Often when I criticize a special interest group for getting government handouts (such as farmers getting subsidies), the person I am debating says something to the effect of: "if you were benefiting from such a government program, you get off your moral high ground and defend the program to the death." Alternatively, someone might tell me "you would drop your moral opposition to pornography if you owned a big share of a profitable magazine." Of course, I respond that I would never shed my principles in exchange for personal benefit, but they sometimes don't believe me.

So here's a test. 65% say daily papers will be gone in ten years. I am one of them, and despite being a syndicated columnist whose work is published by (usually centrist or right-leaning) papers, I agree that newspapers will largely be gone in a decade, and I am very happy about it, even if it means that good papers will fall along with the many more bad ones. In fact, I help the downward trend by continually criticizing even their existence.

In other words, I believe that newspapers present a very harmful uber-concentration of intellectual discourse that has given the Left a significant, continual boost over the decades, and one they will no longer receive in the age of the Internet where there is true intellectual debate - and I happy to sacrifice part of my work in exchange for their downfall, which I encourage. America is better off without a 6-member editorial board making it sound like they speak for hundreds of thousands.

How's that for putting my principles over personal benefit.

Do you have an example of how you or a conservative friend have chosen principle over immediate personal benefit? If so, let me know.