Yesterday I wrote about tax warfare. The comments got off track a bit, mainly regarding voting for Barr over McCain (by two people who both wanted Obama to lose). But it mostly came down to realism versus idealism.

I’m no expert. I’m only 29 years old, but I can tell you I’m far more realistic now than I was in years past.  I think experience slowly moves young idealists towards realism.

On one hand, my gut tells me to side with JakeGint. He says he is older and more of a realist. To me, being an idealist is easy–there are no consequences, only theoretical gains or losses. Experience has taught him to be realistic and I put a lot of stock in experience.

On the other hand, I want to side with Tarigal, a college student with little life experience but strong ideals. Why? Because while experience and realism will always be a smart safe choice, its always the young, idealistic and foolishly overenthusiastic idealists that make real and lasting change for the better.

I feel like realism is the safe play and will likely benefit most people, but without those idealists rushing in to the fight, we’d rarely advance as a whole.

Is it better to accept life for what it is and try to maximize your life inside those boundaries or is it better to spend your life trying to break the boundaries down? I think you can see why a 20yr old might have a different opinion than a 60yr old, and vica versa.

Thoughts?