
Paradox of Tolerance - rodrigosetti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
======
nanis
Since Charlottesville, I have seen many references to this by people looking
to justify, or cast in a positive light, violence by AntiFa groups and their
affiliates. It would be useful for people to read the entire "The Open Society
and Its Enemies"[1]. The "Paradox of Tolerance" appears in Note 4 to Chapter
7:

    
    
        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 most 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. (emphasis mine)
    

which is less than a full-throated defense of violence against people whose
speech we find disgusting and reprehensible.

The context in which the note is referenced is this:

    
    
        One particular form of this logical argument is
        directed against a too naïve version of
        liberalism, of democracy, and of the principle
        that the majority should rule; and it is
        somewhat similar to the well-known ‘paradox of
        freedom’ which has been used first, and with
        success, by Plato. In his criticism of
        democracy, and in his story of the rise of the
        tyrant, Plato raises implicitly the following
        question: What if it is the will of the people
        that they should not rule, but a tyrant instead?
        The free man, Plato suggests, may exercise his
        absolute freedom, first by defying the laws and
        ultimately by defying freedom itself and by
        clamouring for a tyrant[4].
    

That is, Popper sees paradoxes of freedom and tolerance as related. Later, he
resolves this like Kant before him did:

    
    
        I believe that the injustice and inhumanity of
        the unrestrained ‘capitalist system’ described
        by Marx cannot be questioned; but it can be
        interpreted in terms of what we called, in a
        previous chapter[20], the paradox of freedom.
        Freedom, we have seen, defeats itself, if it is
        unlimited. Unlimited freedom means that a strong
        man is free to bully one who is weak and to rob
        him of his freedom. This is why we demand that
        the state should limit freedom to a certain
        extent, so that everyone’s freedom is protected
        by law. Nobody should be at the **mercy** of others,
        but all should have a **right** to be protected by
        the state.
    

I have always been particularly fond of the conclusion:

    
    
        Instead of posing as prophets we must become the
        makers of our fate.  We must learn to do things
        as well as we can, and to look out for our
        mistakes. And when we have dropped the idea that
        the history of power will be our judge, when we
        have given up worrying whether or not history
        will justify us, then one day perhaps we may
        succeed in getting power under control. In this
        way we may even justify history, in our turn. It
        badly needs a justification.
    
    
    

[1]:
[https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...](https://archive.org/details/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopperKarlSir)

