In political science, can first principles aid in judging the quality of institutions?

This is an interesting question, let's discuss it. I think overcomplicating it can easily lead to getting lost in the details.

Simply put, using "first principles" to judge whether a system is good or not is both incredibly helpful and incredibly dangerous, depending on how it's used.

It's helpful because it allows you to "lift the roof and see the problem."

To draw an analogy, when we usually evaluate a system, it's much like evaluating a car. We might say: "Look, Old Wang next door's Mercedes runs fast and is comfortable, so a Mercedes is a good car." This is "analogical thinking" – it's good because others do it well.

But first principles thinking is different. It asks: "What is the most fundamental purpose of a 'car'?" The answer is: to safely and efficiently move people or goods from point A to point B.

Based on this fundamental purpose, we can then re-examine the "Mercedes." It is indeed efficient and comfortable, but in certain situations (like rugged mountain roads), it might not be as good as a pickup truck; in terms of cost, it might not be as good as an economical small car. At this point, you realize there's no absolute "good car," only "cars suitable for different purposes and conditions."

Applying this line of thought to political systems:

First principles thinking forces us to ask: "What is the most fundamental purpose of the institution of 'nation' or 'government'?"

• Is it to guarantee the life, property, and freedom of every individual?
• Is it to concentrate power to accomplish major tasks and achieve the survival and development of the entire group?
• Is it to preserve the inheritance of a specific culture or belief?
• Or is it to achieve social equity, ensuring the most vulnerable are protected?

You see, here's the problem. The fundamental purpose of a car is very clear, but the fundamental purpose of a "nation" varies completely among different people and cultures. If you take "individual liberty" as the first principle, the system designed will be vastly different from one that takes "collective survival" as the first principle.

Therefore, first principles thinking can help you see the underlying logic of a system. It allows you to strip away the superficial layers of "since ancient times," "foreign experience," or "it's always been this way," and get straight to its core: What fundamental problem was this system designed to solve? Is it efficient in achieving this fundamental purpose? And has it sacrificed other important things for this purpose?

From this perspective, it's a very powerful analytical tool that can prevent us from blindly following others.

But its danger lies in its propensity for "utopian disasters."

Politics is not like physics. The first principles of the physical world are objective, like F=ma. But in the political sphere, the "first principles" you believe in are actually your "values."

If you firmly believe that your "fundamental purpose" is the only correct one, and then try to tear down and rebuild society entirely according to your "ideal blueprint," history has repeatedly shown that this often leads to immense disaster.

Because society is an extremely complex organism, intertwined with history, culture, and human nature. It's not a machine that can be arbitrarily disassembled and reassembled. A seemingly "imperfect" system might actually be a hard-won, balanced state, formed through countless generations of repeated struggle and compromise with reality – "not pretty, but functional." A "perfect system" designed based on a single, pure "first principle" is almost destined to fail in reality, or even lead everyone astray.

So, my view is:

In political science, first principles thinking is better suited as a "diagnostic tool" rather than a "design blueprint."

• Use it to analyze and scrutinize existing systems, to see if they still align with their originally declared purpose, and to check if they have become rigid or deviated.
• Use it to help us think about reform. When we want to change a specific policy, we can ask what the fundamental purpose of this policy is, and if there's a more direct, less costly way to achieve it.

But be wary of using it for "total revolution" or judging "ultimate superiority/inferiority." Because in human society, there is no "first principle" that is universally applicable like a physics formula. What you consider "good" might be built upon what I consider "bad," and vice versa.

In short, it can help you see problems more clearly, but it won't give you a simple, black-and-white answer. Achieving that much clarity is already incredibly valuable.