I can’t count how many times, or in how many ways, statists have tried to justify the violent authoritarian domination they advocate by saying that they’re only being “practical” and “realistic.” And that’s it. That’s their entire argument. They don’t even try to attempt to describe any principle by which being a parasitic aggressor could be a good thing. No, they just assert that that’s just how things need to be, because “real world,” and “grow up,” and “how things are,” and because peaceful coexistence and not being a violent, control freak bastard is (for some reason) unrealistic and extreme and Utopian.
Hmm, it makes me wonder how they would respond when their own “argument” (or lack thereof) is used against them.
Statist: “Hey, that’s my car! Why are you stealing my car? Stop!”
Thief: “Well sure, ideally I wouldn’t be stealing your car, but we have to be realistic. This is necessary. It’s inevitable. If you don’t like it, don’t live here! If you want to change things, become a carjacker. Don’t just bitch and complain about me stealing your car, without offering any solutions or alternatives! What would you replace grand theft auto with? If I stopped, it would create a ‘thief vacuum,’ and someone else would just do it – probably someone even worse than me, so you should consider yourself lucky! Beside, how would I get a free car if I don’t steal them? Quit spouting your silly Utopian idealism! Grow up! This is the real world!”
Yeah, I’m sure the statist would just happily accept that and go on his merry way (without a car).