I think we've exhausted any vein of disagreement. That said, there's one thing I want to point out:
I think you're overestimating the extent to which there are any natural principles that'll set in and show their hand; they're out there, but most human behavior that actually bumps into them gets corrected pretty fast, all things considered (a few decades, usually, between discovery and adaptation).
For most of the debates of interest there aren't really principles you can fall back on, and even if you do there's a big "so what?", because principles do not in and of themselves supply a valuation.
Let's stick with secondhand smoke.
Let's assume it comes out that, eg, using much-more-definitive science than anything we currently have on the matter that there's a non-zero but seemingly negligible increase in risk of lung cancer from second-hand smoke (say: above some level of exposure your risk of lung cancer becomes 0.0002% instead of .0001%).
This seems compelling, but at the end of the day it doesn't really help you resolve the issue of "secondhand smoke regulation" (without the backing of some state to dictate the resolution).
It might be irrational, say, for the consensus opinion to be that secondhand smoke is worth banning even though other, unbanned activities have higher risks, but so what? The point of "owning" something is being able to do what you like with it without having to justify those actions to others; matters of fact can make certain conversations more likely to go one way instead of another but they ultimately are just dead facts on the table.
An extreme example is something like trying to build an apartment complex over an indian burial ground; it's a pure battle of aesthetics that can't be won by reason alone.
The "second-hand smoking" issue is only superficially different: it seems like there's more of a scientific aspect (does second-hand smoking actually cause harm?) but those facts only serve to inform the parties; without some agreement on underlying outlooks (how to interpret those facts) the facts don't do anything.
One of the commonest forms of self-delusion in internet political arguing is to (unconsciously) assume enough about "the other side's" core beliefs and assumptions that for them to disagree with the conclusions you've drawn would be irrational; this isn't usually an intentional mistake, it just arises from a failure to conceptualize other people's outlooks as differing from your own in any fundamental way.
What I see this century holding is (sadly) a huge flux in underlying outlooks; even when there are principles they depend on pragmatics to accomplish anything, and failing to deal with that flux will lead to sucking at pragmatics.
I am procrastinating doing necessary work by means of discussion but I'll try to get the last word in anyway. Since I'm new to the thread.
By violating underlying principles I do NOT believe that some kind of ultimate catastrophe will ensue. This is an optimization problem and I simply believe there are natural asymptotes. My view of the future is one in which we define "abnormal deviation" down to the point where we're all just homogenized drones. In my darkest days I don't see mankind evolving into some kind of space-faring, trans-human supermen. I see mankind turning into large lumps of homogeneous sacks of fluid mindlessly plugged into a vast brain-masturbatory internet. It's the long, slow, slide to stagnation. I'm not concerned with the end of the world: I'm concerned with the end of chaotic, creative expansion. Without underlying principles that's where we're headed. Private property and the ensuing rights to do things that might annoy my neighbors if they lived 5 feet away is the cause of all kinds of goodness.
"because principles do not in and of themselves supply a valuation"
I think they can. I think you right to speak is greater than my desire not to be annoyed by you -- unless I have no way to get away from you, in which case my right of self-ownership trumps your right to speak. Principles give us all kinds of relative valuations. Our entire system of western justice is based on the idea that principles have relative merit to one another.
"An extreme example is something like trying to build an apartment complex over an indian burial ground; it's a pure battle of aesthetics that can't be won by reason alone."
Once again we're having the pragmatic versus principles discussion. I say I shouldn't have to justify actions if they are based on principle. Do I have to justify my freedom of speech every time I post on the internet? Of course not. It's a given. Likewise many uses of private property were a given 50 years ago but are not any more. Pragmatically those who make good political arguments in a decayed democracy win more rights than others. Practically decayed democracies do not optimally support their citizens or grow and change adequately to adapt to new circumstances. The more I have to argue to get the same freedoms I had 50 years ago, the more time and energy I am spending just to have the same potential people had naturally before. It's a good observation on your part. It's just incomplete.
I think you're overestimating the extent to which there are any natural principles that'll set in and show their hand; they're out there, but most human behavior that actually bumps into them gets corrected pretty fast, all things considered (a few decades, usually, between discovery and adaptation).
For most of the debates of interest there aren't really principles you can fall back on, and even if you do there's a big "so what?", because principles do not in and of themselves supply a valuation.
Let's stick with secondhand smoke.
Let's assume it comes out that, eg, using much-more-definitive science than anything we currently have on the matter that there's a non-zero but seemingly negligible increase in risk of lung cancer from second-hand smoke (say: above some level of exposure your risk of lung cancer becomes 0.0002% instead of .0001%).
This seems compelling, but at the end of the day it doesn't really help you resolve the issue of "secondhand smoke regulation" (without the backing of some state to dictate the resolution).
It might be irrational, say, for the consensus opinion to be that secondhand smoke is worth banning even though other, unbanned activities have higher risks, but so what? The point of "owning" something is being able to do what you like with it without having to justify those actions to others; matters of fact can make certain conversations more likely to go one way instead of another but they ultimately are just dead facts on the table.
An extreme example is something like trying to build an apartment complex over an indian burial ground; it's a pure battle of aesthetics that can't be won by reason alone.
The "second-hand smoking" issue is only superficially different: it seems like there's more of a scientific aspect (does second-hand smoking actually cause harm?) but those facts only serve to inform the parties; without some agreement on underlying outlooks (how to interpret those facts) the facts don't do anything.
One of the commonest forms of self-delusion in internet political arguing is to (unconsciously) assume enough about "the other side's" core beliefs and assumptions that for them to disagree with the conclusions you've drawn would be irrational; this isn't usually an intentional mistake, it just arises from a failure to conceptualize other people's outlooks as differing from your own in any fundamental way.
What I see this century holding is (sadly) a huge flux in underlying outlooks; even when there are principles they depend on pragmatics to accomplish anything, and failing to deal with that flux will lead to sucking at pragmatics.
I'm out, it's been a pleasant sunday.