[ Posted anonymously before. ]

Thanks Glenn and Bryan (tho' I do not mean to be a troll and consider myself pretty much a consequentialist and do not feel it is a bad term).

If I am understanding Glenn correctly he said that these two issues are completely unrelated; ok thanks!

He did not mention a position on Consequentialism itself. (Probably because he believes such discussions are unproductive.)

These two quotes to me lead me to believe he is at least sympathetic to it:

But if that is no longer the case -- if anonymity actually produces more bad results than good results -- then the rationale for a shield law vanishes.

Seem totally consequentialist to me. And:

Speech is free -- all speech, no matter the "consequences" -- because we don't trust government officials or anyone else to declare certain ideas off-limits.

As "because we don't trust government officials" seems to me to be all about consequences.

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? Obviously my point is that you can not really be that mistrustful or you would find it difficult to walk in public places -- or maybe you are a libertarian? grin!

Bryan says:

Transparency allows an educated consensus of the "goodness" or "badness" of a particular program ...

I like this statement a lot!

The debate over a shield law should be seen in that context, not a moral one, IMHO.

I suppose I have a bad habit of thinking of everything in terms of ethics/morality. Seems to me a shield law might mean: We wish to declare it ethical to disclose actions one deems illegal, hence we codify a law protecting such actions.

One of the problems I thought the right has/had with whistle-blowers and leakers is to a great extent that they are seen as rats and disloyal etc. They see the act itself as immoral.

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.

Mona says:

Traffic laws are morally neutral ... No one has an arguable right to drive so dangerously as to threaten the death or maiming of others.

I think these two statements are incompatible. 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.

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.

Umm, instead of writing a treatise for me, can you link to one? Specifically one that declares that the law has no relation to values, morality, and ethics (remember safety is a moral rule regarding values -- at least IMHO).

... minimize the morality aspect and focus on the practical. The Wiccan/pagan morality of minimizing harm [] seems to be the most simple and effective. One should have to demonstrate harm before legislating against it.

Seems inconsistent: "Minimizing harm" is all about morality. So, I am not sure I understand your distinction between the moral aspect and the practical aspect in the law; seems to me that some moral component underlies a desired law which can be codified in variety of practical implementations.

Also, I much prefer the precautionary principle as a means of deciding how to act in a large number of cases.

Thanks for the great link L.W.M. [ http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/09/fbi/permalink/1385add3bf45f984324707365299c1f7.html ]

Glenn says:

People argue about these labels constantly but I find those arguments laregly unproductive because people so rarely use the terms with any agreed upon meaning.

This seems to me to deny the usefulness of Philosophy; which in my mind is all about "labels", or definitions and such.

For that reason, I prefer to make whatever arguments I make ...

Does Glenn believe he has no theory behind his reasoning? While I almost always agree with him, this worries me. Why? Because of course he has a theory -- the one inculcated by society/culture -- but he seems to either not have analyzed his own decision-making processes (unlikely) or does not want to tell us (why not?) Further, Glenn would have to agree that our Founding Fathers (whom he greatly admires) were very heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. The Founding Fathers did not just 'make whatever arguments they made' but had rather completely philosophy behind them.

I virtually never (if ever) embrace or reject any specific label someone applies, since the meaning of those lables is always so fluid and imprecise.

I disagree -- see comments above about the whole field of Philosophy. "Left" and "right" as terms have never been well defined. "Conservative" and "Liberal" have a much longer history, but I am not as convinced that "liberal" has had its definition changed by the "right" so much as it has simply been turned into a epithet.

Link to wikipedia entry on precautionary principle (which I tried to include in my previous comment):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

I do not really think we disagree all that much, but to argue about the details, I am still not sure how morality/ethics are not the fundamental concern of laws. (I see laws as the codification of our morals and ethics.)

What does it mean to have the law's "practicality maximized" with regard to say murder? Or running red lights?