Paradox of tolerance

My friend Steve Bissette posted on Facebook a link to the Wikipedia post on the paradox of tolerance.  It is “a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.”

 Philosopher Karl Popper articulated this paradox in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), where he argued that “a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.”

It’s an interesting conversation. “Philosopher John Rawls concludes differently in his 1971 A Theory of Justice, stating that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust.” This is a valid point. Allowing the Ku Klux Klan to march in Skokie, IL in the 1970s, which which was upheld by the Supreme Court, rightly in my view.

“However, Rawls qualifies this assertion, conceding that under extraordinary circumstances, if constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, a tolerant society has a reasonable right to self-preservation to act against intolerance if it would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution.”

Turning point

I feel we are there. When we in the United States no longer have checks and balances because Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, has abdicated its constitutional responsibilities, it is our duty to protest. It is the government itself that has become intolerant.

As the Godpodcast explained, while the “military kills unidentified fishermen with missiles with the goal of ‘ending drug trafficking,’ he pardoned Juan Orlando Hernandez, an actual criminal ex-president convicted of money laundering and tied to drug-running networks.” The hypocracy and scapegoating with these ones are great. 

One of the boldest recent pushback occurred when six Democratic lawmakers, all with military or national security backgrounds, reminded military personnel they had the right – the obligation, even – to disobey “unlawful orders”.

Public Citizen notes the regime is “prosecuting and seeking to imprison opponents. They are deploying thousands of masked agents to abduct ‘immigrants’ (and people they think look or sound like certain kinds of immigrants). They are putting heavily armed military personnel on our nation’s streets to intimidate American citizens. And they are in effect extorting the media, major law firms, and universities.” All while enriching themselves.

Protests against these and other incursions, such as the anti-DEI bs that sideline women and “other” groups are required. As a philosophy site indicated, “For the average person, it’s about knowing where to draw the line between standing up for free speech and saying, ‘That’s not right’ when someone crosses the line into being hurtful.”

Freedom to read (local event)

Immigration (local event)