the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
Idealism without pragmatism is navel-gazing, but pragmatism without idealism is Hell.
One of these scenarios illustrates modern society much better than the other.
One of these scenarios illustrates modern society much better than the other.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
Constitutional Democracy. It's the least immoral option.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
a chartered, natural rights minarchy trumps both a constitutional democracy and a altruistic meritocracy
of course, a natural rights anarchism trumps everything, but such a thing requires mature, self-reliant folks, and there are damned few of those
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Good Marxist communist doctrine.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:26 pm Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
Guess who will have all the needs? Every slimy lazy parasite and useless bum on earth.
Guess who will be expected to sacrifice what they have produced for the sake of "those who have the needs."
This doctrine that would sacrifice the best of humanity for the sake of worst is call, "moral."
Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.
When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
Observe the idealists insisting that their utopia is the best for everyone else.
Constitutional Democracy is the pragmatic system we have today which mitigates the conflict resolution when their utopian dreams clash.
Constitutional Democracy is the pragmatic system we have today which mitigates the conflict resolution when their utopian dreams clash.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
I agree, but "altruistic meritocracy" (Surreptitious) has something to be said for it. To what extent might altruistic meritocracy be combined with constitutional democracy?
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
When the altruistic meritocrats clash with some other idealists they'll either fight it out (war), or they'll find a compromise in the form of a constitution/social contract.
When they figure out which of their ideas aren't worth dying for the lowest common denominator shall be found. They'll give up on the silly utopian dream and figure out how to work with an imperfect system, not against it.
There's also the perverse psychology of it. People who believe in meritocracy, and who believe themselves to be deserving/skilled/having merit become assholes
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
RC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists. Your knowledge of man's recent past is blinded by reason of your confirmation bias. If you knew what I know about the lives and work of real people who were socialists you would not write what you did write.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Good Marxist communist doctrine.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:26 pm Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
Guess who will have all the needs? Every slimy lazy parasite and useless bum on earth.
Guess who will be expected to sacrifice what they have produced for the sake of "those who have the needs."
This doctrine that would sacrifice the best of humanity for the sake of worst is call, "moral."
Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.
When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
The Satirical origins of meritocracysurreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:26 pm Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
- RCSaunders
- Posts: 4704
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
Are you a socialist, Belinda?Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 amRC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists. Your knowledge of man's recent past is blinded by reason of your confirmation bias. If you knew what I know about the lives and work of real people who were socialists you would not write what you did write.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Good Marxist communist doctrine.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:26 pm Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
Guess who will have all the needs? Every slimy lazy parasite and useless bum on earth.
Guess who will be expected to sacrifice what they have produced for the sake of "those who have the needs."
This doctrine that would sacrifice the best of humanity for the sake of worst is call, "moral."
Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.
When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 23019
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
If he doesn't, I do.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 amRC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Good Marxist communist doctrine.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 8:26 pm Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle
Guess who will have all the needs? Every slimy lazy parasite and useless bum on earth.
Guess who will be expected to sacrifice what they have produced for the sake of "those who have the needs."
This doctrine that would sacrifice the best of humanity for the sake of worst is call, "moral."
Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.
When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.
He's right. That's what happens.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
This is bullshit.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.
When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.
I know a lot of people, including myself, who have comfortable lives that we've worked very hard for, and we would accept "less" (such as Universal income) so that others could have enough. So, NO, you are incorrect... the socialist is NOT "always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to produce". You frame it that way because you're too close-minded or ignorant to know better and you have to justify your own narrow thinking and self-absorbed attitude. You should stop spreading extremist ignorant crap. How about you START THERE.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
Oh... the EXPERT speaks! You're so fucking self-righteous it makes me want to hurl. You're as much of an asshole as he is, so you sacrifice truth in order to jump on the self-important band-wagon. You guys are so proud of your ignorance, it's laughable.
There are all kinds of socialists... and democrats... and republicans... and Christians... and atheists... etc. STOP PUTTING PEOPLE IN FUCKING CATEGORIES THAT YOU CLAIM TO KNOW. The world and people are much broader in potential than your self-indulgent, self-important stories.
Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism
I became a socialist when I learned that was the political name for what the nicest people do.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:31 pmAre you a socialist, Belinda?Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 amRC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists. Your knowledge of man's recent past is blinded by reason of your confirmation bias. If you knew what I know about the lives and work of real people who were socialists you would not write what you did write.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Good Marxist communist doctrine.
Guess who will have all the needs? Every slimy lazy parasite and useless bum on earth.
Guess who will be expected to sacrifice what they have produced for the sake of "those who have the needs."
This doctrine that would sacrifice the best of humanity for the sake of worst is call, "moral."
Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.
When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.