3 ms·

> I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. I'm very sorry that you feel that data always trumps princ

> I don't think we should be making decisions based on principle; we should make them based on data. I'm very sorry that you feel that data always trumps principle. I suspect if I changed the conversation to eugenics or honesty, you would claim that principle is more important than data. In fact, principle is an overriding concern with you, despite your protestations to the contrary. I wonder if I could ever get you to acknowledge that fact? Look at what you said. > not dumb things (resource wars, policing of victimless hobbies, "too big to fail" bailouts) All three of these things have substantial data to show why they are important. If you think that resources are not worth going to war for, than you have no idea what any war in the history of mankind has been about. Resources are the only thing worth fighting for, and indeed, are the only thing we do fight for. As for victimless hobbies, I assume you mean drugs. There's a lot of data that says it's harmful. How many meth users do you know? I know some. I agree that drugs should not be illegal, but I do that based on my principles of freedom, not data. The data actually supports the status quo. As for the "too big to fail" bailouts, I'm told there is substantial data on this as well, but again, in principle, I'd still let them fail. Your blanket statements prove that principle is more important to you than data. Principles are important, and as much as you claim otherwise, you and I are in the same camp on that one.

lukifer 18y ago
I don't mean to say that principles don't matter; they define your goals, not your methods. Design vs. implementation, as it were. You can go on as long you like about the kind of world you would like to live in, but the only thing that actually matters is what you can actually implement. (Not that personal principles aren't also important; I mean specifically on a large-scale, public policy level.) I suppose I should clarify, in that I don't mean solely data, which is subject to interpretation, but rather using engineering principles instead of making decisions based on gut-felt, emotionally charged belief systems. In each of the cases I mentioned, I think that the "principled" and the smart thing are synonymous: - Resource wars (and wars in general) often cost more than they benefit, particularly over the long-term. Burning oil to get more oil, resulting in diminishing the world's dwindling oil reserves even faster. Far more profitable to invest the peace dividend elsewhere. - Data consistently shows that drug usage goes down with decriminalization and treatment programs. It'd be an interesting philosophical debate of society-vs-individual if prohibition resulted in lower use, but it simply doesn't. It's harmful, expensive, and counter-productive. - The bailouts are admittedly more nebulous, but in short, we might have been better off if we had paid the cost of letting decrepit and irrelevant institutions fail. Paying their ransom may be the more practical choice right now, but we lose a large opportunity to clean our slate and reboot, even though the short-term cost might be high. (Okay, I confess, that one's 99% subjective opinion.) ;) Anyway, my original point was that principles are guides, not universal constraints, and one can believe in both social justice and rugged individualism. At the end of the day, there are no answers, only trade-offs.

lukifer 18y ago

I don't mean to say that principles don't matter; they define your goals, not your methods. Design vs. implementation, as it were. You can go on as long you like about the kind of world you would like to live in, but the only thing that actually matters is what you can actually implement. (Not that personal principles aren't also important; I mean specifically on a large-scale, public policy level.) I suppose I should clarify, in that I don't mean solely data, which is subject to interpretation, but rather using engineering principles instead of making decisions based on gut-felt, emotionally charged belief systems. In each of the cases I mentioned, I think that the "principled" and the smart thing are synonymous: - Resource wars (and wars in general) often cost more than they benefit, particularly over the long-term. Burning oil to get more oil, resulting in diminishing the world's dwindling oil reserves even faster. Far more profitable to invest the peace dividend elsewhere. - Data consistently shows that drug usage goes down with decriminalization and treatment programs. It'd be an interesting philosophical debate of society-vs-individual if prohibition resulted in lower use, but it simply doesn't. It's harmful, expensive, and counter-productive. - The bailouts are admittedly more nebulous, but in short, we might have been better off if we had paid the cost of letting decrepit and irrelevant institutions fail. Paying their ransom may be the more practical choice right now, but we lose a large opportunity to clean our slate and reboot, even though the short-term cost might be high. (Okay, I confess, that one's 99% subjective opinion.) ;) Anyway, my original point was that principles are guides, not universal constraints, and one can believe in both social justice and rugged individualism. At the end of the day, there are no answers, only trade-offs.