set are by no means universal. For every sexist or racist pig who got his head handed to him, there would be someone who'd make false accusations for the sake of revenge for a failed promotion, or to escape discipline for lousy performance, etc., etc.

I know. And the same standards of racism/sexism fuel an out-of-control plaintiff's bar where anyone in a "protected class" knows they hold leverage to cost the employer money, no matter how egregious the reason for their either not being hired, or being fired. But at a pvt university, what are you going to do if they want to adopt such standards? I can't think of anything that would be constitutional.

You strong-armed Glenn...

That happens a lot with him, poor malleable thing, he has so little ego strength or will of his own, and I am supremely powerful.

Yep, earliy on, when he let you post on his old blog.,

Damn, I'm hot. I caught Glenn when he had no ego strength or will of his own and strong-armed him. I'd be willing to bet no one else has ever done that, so I am, like, super proud of myself!

I'm not particularly eager to defend Mona's philosophical rigor, but her use of "consequentialist" seems to be well within the meaning of the word, especially within the larger context of consequentialist libertarianism.

It's always tricky to assert that an idea doesn't exist

I never said or even implied consequentalists don't exist -- how stupid would that be? I simply stated that vis-a-vis free speech, I am not one.

You managed to fuck up [Glenn's] credibility for a while, but he surpassed you.

So, in past tense, you did one good thing. You forced him to source everything to death. Well done.

Later you risked everything without {Glenn's] knowledge.

How do you like it, how do you like it, more, more more!

I never knew before that Glenn was such a moron and that I held such control (and do nefarious whatever sans his knowledge, yet!): DO expand on this theme, PLEASE! I want him to see it so I can extort vast sums of $$ from him in exchange for not doing it again, whatever it is.