Why do we have principals?

TL;DR

Principals are a shortcut for avoiding repetition of bad solutions to recurring problems.

A Useful Tool - Principals

Humans often face challenges and devise solutions to overcome them. Sometimes, these solutions work well, resolving the issue without significant negative consequences. However, other times, the solutions can prove worse than the original problem. Through life experiences, individuals learn which solutions are effective and which ones tend to fail. They develop generalizations based on past experiences, allowing them to quickly rule out certain solutions and favor others. Occasionally, a person may discover that an entire class of solutions consistently leads to undesirable outcomes, prompting them to avoid that approach altogether, even if it initially seems appealing.

A prime example of this is honesty. Lying may appear to be a quick fix for an immediate problem, but it often leads to severe long-term consequences. As people mature, they learn that dishonesty is an option, but many eventually realize that it is a poor long-term solution due to its negative repercussions. Consequently, they may adopt a principle of honesty, choosing to avoid dishonesty even when it seems like an attractive solution in the moment.

This principle is often developed through personal experience, but it can also be transmitted from one generation to the next as a means of transferring knowledge. When parents consistently punish their children for lying, they are imparting a principle that they either learned directly through their own experiences or indirectly from their parents. If successful, the child will avoid dishonesty, even when it seems like a good idea in the moment, just as if they had experienced the negative consequences firsthand.

Principles are particularly useful for avoiding solutions that seem appealing at first but have subtle or downstream consequences. Craftsmanship, for instance, requires significant time, effort, and resources, and may seem like a waste in the short term. However, if one aims to build a lasting brand or experience a sense of purpose and satisfaction in their work, they must trust the principles of craftsmanship that have been passed down through generations.

Principles can exist at various levels: individual (derived from personal experiences), lineage (learned from parents), and cultural (part of the social contract). The more disconnected one is from the underlying reasons for a principle, the easier it is to rationalize ignoring it in a particular situation. While some principles may be outdated and warrant abandonment, it is crucial to exercise caution when doing so. Most people lack the time and expertise to fully comprehend the reasoning behind a particular principle, which may seem unnecessary or counterproductive at first glance. Therefore, it is essential to treat principles as "Chesterton Fences," assuming they exist for a good reason and only disregarding them after gaining a deep understanding of their origins and purpose.

The Current Thing - Censorship

The recent SCOTUS ruling, which upheld the US Congress's ban on TikTok, has sparked controversy. On the surface, the decision seems to contradict the nation's founding principles of freedom of association. Some people (including SCOTUS and Congress) believe that Chinese propaganda poses a significant threat, and restricting US citizens' interactions with certain entities is a necessary measure to combat it. This approach may appear to be a reasonable trade-off, sacrificing principles for the sake of addressing an immediate problem. However, the principles of freedom of speech and association exist precisely because censorship has repeatedly proven to be a misguided solution throughout history.

Time and again, societies have employed censorship to tackle pressing issues, only to suffer unintended consequences. The problem with censorship is that it inevitably expands beyond its initial scope. To enforce censorship, a group of people must be granted the power to decide what to censor and what not to. As with any bureaucracy, this power will inevitably grow in scope over time.

My predicted progression of the current situation looks something like censoring...

• A single Chinese company with questionable data gathering practices.
• Another company with slightly less egregious practices.
• All Chinese companies.
• Any company with ties to China.
• Any company with an office in China.
• Any company that may be influenced by Chinese propaganda.
• Any individual or company that expresses views aligning with China's interests.
• Anyone who speaks negatively about the US.

History suggests that society will only wake up to the dangers of censorship after suffering significant harm. The founders of the US recognized the perils of censorship and enshrined anti-censorship principles in the nation's founding documents. These principles serve as a form of cultural knowledge, intended to endure for generations and prevent the repetition of past mistakes.

For a more in-depth exploration of the history of censorship, its motivations, and its consequences, I recommend watching this presentation about the history of censorship and how it isn't what you imagine https://youtu.be/uMMJb3AxA0s?t=256. Hat tip to https://twitter.com/PryvitKyle for sharing this with me some time ago.

Ignore At your Own Risk

Principles are essential tools that should not be disregarded lightly. Modern liberal societies have enshrined principles like freedom of association into their cultural fabric for good reason. These principles have been carefully crafted and upheld to protect individual rights and promote a free and open society. We should be cautious not to abandon them hastily, even if doing so seems like a convenient way to solve an immediate problem.

It's particularly ironic that we're considering sacrificing these principles in the name of defending against censorious totalitarian states. If we compromise our liberal values and resort to censorship in an effort to defeat illiberal regimes, we risk becoming the very thing we're fighting against. By abandoning our principles, we may ultimately undermine the very foundations of our free and open society, rendering us indistinguishable from the authoritarian regimes we claim to oppose.