The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is 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.”
― Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
Today, when we are witnesses of the violent protests in USA in organization of white nationalists, do you think that they have a right to protest?
I love your post, thanks for sharing! I gave you a vote. I hope you enjoy it.
Hi! I am a robot. I just upvoted you! I found similar content that readers might be interested in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
This post received a 3.8% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @leonarda! For more information, click here!
I realize this is an old post but this is a dangerous message.
"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
Who are the "We" in this statement? and who are the "intolerant"?
Since this was presumably written by a member of the "open society" it would appear to imply that the "we" are the ironically named "Social justice warriors" who do not support Social justice and claim that White Nationalists are intolerant and are responsible for violent protests.
This is a bare faced lie, and White Nationalists can equally claim that it is the "Social justice warriors" who are the ones who are intolerant and responsible for the violence that occurs at protests.
All you have to do is to watch the footage of any of the White Nationalists protests to see who the ones who initiate the violence are, and it's not the White Nationalists.
I fact in virtually every case it's the ironically named "Antifa" who cover their faces and come armed with everything from baseball bats to bottles or bags of urine to pepper spray and home made flame throwers. While the White Nationalists only bring helmets and shields to protect themselves.
Don't just take my word for it. Watch the videos and you'll see exactly what I'm saying.
The truth of the matter is that the Socialist/Communists can't make any reasonable argument for their position since their position is not reasonable, so instead they come out in force to violently prevent the Nationalists from being able to make any reasonable arguments for their own position, and then blame the violence (which they themselves have initiated)on the Nationalists.
The leftist controlled media then reports that the White Nationalists held a violent demonstration but conveniently omit to mention the fact that the leftists were the ones who caused the violence.
Then we have people like ― Karl R. Popper encouraging people who believe in tolerance to be intolerant of White Nationalists protests/rallies. In other words he is saying they should be prevented from holding protests or rallies. This would violate the Constitution so it can't be done lawfully. The only way it can be done is by violence,
So he is effectively condoning and inciting violence, which is a crime.