Idealism is bad?

[stang56k]

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?

[pcosmar]

So, since when has being principled and idealist bad?

To those that would sell their Birthright for a bowl of stew,,,

[VoluntaryAmerican]

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 would 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?

Remember you're only "idealist" (negative conotation) when you are going against the grain.

Big Government statists are just as idealist, supporters of the welfare state are idealist, and their ideas are failing us at a rapid pace.

Less Government and Freedom in my view is a practical solution and tested by history to give people happiness and prosperity.

[Philhelm]

Remember you're only "idealist" (negative conotation) when you are going against the grain.

Big Government statists are just as idealist, supporters of the welfare state are idealist, and their ideas are failing us at a rapid pace.

Less Government and Freedom in my view is a practical solution and tested by history to give people happiness and prosperity.

I was just about to state that statists are idealists as well. However, I'd add that we are realists too; we see the impending failure on the horizon and wish to avert it while the majority are content to continue along the same course without asking how we got here to begin with.

[CasualApathy]

Well, I actually think that you CAN be too idealistic, the thing is that we as a society are so far removed from that at the moment that it does sound absurd, but still I think there is some truth to it. It's sorta related to one of the things I do like about christianity, namely that it recognizes that people are imperfect, and that it is important to forgive (I don't mean to turn this into a debate on religion at all.) The problem with being too idealistic is that it can make us close our eyes to the fact that in reality we're never going to live in a perfect world, and that we certainly can't force all people to be moral or even tolerant of others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't always strive to make this world the best it can be for everyone, and to me that means establishing a libertarian society, but we should recognize that not everyone is going to share that ideal, and they are entitled to their opinions as well. I think there is something to be said for being tolerantly idealistic, and not judging others who disagree too harshly, in most cases they have their reasons which make sense for them. Of course morality, which I do tend to seperate from personal and political beliefs, comes into play as well, and I'm not saying that we should ever tolerate injustice or criminal behavior, but I just don't think we should completely refuse to engage in some compromise with people who don't share our beliefs. Basically whatever serves the greater good is worthwhile imo, even if the solution is not perfect from our perspective.

[stang56k]

Well, I actually think that you CAN be too idealistic, the thing is that we as a society are so far removed from that at the moment that it does sound absurd, but still I think there is some truth to it. It's sorta related to one of the things I do like about christianity, namely that it recognizes that people are imperfect, and that it is important to forgive (I don't mean to turn this into a debate on religion at all.) The problem with being too idealistic is that it can make us close our eyes to the fact that in reality we're never going to live in a perfect world, and that we certainly can't force all people to be moral or even tolerant of others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't always strive to make this world the best it can be for everyone, and to me that means establishing a libertarian society, but we should recognize that not everyone is going to share that ideal, and they are entitled to their opinions as well. I think there is something to be said for being tolerantly idealistic, and not judging others who disagree too harshly, in most cases they have their reasons which make sense for them. Of course morality, which I do tend to seperate from personal and political beliefs, comes into play as well, and I'm not saying that we should ever tolerate injustice or criminal behavior, but I just don't think we should completely refuse to engage in some compromise with people who don't share our beliefs. Basically whatever serves the greater good is worthwhile imo, even if the solution is not perfect from our perspective.

I agree, everything is bad out of moderation. But, its more dangerous to not be idealistic considering all goals and paths are derived from ideas. The topic of "ideas" and "idealism" to me is more than a political issue; its a philosophical law or understanding because ideas are what spark the creative human spirit, and without that we are no different than that monkey sitting in the jungle.

[CasualApathy]

I agree, everything is bad out of moderation. But, its more dangerous to not be idealistic considering all goals and paths are derived from ideas. The topic of "ideas" and "idealism" to me is more than a political issue; its a philosophical law or understanding because ideas are what spark the creative human spirit, and without that we are no different than that monkey sitting in the jungle.

I agree.

[LawnWake]

Idealism has its cons and pros. There is such a thing as practically 'too idealistic', but people who are 'too idealistic' are a driving force. Likewise, being pragmatic may mean that you're not getting things done the way you want them to, but it takes pragmatic people to make incremental changes to get closer to the final goal. I guess in 'our' case it's a stateless society without coerced authority.

Things aren't that black and white and there are valid criticisms for idealism, but that doesn't make idealists any less valuable. You just need a good combination of both.

[osan]

I was told by a co-worker today that the problem with Libertarians is that we are too idealistic...

This is a common belief. One of my closest friends, and enormously intelligent person, tells me the same thing.


I was so shocked that someone could exert that being idealistic is a negative trait...

This depends on one's precise definition of "idealistic", as well as the ideal to which one adheres.

Liberals, progressives, communists, socialists... all idealists, yet the ideals to which they adhere are demented. That, however, is not the problem. The trouble with such idealists is that they are eager to employ whatever force they feel to be necessary in order to see those ideals realized. In addition, they most often demand that every breathing soul on the planet toe the line of those ideals and are further willing to literally destroy any and all they feel are not on the team. This has been the hallmark of virtually all modern idealist revolutions going back to France.

During the French Revolution, anyone deemed "counter revolutionary" earned a date with the guillotine. People judged as not on board with the agenda in the Soviet Union and Red China were simply slaughtered or "reeducated", a fate that by many accounts was substantially worse than death.

There is nothing wrong with being idealistic. Some of the ideals, however, leave something to be desired as does the willingness to allow or employ force to torque disinterested parties into compliance.


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...

This is confusing a bit - you appear to be conflating ideals and ideas.


So, since when has being principled and idealist bad?

See above.

[Grubb556]

I would say that most Libertarians are not idealistic, for example they don't believe the government will act in good faith if given increased police powers. On the other hand, Gingrich is an idealist because he believes government even with super police powers won't abuse them.

[BSWPaulsen]

As a practical matter I'd agree that being too idealistic is possible. If compromise with other people is anathema, even if it would relatively improve your position, then you can hardly expect to get anything done when confronted with individuals of opposing viewpoints. In the end, exactly nothing was accomplished save for tilting at windmills.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a marked preference for a given ideology in theory, however. It gives one something to strive for in producing a better world.

[osan]

As a practical matter I'd agree that being too idealistic is possible.

You are mistaken on several levels. Let us take a closer look.


If compromise with other people is anathema, even if it would relatively improve your position, then you can hardly expect to get anything done when confronted with individuals of opposing viewpoints. In the end, exactly nothing was accomplished save for tilting at windmills.

Your reasoning is incomplete by virtue of the fact that you have not specified the nature of the compromise in question. This is essential in order for your position as stated above to hold any palpable meaning. Specifically, and as relates to this particular discussion, there are two general categories of propositions which may be considered for compromise: those of a fundamental nature and everything else.

To compromise on fundamental issues is a form self betrayal the timbre of which is strongly reminiscent of suicide. You suggest that failure to compromise nets you zero gain. One must first determine whether one wishes to "gain". If my position is already what I wish it to be then I may have no interest at all in improving it. That aside, consider an example. Imagine your neighbor decides he wants your backyard and places the demand before you. What do you do? By your reasoning, you should perhaps "compromise" for, say, half. This way you lose only half of the territory demanded. But what if the following week the neighbor comes back and demands the remainder? What then? Compromise for half yet again? Well, if that will shut the neighbor up, perhaps it is a good thing, right? So now you hold 1/4 of what you held just a week prior and your neighbor has taken what is not his to take, holding 3/4. But in the interests of peace you decide to be satisfied. Unfortunately, after another week lapses the neighbor is at your door once again demanding the remaining 1/4 of your yard. What now? And so the pattern goes and has gone WRT human rights, especially in the United States. Today, things that people did routinely are now offenses for which you may be executed on the spot by police. Barring that, you may face a long spell in prison. In the very best case, you are never caught but must always act in a way that suggests you are actually a criminal, including all the stress of having to conceal what you do, whether it be smoking a joint after work, buying some time with a prostitute, or carrying a gun for self defense in Chicago.

I certainly hope that you would have the sense equal to at least that of the average boiled turnip and throw such a neighbor off your property. But why? Because your neighbor would be attempting to violate your private property rights, which are fundamental and inherent to your status as a living, breathing human being. You would be right to resist such attempts to take from you that to which another person holds no legitimate claim, up to an including killing them if they attempted to employ force. Property rights are FUNDAMENTAL and must therefore never be compromised away.

The same may be said for any right such as that of free speech, religion, keeping and bearing arms, etc. If I concede some small part of my right to practice my religion, I have in principle conceded the entire right for there is no basis for drawing an absolute line in the sand that says "here and no further". Any demand to diminish a right is necessarily arbitrary. This can be demonstrated apoldictically but I will not do so here as I have a screaming headache at the moment and want to go to bed. :(

Fundamental rights should NEVER be compromised for any reason, at any time, no matter who is making the demand. The only proper response to any demand to cede one's territory is a proudly displayed middle-finger, preferably painted dayglo orange or pink for extra emphasis. Compromise on fundamental issues ALWAYS diminishes the position of the party being trespassed upon. There are no exceptions to this, even if the loss on the one hand is balanced by some marginal gain on the other because the net gain on the one hand results in a net loss of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS on the other. Fundamental issues of any nature should never be allowed to be diminished by even the smallest epsilon.

Anyone attempting to employ physical force against you to gain compliance with their demands should be killed on the spot and without hesitation, quarter, or mercy. I am very serious about this, but note that I also speak normatively as our so-called "justice system" is so hopelessly lousy and corrupt that doing what is right will often earn one felony charges and perhaps a long prison term, or even summary execution by those paragons of state power, the police. Therefore, in positive terms I could only advise caution.

Having covered the fundamentals, we may now turn to everything else. For example, if your colleagues and you are to go to lunch and you want Indian but everyone else wants Chinese, perhaps it is not so big a deal to compromise and relent to their wishes, particularly if you can get them to agree that next week it shall be Indian. Non-fundamental issues may be compromised because compromise does not diminish you or your basic rights (claims) in any way whatsoever.

If some third party offers you some gain in exchange for a concession (each in fundamental terms), then somewhere along the line someone, somewhere has stolen from you because that which is inherently yours that is now being sold back to you. It is strongly analogous to having a burglar show up to your house and offering the silver candlesticks he stole from you the previous night in exchange for your 82" flat screen TV. Instead of trading, you should be introducing his teeth to a set of brass knuckles, or perhaps a marble slab.

No man in his right mind trades a right that is already held in exchange for ceding another to some vulture.

Compromise is betrayal.

Compromise is criminal.

To believe anything other than this is to delude yourself most egregiously. That, of course, is your fundamental right.

[dannno]

He's using the word wrong.

You are saying that if people were free, then we would have optimal conditions for prosperity. They wouldn't be PERFECT, life wouldn't be perfect, but it is better to be free than to be controlled.

People who believe in communism and similar ideologies are often idealists because they believe that a small group of people given power to run the economy and such is the best way for the most amount of people to be happy. This is idealistic for at least two reasons.. for one, the group of people running things has to be genuinely interested in maximizing everyone's life situation, not just certain groups or themselves. Secondly, they are idealistic in that they believe a small group of people can maximize everyone else's life situation through brute force. edit: Which comes to a third reason they are being idealistic, that IF the people who control everything actually give everybody else the proper direction to maximize their life situation, that these people actually follow it as the incentives are often crumbly.

So you are being logical, not idealistic.

[Jingles]

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????

[BSWPaulsen]

You are mistaken on several levels. Let us take a closer look.

Judging from how the rest of your post goes, I'll state with complete confidence that you don't even have an idea as to what I was referring to. Re-read my first post, and try to find an area where what I mentioned makes basic rights, as laid out in existent social contract (or for the theologically inclined - rights granted by their creator), being subject to compromise.

Full discolure: I didn't. Compromise lies in areas not strictly delineated by governing social contract (for the USA - the Constitution). I thought this obvious...



Your reasoning is incomplete by virtue of the fact that you have not specified the nature of the compromise in question. This is essential in order for your position as stated above to hold any palpable meaning. Specifically, and as relates to this particular discussion, there are two general categories of propositions which may be considered for compromise: those of a fundamental nature and everything else.

Compromise, or seeking middle ground between diametrically opposing viewpoints (for sake of argument, collectivists versus libertarians) in determining public policy. That's the "palpable" meaning, and was obvious enough in my first post.

This is particularly relevant due to the status we Libertarians enjoy as being a substantial minority - when we fail to compromise even if we would actually gain in some measure, then we serve as little more than Don Quixotes with at best a clean conscience and at worst individuals completely irrelevant in shaping public policy.

Just like the socialists/communists are aware they were never going to sway the USA into their ideologies by force, but rather by slow conversion, so must we attempt to win battles gradually. That's where I am coming from.



To compromise on fundamental issues is a form self betrayal the timbre of which is strongly reminiscent of suicide.

Only. For. Ideologues. This notion of dying some sort of death akin to suicide when a "fundamental issue" is compromised on is farcical, as "fundamental issues" very much are relative to the individual (exception, of course, for ideologues). The reality is that so long as people find it necessary to make peace with others holding diametrically opposing viewpoints, the only recourse lies in compromise.



You suggest that failure to compromise nets you zero gain. One must first determine whether one wishes to "gain". If my position is already what I wish it to be then I may have no interest at all in improving it.

The gain would be representative of the existing conditions, and moving things in a direction you desire, even if not ideologically pure, or where you finally desire it to be. When the alternative is stonewalling any and all compromise because it fails to make things exactly as you like it, then ideology has clearly become impractical.



That aside, consider an example. Imagine your neighbor decides he wants your backyard and places the demand before you. What do you do? By your reasoning, you should perhaps "compromise" for, say, half.

Terrible analogy. If you want an analogy that makes any sense at all, focus it on determining the roles and responsibilities of government when discussing the issue with a communist.

That has more bearing, and is substantially more relevant to the compromise of which I speak due to the debate that goes into determining policy. While a marked number of us would of course like to do away with a state altogether, practical matters make it impracticable right now. This, of course, leads to a need to attempt to sway policy in our direction, and compromises are of course necessary.

The rest of your post was snipped for inanity.

[Jonathanm]

Big Government statists are just as idealist, supporters of the welfare state are idealist, and their ideas are failing us at a rapid pace.
I wish more people understood this fact. The only political people who AREN'T idealistic are flip floppers, by definition. Does your coworker really feel comfortable with someone that's on every side of the issue? Frankly, that's just fucking bizarre.

[Jonathanm]

I, for one, thought Osan's post was rather apt.


I'll state with complete confidence that you don't even have an idea as to what I was referring to

Precisely! You did not state whether basic rights were up for compromise or not. It is your burden to effectively communicate, not Osan's burden to somehow understand what you mean when you don't state it. I don't mean this as an attack on you, but the post in question mentions nothing about basic rights, one way, or the other. Osan was right, then, when he said...


Osan: Your reasoning is incomplete by virtue of the fact that you have not specified the nature of the compromise in question.

[BSWPaulsen]

I, for one, thought Osan's post was rather apt.

Precisely! You did not state whether basic rights were up for compromise or not. It is your burden to effectively communicate, not Osan's burden to somehow understand what you mean when you don't state it. I don't mean this as an attack on you, but the post in question mentions nothing about basic rights, one way, or the other. Osan was right, then, when he said...

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.

[osan]

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.

Governing social contract? OK, let us look at that. A contract must possess six characteristics, which include:



1. Offer

2. Acceptance - the parties must accept the terms and conditions under which the provisions of the agreement are to be executed.

3. Consideration - a bargained for exchange (giving something up, getting something of roughly equal value in return)

4. Capacity - the parties must all have the rational capacity to enter into the contract.

5. Intent - e.g. there can be no coercion, explicit or implied

6. Legality - the provisions of the contract must all be legally valid.


Without so much as a single element, no contract exists.

Given these definitions, it appears to me that no such "social contract" exists. Certainly this is true for me. Nothing has been offered to me of which I am aware, nor do I accept the provisions of the "social contract" as I understand them. There is nothing in the way of consideration on my end of the bargain - only the threat of force if I do not comply, which brings us to intent, which cannot be established due to the presence of coercion. Capacity is arguable, given that most people turned 18 have no understanding of such things, indicating an absence of capacity on their parts at the time a supposed contract was entered into. Legality is also eminently arguable, but we'll toss "them" a bone on that one.

Let's see - that means that at the very best only 2 of 6 elements are present. Therefore, no such contract exists. Furthermore, who are the other parties to the contract? The term "social" provides no reasonable indication. I will add that the term "social contract" is actually an inane term, void of all meaning. It is in fact a term of bullshit precisely because it means nothing while the words comprising it lay heavy with innuendo that most average dullards assume without examination. That is the great secret of these baloney terms - hold no actual meaning but slap semantic units together such that a general, if vague, sense of.... something is communicated by assumption. Additionally, the semantic units are chosen to obliquely yet firmly imply bona fide authority where none actually exists. This is simple genius and all due respect must be afforded to those who conceived this method of gaining consent.

There is no such thing as the "social contract" as commonly referred. It is utter vapor.

Next.

[Origanalist]

The infrequency of changes in the US Constitution make this fairly obvious as it pertains to Americans.

Official changes might be infrequent but interpretations change constantly.

[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.