The Paradox of Tolerance

In his book “The Open Society and its Enemies”, the philosopher Karl Popper defined 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.[1]

The Paradox Itself

Let us be clear first about what “tolerance” means. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines “tolerance” as a

willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.

The paradox of tolerance appears to be paradoxical because it states that to maintain a tolerant society, one must violate the general principle of tolerance, upon which the system is based, and suppress the intolerant. Now, it should be clear to anyone with a functional brain that this is nothing other than a flat-out contradiction. No system should be based on a fundamental contradiction. Whatever one thinks of openly authoritarian regimes, they at least do not pretend to be tolerant; in fact, they will openly declare that they are intolerant and intend to suppress views and conduct which are contrary to their ideology. In this regard, whatever else they do, they are more respectable than liberal systems.

The Idea in Detail

Popper states in the above extract that if intolerant belief systems cannot be countered by rational argument, they must be “suppressed”. There are three questionable aspects to this:

a) The implication that, under a liberal system, only liberalism should ever be permitted in the public square, with the result that there is no real tolerance of dissent.

b) The questionable assumptions underlying Popper’s view of the role of “rational argument” in maintaining liberalism.

c) The danger of liberalism, through its violation of the principle of tolerance (which must be systemic and not intermittent), resulting in liberalism turning into simply one other repressive system, but with the distinction that it obscures this under a dishonest narrative of tolerance.

A) The Lack of Real Tolerance under Liberalism

My typical reader will be keenly aware that the rhetoric concerning “tolerance” of dissenting beliefs is just a sham, and that liberalism, like any ideology, is necessarily coercive and repressive when put into practice.

Beliefs only have value if they can be actualised. It is no use saying to a person that they should be glad to be living in a liberal society because they have the right to express their beliefs, when they are not similarly given the right to put those beliefs into practice. According to “intolerant” worldviews, it is a moral imperative that their ideals be implemented. Yet, even if these worldviews attempt to assert themselves by legal, democratic means, and enjoy massive public support, they are still seen as a danger. In fact, it is probable that the more public support such a party has, the more of a threat it will be perceived to be to the liberal order and severe measures will be taken accordingly. Observe how “populism” is viewed with dread by mainstream politicians. Golden Dawn and other political parties in Europe have been legally suppressed, and some have suggested that the AfD in Germany should be banned, precisely because of their “intolerant” ideology. In a liberal democracy, liberalism, not democracy, has primacy.

Both public discourse and actual political practice are kept within narrow bounds that are safe to the system as a whole. This is a betrayal of a fundamental principle of liberal democracy: political pluralism. Certain parties with “dangerous” ideas, cannot be permitted to get into power. Of course, the elites are absolutely right to do this from their point of view, since their system would be overturned by such illiberal, antidemocratic parties. Nonetheless, this just highlights that liberal democracy must betray its fundamental principles in order to survive. Consequently, it is a pipe dream, an impossible ideal. What we call the “liberal” system is what happens when unrealisable ideals run into the brick wall of reality.

B) Tolerance and Rational Argument

Popper asserts that the intolerant must meet the tolerant “on the level of rational argument”. In doing so, he seems to assume that this would be a fair fight, that there is a marketplace of ideas in which everyone has an equal chance of winning, if only he has the best arguments. This notion rests on two mistaken assumptions:

a) All ideas are on an equal footing, and that no ideas will enjoy an artificial advantage. All ideas succeed or fail only according to whether they are true or not. This is frankly and obviously wrong. Liberal ideas are institutionally entrenched. They are promoted by the government, the media, universities and think tanks. People are socialised to be liberal, and it doesn’t even occur to many of them to question the basic ideas of our society. They will even get emotional if they come across someone who questions them. Liberal ideas therefore enjoy an artificial advantage and will win by virtue of that fact, not by virtue of their inherent superiority. Nationalist ideas or traditionalist ideas are not promoted in the same way.

b) People are fundamentally rational, and will only accept ideas based on a rational assessment of their merits. This too is obviously wrong. One cannot discount the effects of rhetoric, peer pressure, self or ethnic interest, and authority in determining whether someone accepts certain ideas or not.

So much for the marketplace of ideas. But let us suppose that the marketplace of ideas was real, and intolerant were to have better arguments than the tolerant. What if people convinced others, by means of rational argument, that they should be intolerant, and further, that they should give no further consideration to the arguments of their opponents? For example, if one became convinced that the opponents were incurably evil, it would become imperative to oppose them, not to engage in a “civilised” manner with them.

Thankfully, Popper has the answer for us: these beliefs should be suppressed, “if necessary even by force”. So even if you win the argument, even if you are clearly correct according to the so-called “marketplace of ideas”, you still have to lose. Popper was clearly insecure about the ability of liberalism to win by rational means, and instead resorts to the very same thuggish methods that he believes the intolerant opposition will use.

C) Totalitarian Liberalism

Like with so many terms employed by the advocates of liberal democracy, “tolerance” is itself a vague concept in practice, whatever its dictionary definition may be. The point at which intolerance becomes intolerable is so difficult to locate that the paradox of tolerance is liable to become a pretext for suppressing any ideological currents the ruling elite want. And, in practice, this is increasingly becoming the case. The concept of “hate speech” is closely allied to the question of what intolerant behaviours or opinions are intolerable; and, like, “tolerance”, it is suitably vague as to serve the uses of the elites. Criticism, policy proposals, even mere expressions of dissatisfaction—all of these could be manifestations of intolerance.

The sheer range of opinion that could potentially be suppressed in accordance with this principle is astonishing. Any ideology or religion that makes a claim to absolute truth—as liberalism undoubtedly does—imposes a moral duty upon its adherents to be intolerant of differing opinions. From the point of view of the adherents, this suppression of the assertion of the truth they believe they hold should be a cause for resentment against the liberal system. This applies to Christians, Muslims, Fascists, Communists, and a host of other religions and worldviews. In practice, the liberals get to impose their ideology on everyone and pretend that they are letting everyone else have theirs as well, as though their position was a neutral or default one—as though liberalism was not even an ideology. Certain intolerant tendencies may not be suppressed—for example those exhibited by ethnic minorities—as they could be useful for undermining the ethnic majority, which is the largest threat to the liberal regime. Later, when or if the elites are confident enough that the threat from the majority has been neutralised, we can be assured that these other groups will be suppressed as well.

Conclusion

A critical analysis of the paradox of tolerance reveals the impossibility of fully realising the liberal ideal. Any system must be based on certain ideas and standards, and to a degree must force them on the population, or there would be no social or political order at all. Therefore, tolerance—one of the central ideals of liberalism—is at odds with the reality of government. Liberalism necessarily manifests as a chaotic mess of a system, behind which elites utilise its contradictory and vague ideas to neutralise threats to their power as and when is necessary.

---

[1] Karl Popper, The Open Society, 1945, pg. 581.