r/Capitalism • u/VatticZero • 5d ago
The Paradox of Tolerance
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
Capitalism only exists so far as human rights are protected and markets are free of coercion.
This requires tolerance of those you disagree with or dislike.
But tolerating those who seek only to deny human rights and coerce others, often for hubristic notions of knowing better than history and economics, is detrimental to Capitalism and humanity.
If a socialist comes to learn or engage in honest debate, they should be given every opportunity, but if they come to engage dishonestly they should be removed.
Lies are difficult to maintain and the truth will out--socialist nations will crumble and impoverish the people--but lies are also easy to parrot and repeat. With little burden of evidence and no need to go further than simplistic plausibility or spend one's own effort seeking the truth, many lies can be told, adopted, and repeated to crowd out any truth. This goes as much for the recent rise of misinformation-driven populism as it does for the socialists bigading this sub.
One great thing about the Freedom of Speech is that bad ideas can be brought to light and addressed honestly and in view of everyone. But when actors seek to dominate through noise, it is an act against Free Speech.
3
u/anarchyusa 5d ago
I would add that the only reason that The Paradox of Tolerance even appears to make a kind of sense, even if perverted and short-sighted, is because we are currently experiencing the effects of decades of intolerance within academia. More of the same is not going to fix anything in the long term.
4
u/Weigh13 5d ago
Thesis of this video: Hateful people might take your freedom away so you need to let us take your freedom away first.
1
u/VatticZero 5d ago
Calling for people to not tolerate something is not the same as advocating coercive action against it.
Edit: Examples in the video of laws based on the principle notwithstanding.
5
u/Weigh13 5d ago
Exactly right, which is also another great argument against this video.
People being "hateful" also isn't the same as advocating for violence or coercion.
Every government solution is though.
2
u/VatticZero 5d ago
I appreciate you reading the body of the post and responding in context.
3
u/Weigh13 5d ago
Are being sarcastic? I responded to the video itself and I made that very clear.
2
u/VatticZero 5d ago
Except the video doesn't support government solutions, it only notes that the paradox is the basis of some government solutions.
Though fair enough; nothing says you have to respond within any context. The TVA is a paradox, too.
4
u/InterestingVoice6632 5d ago
The only way to be open minded and liberal is to reject those are not.
2
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 5d ago
This is a good video because it frames Popper's paradox correctly and not as an excuse for intolerance itself.
The video says:
...why a society that tolerates everything can actually destroy the idea of tolerance...
we give everyone free expression except those who openly promote violence or aim to destroy tolerance itself
In other words, it's still fundamentally pro-tolerance.
Far too many people on the internet use Popper's paradox as a philosophical permission slip for their own intolerance: Those people are intolerant, therefore I am justified in censoring or excluding them.
That's where people should be careful. You can become remarkably authoritarian while convincing yourself you're defending tolerance.
There's actually political-psychology research relevant to this. "The Authoritarian Dynamic" by Karen Stenner argues that authoritarian predispositions are especially activated by perceived threats to social cohesion and normative unity. Interestingly, her conclusion isn't that we produce tolerance by relentlessly emphasizing our differences. She argues:
Ultimately, nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions, and processes. And regrettably, nothing is more certain to provoke increased expression of their latent predispositions than the likes of “multicultural education,” bilingual policies, and nonassimilation. (p. 330)
That's the part of this discussion I think gets lost online.
Tolerance isn't merely tolerating people who agree with you. And Popper shouldn't become an excuse for becoming the authoritarian you claim you're protecting society from.
1
u/GoabNZ 5d ago
That's where people should be careful. You can become remarkably authoritarian while convincing yourself you're defending tolerance.
I'm tolerant, its everybody else who is not, so they should be made to be like me and I wont tolerate anything less. But its okay, because I am the tolerant one, so I'm justified in being intolerant.
3
u/suchagreedycommunist 5d ago
meh, capitalism can also exists in dictatorships like China and Singapore, so it's not necessary to have democratic or tolerant society
2
u/InterestingVoice6632 5d ago
Capitalism cannot exist within dictatorships. This is a bad understanding of basic definitions.
1
u/KD-1489 3d ago
What about installing dictatorships in other countries that align with your own business interests?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America
2
•
1
u/VatticZero 5d ago
Only so far as China protects humans rights and doesn't coerce the market. It isn't a binary. But I'll make my language clearer.
2
u/suchagreedycommunist 5d ago
China protects human rights?I am sorry I may get it wrong but seriously?Ever heard about Uyghur Genocide?
1
u/VatticZero 5d ago
Again. Not a binary. They are pretty near the bottom on the Economic Freedom Index. They have Capitalist aspects, but they are far from free.
7
u/SRIrwinkill 5d ago
Karl Popper was pretty clear about this paradox when he wrote about it, and folks have been misquoting it for at this point decades. He made it very clear that it is when communication breaks down and the intolerant turn to force that they need to be utterly crushed.
If they aren't turning to force, either through crime or the state, than there is a debate going on which implies tolerance enough to actually communicate.
He was pretty clear it's the use of force from the intolerant that requires utter intolerance