I've studied political theory for years, and at the end of the day, if there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of, it's that I care more about how policies will affect people's day-to-day lives than about any grand abstractions about how the world "should" work. When I'm considering policy stances, the main questions I'm asking are: "How will this affect me? How will this affect the people I know? How will this affect the average middle-class suburbanite?"
I think that's a big part of why I've moved away from hardline libertarianism, and also a big part of why I reject far-left politics. Liberal reformism might be "boring," but it offers a clear vision of what life will be like if its proposals are implemented. "Things will be mostly the same, but [everyone will have healthcare like they do in most other first-world nations] or [everyone will get a Universal Basic Income so they have a safety net to fall back on] or [the electoral system will be more fair and more accessible]."
The idealists (of both the free-market libertarian sort and the far-left socialist/communist/anarchist sort) generally don't offer these sorts of answers. Typically, when asked what life will be like under their preferred system, they'll handwave the question with vague utopian promises ("we can't know what it'll be like, but it'll definitely be better!"). Or they'll dismiss the question, either by exaggerating the plight of our current situation ("it doesn't matter, because anything would be better than what we have now!"), or by appealing to some sort of deontological morality without regard for the consequences ("it doesn't matter, the current system goes against my principles"). And I don't find any of those arguments particularly compelling.
