Idealism is bad?

[Indy Vidual]

You are fighting some old-school effective propaganda. Liberty does not require an idealistic view of people.

 

[thequietkid10]

Idealism is good because it challenges us to keep pushing to achieve the best possible outcome.

It is bad when this best possible outcome becomes the only definition of success.

In your friends case however, I think he see the idealism of libertarians as "if we give corporations latitude to do what they want, they will behave justly"

When in fact what we mean is "if we give people freedom and protect there life liberty and property rights, then personal choices and self interest will create the best possible society"

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I was told by a co-worker today that the problem with Libertarians is that we are too idealistic... I was so shocked that someone could exert that being idealistic is a negative trait... Ideas drive, mold, generate human society. Without ideas humans would never develop creativity to propel our existence. Without ideas humans would never or will never evolve, and we would be sitting in caves wondering why there has not been any advances in society in the past few thousand years. Since it was a political discussion, I retorted his comment by saying that it was an totally absurd idea, our fore fathers formulated to take on and fight the all powerful English empire. And, that stupid idea lead to the stupid idea of creating the best form of government the world has seen. Dumb idealist, and their stupid ideas...

I was so flabbergasted at this assertion...

He also said that he had another issue with us libertarians, which is that we wont concede our views to gain a little here and there. He said we are cutting off our own noses by not taking a little to give a little on positions. He said if we compromised on certain potions it would benefit the movement. I told him you might see it as us cutting own nose, but I see that as selling your soul.

So, since when has being principled and idealist bad?

Movement? What movement? American movements in the past have happened outside of the electorial process. Ron Paul, as a philosopher, is bringing young people back to revering our Founding Fathers and the American Civil Purpose they declared as a natural law for our sake in both the formal documents of the U.S. Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Once again, this has nothing to do with the American electorial process and the dumbass lawyers who run that circus.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It was unnecessary to state - basic rights are outlined by the governing social contract, and are not typically subject to debate and compromise in the public sphere. The infrequency of changes in the US Constitution make this fairly obvious as it pertains to Americans.

I'm not party to any social contract you're talking about.

And the Constitution has not been changed because it is largely ignored anyway. People in general, and especially statists, aren't going to do work they don't need to do. Why bother changing the Constitution when you can ignore it and go on with your day?

 

[kuckfeynes]

What they really mean when they say "too idealistic" is "not a team player."

Ask them if there's no point in fighting for ideals, why don't we all just become Democrats?

 

[TomtheTinker]

The people who think ideas are bad are people with none of their own.

 

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

So "Big Governmentalist - Fix Everything - Teach Humans how to act" aren't Idealist? News to me.

 

[Toureg89]

as long as its the right ideals, no. if its the wrong ideals, then yes, and one should be a realist: that government is the worst human rights violator and wealth destroyer, imo.

 

[Jingles]

I have been told this before as well, OP. By Neocons. "OMG YOU GUYS AND YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE TOO RIGID TO DO WHAT I WANT!!!" That's essentially what they tell me and I will not change my view because they may want to bomb the world or use the force of the state against others. These "principled" stubborn neocons exist and you will not change them. Just laugh and shrug them off for there is nothing you can do with the "true believers" of statism.

 

[Victor Grey]

This is something I have been attacked from neocons by and even one of the most intelligent neocon I have spoke too (had a phd in middle eastern culture or something). Namely they assert that our ideology is too rigid to allow them to do as they please. I've even had this man justify empire as being acceptable because in his view we wouldn't exist as a nation otherwise because of the Islamic threat.

I suppose principles don't matter to neocons though and those that wish to use the force of the state to try and shape the world as they please. We are not welcome among those who like to initiate violence. I wonder why lol????

That's peculiar to me. When I look at the middle east I see a relatively volatile assortment of people prone to concerning outbursts, that wouldn't even have semi-automatic firearms is someone else didn't invent them, and that without the aspect of oil, would be even less militarily viable, and about as relevant in western people's minds as what happens in africa or the indochina peninsula; not so very much.

I look at them as people who are 80 years behind the times from reaching our level living standards, consumption, and most importantly, military ability for all of them combined.

I just don't see the "islamic threat." Not the one this person supposes to proclaim.
Being able to blow up all of ~4 buildings a decade ago, is a tragedy. Not however in an way, is it a military threat to the existence of our nation.
Existence to ~4 buildings and the occupying people? Yes. To all those other people in the nation outside those buildings and the ~1/4 mile radius of them? Not so much.

The coldhearted reality is on the scale of human tragedy and threat, terrorism is closer to "Car Wreck"
than "German Invasion of Russia."
It is closer to "tragic fatal house fire", than to "ethnic cleansing."

I don't like car wrecks. I don't like house fires. I refuse to spend trillions due to car wreaks or house fires.

Terrorists don't even put up a credible threat to persuade me not to use air travel.
Groping me puts up a far more credible threat that terrorists when pertaining to air travel.

To summarize, I am not impressed by the threat posed by the muslim world or the third world in general. I am simply not convinced of the threat some angry third world people pose to me, as described and believed by your friend. I am not convinced that angry third world muslims are going to build an invasion force, capable of threatening our national existence. At not in within this century. I'm more concerned with going bankrupt chasing around enemies that have to attack us through fear spectacles, because they're too weak to attack us through other more practically effective means, in some myopic attempt to mold the world; prone more to destroy us in process than achieve it's own goal.
That idealism, I do believe is bad.

When I'm 120, I might look again at the grand scheme of things, and reconsider my opinions.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I'm not party to any social contract you're talking about.

And the Constitution has not been changed because it is largely ignored anyway. People in general, and especially statists, aren't going to do work they don't need to do. Why bother changing the Constitution when you can ignore it and go on with your day?

According to natural right, it isn't a matter of choice. The need to provide civil rights in the bill of rights was debated by our Founding Fathers for this reason. A natural right is superior to any civil right because it reduces literally on the physical level. By natural right, the people own all the property. Period. In contrast, by exercising our civil rights in the courtrooms, we are losing all our property back to tyranny. In the end, it doesn't matter if tyranny utilizes the false powers of manipulation to take all the property away. By natural right, the people own all the property as well as the purse (the economy).

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's peculiar to me. When I look at the middle east I see a relatively volatile assortment of people prone to concerning outbursts, that wouldn't even have semi-automatic firearms is someone else didn't invent them, and that without the aspect of oil, would be even less militarily viable, and about as relevant in western people's minds as what happens in africa or the indochina peninsula; not so very much.

I look at them as people who are 80 years behind the times from reaching our level living standards, consumption, and most importantly, military ability for all of them combined.

I just don't see the "islamic threat." Not the one this person supposes to proclaim.
Being able to blow up all of ~4 buildings a decade ago, is a tragedy. Not however in an way, is it a military threat to the existence of our nation.
Existence to ~4 buildings and the occupying people? Yes. To all those other people in the nation outside those buildings and the ~1/4 mile radius of them? Not so much.

The coldhearted reality is on the scale of human tragedy and threat, terrorism is closer to "Car Wreck"
than "German Invasion of Russia."
It is closer to "tragic fatal house fire", than to "ethnic cleansing."

I don't like car wrecks. I don't like house fires. I refuse to spend trillions due to car wreaks or house fires.

Terrorists don't even put up a credible threat to persuade me not to use air travel.
Groping me puts up a far more credible threat that terrorists when pertaining to air travel.

To summarize, I am not impressed by the threat posed by the muslim world or the third world in general. I am simply not convinced of the threat some angry third world people pose to me, as described and believed by your friend. I am not convinced that angry third world muslims are going to build an invasion force, capable of threatening our national existence. At not in within this century. I'm more concerned with going bankrupt chasing around enemies that have to attack us through fear spectacles, because they're too weak to attack us through other more practically effective means, in some myopic attempt to mold the world; prone more to destroy us in process than achieve it's own goal.
That idealism, I do believe is bad.

When I'm 120, I might look again at the grand scheme of things, and reconsider my opinions.

But what should we value about your impressions? On what formal dichotomy do you base them? Is your opinion just based on a vast knowledge of issues? Do you use criterion or criteria when separating a legitimate issue from illegitimate nonsense? How can one use an infinite amount of criteria, endless issues that is, to determine legitimate issues from nonsense?
In contrast, reducing to criterion is reducing to a formal dichotomy.
You see, it isn't they who are asleep. We are. Wake up.

 

[Sam I am]

I was told by a co-worker today that the problem with Libertarians is that we are too idealistic... I was so shocked that someone could exert that being idealistic is a negative trait... Ideas drive, mold, generate human society. Without ideas humans would never develop creativity to propel our existence. Without ideas humans would never or will never evolve, and we would be sitting in caves wondering why there has not been any advances in society in the past few thousand years. Since it was a political discussion, I retorted his comment by saying that it was an totally absurd idea, our fore fathers formulated to take on and fight the all powerful English empire. And, that stupid idea lead to the stupid idea of creating the best form of government the world has seen. Dumb idealist, and their stupid ideas...

I was so flabbergasted at this assertion...

He also said that he had another issue with us libertarians, which is that we wont concede our views to gain a little here and there. He said we are cutting off our own noses by not taking a little to give a little on positions. He said if we compromised on certain potions it would benefit the movement. I told him you might see it as us cutting own nose, but I see that as selling your soul.

So, since when has being principled and idealist bad?

Generally speaking, and Idealogue, is a person who is closed-minded, and unwilling to accept that their beliefs might be wrong.

Secondly, All of the ideas in the world are completely worthless if you don't actually get anything done.

Thirdly, Reality is a whole lot more complicated than the models we use to represent it, so if your ideas have a chance of not working as you expected them to, and if you can't adapt, you ultimately will fail.

 

[AGRP]

Striving for anything that is not certain is idealistic. Your friend should give up on life since about the only thing certain is death.