The hell we don't. Everyone should want open borders. Open borders indicate such peace with our neighbors, such fulfillment of basic human need, that borders become unnecessary.
Everybody should want that as an end goal. We should say so.
The hell we don't. A world without guns is a world where nobody feels the need to suddenly end the life of another, where even those who do find it far more difficult to accomplish.
Everyone should want that as an end goal. We should say so.
The hell we don't. A world without prisons is a world where all live in such harmony that none need have their freedom curtailed for the safety (or the profit) of the rest.
Everyone should want that as an end goal. We should say so.
Examine that statement. So often 'what's realistic' is simply what can be accomplished once we've already surrendered the main: whether we intend to pursue war or peace, harmony or power, greed or plenty, fear or courage, imagination or ignorance.
Reframe your argument to point toward those ideals.
Doing so will expose what ends the other side points toward.
Which makes them the type that scoff at utopia.
You can join them, or you can be somebody who points toward it.
Compromise? Incremental progress? Sure. But only when it actually gets you closer to where you're heading.
You can't convince people to catch up to you unless first you leave them behind.
You can easily see it when it manifests.
Just as easily, you can see when it refuses to.
In fact, the further we have to go, the earlier we should start, and the greater should be our resolve.
Or we can be "realistic," stay where we are and try to arrange the few sticks we're allowed to touch into something like shelter.
But it doesn't mean we can act as if we're already there—only that we should be unafraid to aim high.