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 lik

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.