Universal principles are not a substitute for political power because someone has to still decide what the universal principles mean. You see this all the time when Progressive say they’re in favor of “basic human empathy”, “tolerance”, “inclusion”, or any number of Liberal buzzwords that signal “just being a heckin’ decent human being”. But what constitutes tolerance or inclusion? Does inclusion apply to religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage or abortion? Does it require letting communists advocate for the abolition of private property? Does tolerance require allowing nationalist parties to campaign for shutting down the border or outlawing immigration altogether from certain parts of the world? Does tolerance require letting movements that want to replace liberal democracy itself? Someone has to eventually interpret what constitutes “tolerance” or “inclusion”, and someone also has to decide what actions or views falls under “just having a different opinion” and which ones falls under a criminal act that threatens society itself. In other words, there is no substitute for decision. And no amount of flowery language about universal principles will ever fully paper over the fact that someone, somewhere, gets to decide what’s allowed and what isn’t.