the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Advocate »

Idealism without pragmatism is navel-gazing, but pragmatism without idealism is Hell.

One of these scenarios illustrates modern society much better than the other.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Skepdick »

Constitutional Democracy. It's the least immoral option.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by surreptitious57 »

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
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

a chartered, natural rights minarchy trumps both a constitutional democracy and a altruistic meritocracy

Post by henry quirk »

:thumbsup:

of course, a natural rights anarchism trumps everything, but such a thing requires mature, self-reliant folks, and there are damned few of those
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by RCSaunders »

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
"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.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Skepdick »

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.
Last edited by Skepdick on Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Belinda
Posts: 3985
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:40 am 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.
I agree, but "altruistic meritocracy" (Surreptitious) has something to be said for it. To what extent might altruistic meritocracy be combined with constitutional democracy?
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:43 am I agree, but "altruistic meritocracy" (Surreptitious) has something to be said for it. To what extent might altruistic meritocracy be combined with constitutional democracy?
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.
Belinda
Posts: 3985
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am
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
"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.
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.
Skepdick
Posts: 4964
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Skepdick »

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
The Satirical origins of meritocracy
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am
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
"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.
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.
Are you a socialist, Belinda?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:50 am
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
"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.
RC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists.
If he doesn't, I do.

He's right. That's what happens.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Lacewing »

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.
This is bullshit.

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.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:46 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 am RC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists.
If he doesn't, I do.

He's right. That's what happens.
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. :lol:

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.
Belinda
Posts: 3985
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:31 pm
Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:02 am
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.
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.
Are you a socialist, Belinda?
I became a socialist when I learned that was the political name for what the nicest people do.
Post Reply