> "there is a concern here analogous to Blackstone's ratio" is a different thing than, paraphrasing what was up thread, "this is substantially more extreme than Blackstone's ratio should forbid".

I agree with this. What's happening here is different than the scenario in the original ratio, even though it's a similar concern.

> I just would also say that the kinds or amounts of harm being done there are manifestly not what Blackstone was talking about in his "formulation" as it leads immediately to absurd conclusions that go very well past the present case.

If we direct ourselves to the case at hand, I'm not sure that a general rule that the government can't compel innocent bystanders to assist an investigation against their will would even be a net negative, much less cause serious problems. When a crime is committed people will generally be inclined to help bring the perpetrators to justice, because who wants thieves and murderers and so on going unpunished? Whereas if someone is disinclined to help, we might consider that they could have a reason, e.g. because the law being enforced is unjust or they believe the investigation is not being conducted in good faith, or they simply don't trust the government with the information, at which point the ability to refuse acts as a reasonable check on government power.

> I just think if we are enlisting support from historical figures, we should find a quote where they're talking about the question or acknowledge the distance, rather than pretending the quote means something it didn't - that will only turn off those who might be persuaded.

I feel like historical quotes tend to detract from discussions in general, because they're effectively an appeal to authority and then the discussion turns to exactly where we are now, debating whether the current situation can be distinguished from the original, which is a separate matter from whether what's happening in the modern case is reasonable or satisfactory in its own right.