Rob Coffey wrote:Matthew D wrote:thanks Rob. Don't think the quote has much to do with realism, but thanks for locating it for me.
I wonder why I would locate it for you if I only cared about myself.![]()
And you are welcome.
That quote has everything to do with realism. I would like to change a lot of stuff, but realize it isnt going to happen and roll with those things I cant change. Or ignore them if to oppressive.
Another example - if I ever ran for office (which I wont, all politicians are corrupt douchebags, even the ones I vote for), I would run on the following platform (taken directly from CS Lewis):
To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man.
I dont think that is utopian in the least.
I'm not sure what common ground we are going to find when we have totally different views on the social contract. Earlier you said my characterization of libertarianism was a strawman. And you are correct, except libertarianism only exists in opposition to what is. I understand fiscal conservatism. I don't agree with it, but I understand it as a political theory. It's a viable political theory. Libertarianism isn't. It's a utopian ideal that exists on the premise that ignoring is not an option. The only option is an unreachable ideal (just like Marxism).
I see that you've created a title to describe your stance. So, there might be reality in your own approach. But that's the same thing as saying there's a reality in certain social democratic approaches to a degree that there is not in Marxism. I like to call that being Marxian -- which is the acceptance of the limitations of Marxism because of reality.
I'm getting a headache, so I'm going to take a break.