Paradox of Tolerance

[ThomasDoubts]

    Post numero uno

     Been a long time listener (I suppose thats rather relative, seems like a lifetime), and recently signed up for the forums.  After the update/upgrade, I simply couldn't resist. 

     The questions I pose, and ones I've been thinking about lately, conern Karl Popper's argument regarding the Paradox of Tolerance.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

 

 

     Assuming we share the same goals; a stateless society, the NAP, UPB, etc., the only question is the means by which they're achieved.  By and large, Stefan's arguments rightly concern the raising of children and rational thought.  I'm concerned, however, that these means are insufficient.  Help me square this circle.

     If, as history demonstrates, political power is not given up volutarily, how can such a force be eliminated if not by force or ballot?   By definition, political power permits and requires the use of force.  Stefan has argued against the usefulness of voting, and who could argue with him in today's context?  Perhaps Kokesh will start a trend; what's wrong with an anarchist platform? 

     Consider a quasi-utopic world where 60% of the population in a given nation subscribed to NAP, UPB, the stateless society:   So long as an enforcement class could be fielded from the remaining 40%, would a tyranny of force not remain plausible?  Is the path forward one where we must win so many hearts and minds that an enforcement class cannot be fielded?  Is it reasonable to expect such a time to ever come about?   Should we be voters? 

      Government will always demand the use of force, and recognizing their highest economic value, those willing to employ the use of force will naturally congregate in/around government, where they are most profitable and enjoy legal protection.  

     I can't help but thinking, by abstaining from the political process would we forfeit our only mechanism for the abolition of the state (absent force)? How would a stateless society in it's infancy protect against the establishment of a minimilist government (1776)

     Should we not claim the right to employ force against intolerance of liberty?  Would this not be an extension of the right to self defense? Claiming the moral high ground, should we not be more impatient, more intolerant of intolerance?

 

Thoughts?

[Stephen C]

For some reason the first thing that comes to my head is "What's your relationship with your parents like?"

[ThomasDoubts]

     Well, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, but we've got some great tasting shit.  In my experience it's been beneficial to temper expectations when dealing with shattered people.  For me, the only important questions always began with "why?"  I've answered my "why's" and made peace with the fact that you can't change the past.  Though it hasn't always been the case, I feel more like the parent, and they're the children.  As many parents (though surely none here!) may attest, reasoning with a teenager, unfamiliar with reason, is just unreasonable. 

 

     I could go into greater detail but unless you can bait me into seeing it's relevance to the topic at hand, it would probably be more appropriate to do so elsewhere.

[Stephen C]

I don't want to bait you. If you think the question is irrelevant considering the topic of the thread, it may be. That was just the first thought that came to my head. Sorry to derail. 

[ThomasDoubts]

No worries.  It may or may not be relevant, and it's food for thought.  I just don't want to get too far out on a tangent.  To do justice to that story would require a discussion of its own. 

[Cornellius]

Interesting. Until what point is it wise to be tolerant? Well, tolerance sure stands as a value when it comes to opinions and beliefs of others. OF COURSE, the value of tolerance doesn't stand when it comes to everything else, because sometimes you need to get in the way of someone's violent self-interest imperialism.

 

I doubt that that is really a paradox, because when trying to stop someone from misleading someone else, therefore being intolerant in a general defense way, you are still upholding the principle of tolerance by preventing somebody from attacking someone else in their beliefs.

 

You haven't come up to someone to impose your teachings to them, you simply saw someone doing so, and intervened.

[LovePrevails]

Re:

 

. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

 

Sure, in Ancapistan, if people were preaching racial hatred or something their DROs could quite possibly remove some of their priveleges or fine them.

[TDB]

Re:

 

. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

 

Sure, in Ancapistan, if people were preaching racial hatred or something their DROs could quite possibly remove some of their priveleges or fine them.

I think shunning would be more appropriate. My first response at the idea of DRO enforced hate-speech laws was "eww, creepy." OTOH, racial hatred, also creepy. Get off my lawn! Out of my gated community! Maybe.

[Kevin Beal]

I believe the paradox is due to a lack of definitions and not to the nature of tolerance itself.

 

Tolerance:

"a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry." - dictionary.com

 

The first two adjectives here are "fair" and "objective". Being tolerant of someone being unfair to you (anti-UPB) is a contradiction in terms because that's not tolerance. I don't know what that is exactly. Placating? Enabling? Something along those lines.

 

Also, I don't think tolerance should be regarded as a virtue. Certainly people shouldn't be assholes/witches or impose things on people who obviously aren't interested, but I don't think people ought to be permissive of certain practices, religions or opinions either.

 

Permissive:

"habitually or characteristically accepting or tolerant of something, as social behavior or linguistic usage, that others might disapprove or forbid." - dictionary.com

 

I absolutely disapprove of many cultural practices (infant genital mutilation for example) and I have a hard time seeing how it would be better of me to look the other way and just dismiss it as just one of those things I dislike. Actually I feel contempt, and that is itself a virtue (more here).

 

Additionally, a concern I have is that (like catholic guilt) people will use their own lack of tolerance as self castigation. That every asshole they bump into is a test for them to practice tolerance in a

sort of way. And I see this too often with certain people in my life. And (at least for them) I think that's the entire purpose of having tolerance as a virtue. It's heartbreaking actually (and maddening at the same time).

 

 

As far as using force in defense of liberty, I think it could definitely be justified (depending), but I don't think it's wise. I remember this family that didn't pay taxes and resisted their arrest (kidnapping) with guns in self defense and everyone looked at the family like they were insane (and in a way, they're kind of right). Using violence against the monopoly on violence is bound to only hurt the freedom movement more by painting us as lunatics in the minds of the public.

[ThomasDoubts]

Interesting Kevin

 

"Being tolerant of someone being unfair to you (anti-UPB) is a contradiction in terms because that's not tolerance."  I think this is very much the to the point.  If someone intolerantly agresses against me, my choices are submission, opposition by force, if necessary, or flight.  There is no moral or virtuous judgement to be made.  Your response would be one made under duress.  If I am a bystander to an intolerant agression, my choices are encouragement, active opposition by force, if necessary, or passive permission.  You're right that definitions are lacking but I don't want to get too wrapped up in them, fundementally important though they may be.  For instance, I'm a bit bothered by the fact that your (I know its not "yours" per se) definition of tolerance includes "permissive", while your definition of permissive includes "tolerant".  If A=B and B=A, what is A? What is B?

 

I wonder if, in a free society, would you exersize your consumer voting rights by refusing to buy a home from a couple who circumcized their children?  Would you not buy products from a company who's CEO had an abortion in the distant past?  I suppose there is a question of when tolerance becomes intolerance.  If you are a "pro-life" activist, are you intolerant because you think abortion is murder and don't respect others rights to make their own moral judgements?  If you are a "pro-choice" activist, are you intolerant because you defend your right to make choices about your own body, and make your own moral judgements without deferance to others'?  I wonder if it doesn't become intolerance until your actions constitute agression, force, or the threat thereof. 

 

As a practical matter, no matter how repulsive you may find genital mutilation, it seems to me that you would be tolerant of it until you threaten violence (legislation), or stay the hand holding the knife.  You may not approve of it, you may not respect it, you may be an activist against it, but it goes on thoughout the society of which we are a part.  As it would be unwise to exercize force against genital mutilation, or against the state in the name of true liberty, it would also have been unwise to exersize force against the institution of slavery in 1850's Virginia, as John Brown can attest.  As others have argued, violence was not neccessary in freeing the slaves but would you condemn those who violently opposed it?  Would you condemn the slave who kills his master?  If not, it would seem you would tolerate the opposition of force, by force.  If so, you wouldn't respect one's right to fight force with force.  But as your analysis states, being tolerant/intolerant of intolerance isn't really exercizing one or the other; rather it's the absence or use of force in opposition.  Maybe