"The Paradox of the Open Society"

[Dan From Smithville]

For a society to have any reason to be called "free" or "democratic" it must espouse a few values and institions (equality of race and gender; strict secularism of the State; primacy of the law; pluralist open election; basic property rights; habeas corpus protection against law enforcement; right to free assembly; seperation of powers; academical freedom). Political speech and actions taken in direct contradiction to those values and institutions must be repressed or tightly controlled or those values and instittions will be damaged and destroyed.

If we are free, we have to tolerate views that are in opposition to the society as long as they are communicated lawfully.I

As I was writing this, I recalled the following. This country was founded in opposition applied as action against that which could not be tolerated. That opposition was described as the response of sound reasoning based on evidence and in response to a failure of rational opposition of those existing user the intolerant conditions. My take on this is that opposition can turn to just action under certain conditions, but in the case we are discussing, I think most of us would agree is not what is under consideration. Defying tyranny is not in the same class as racial or religious bigotry. Unfortunately, as long as those ideas are expressed within the law, a prsctical, free society has to tolerate their existence.

 

[epronovost]

Intolerance is self defeating in a society that strives to be open.

History would say intolerance is subversive and toxic to an open society. Even if intolerant ideals are very unpopular they can be popular enough to undermine the entire concept of equality when it's directed at a fragile institution or vulnerable class of people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmn.

Tell me.

Of all the left leaning posters on RF...of the vast majority of the left in the USA, do you know any who are dedicated to the idea that people should be free to say what they think, even if what they say and think doesn't march with their own ideas and beliefs?

Or....are the terms 'hate speech' and 'woke' and 'intolerant of intolerance,' and expressions of 'we should stop these people from spreading their hateful ideas to anybody else...' used much by the moderates and the right?

WHICH end of the spectrum figures that the First Amendment really means freedom FROM religion, rather than 'Freedom OF?"

Which end of the political spectrum is most likely to advocate for a law to restrict what a specific religion may or may not do within its belief system, then justify what happens by saying that 'religions are not above the law, and if they do something illegal, that's too bad?"

That's called 'begging the question,' by the way, if one is going to be polite about it.

Yes...some on the right have been, and are, willing to impose their ideology upon others. They would, for instance, rather see a left wing Democrat win the election than vote for a Mormon (or a Catholic...). People are people, after all.

Right NOW, though, I can only, as I mentioned, fight the battles I see...and right now it isn't the RIGHT that is attempting to shut people up, or calls anybody that disagrees with them 'racist..' not because the opposition is actually racist, but because the opposition AGREES with them.

...and I do not ascribe to the idea that it's OK for 'our side" to do wrong things if the OTHER side does, but.....I can only fight the battle in front of me.

This does not remediate the implication of your original statement implying intolerance was from one source.

It comes from many sources. I am not denying your personal observation for your specific instance. Just expanding it to its correct proportions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

History would say intolerance is subversive and toxic to an open society. Even if intolerant ideals are very unpopular they can be popular enough to undermine the entire concept of equality when it's directed at a fragile institution or vulnerable class of people.

That is why we must be vigilant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not impossible but hard in practice. You only need one intolerant person to make a society not open but if the majority agrees that they want an open society it is possible to convince (or, as ultima ratio, exclude) the intolerant that they are the first to suffer from intolerance.
Intolerance is self defeating in a society that strives to be open.

That one person will always be there. There is no way to get rid of it to a 100% extent. That's just not how humans work.

 

[Heyo]

History would say intolerance is subversive and toxic to an open society. Even if intolerant ideals are very unpopular they can be popular enough to undermine the entire concept of equality when it's directed at a fragile institution or vulnerable class of people.

Yes, just like democracy, an open society is instable. It requires constant efford to keep the balance. It just needs one bad actor and 51% of lazy, indifferent people to topple the balance.

 

[epronovost]

If we are free, we have to tolerate views that are in opposition to the society as long as they are communicated lawfully.

How "free" is a class of people if there are political groups and propaganda dedicated to shave off rights and privileges of them. How "free", "open" and "equal" is a society where for some classes of people freedom is a fight while for others it's a fact?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it is the left wing that calls me names, and it is the left that characterizes any dissenting opinion as 'hate speech.'

And? Do notice how you are lumping all the left in to one big non-existant pile, and shrugging and ignoring that RW can be nasty, hateful bigots as well. You see it, but apparently don't see that as a struggle. And it's not hard to critize people on the same side. If you keep watching, this sort of thread I may end up challenging a fellow Lefty. Because it's the responsible and right thing to do. Much like how you should critize the Right.

 

[Heyo]

That one person will always be there. There is no way to get rid of it to a 100% extent. That's just not how humans work.

If you take society as a country you are most probably right but a society can be any group of people. The "society" of my close friends is an open society.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How "free" is a class of people if there are political groups and propaganda dedicated to shave off rights and privileges of them. How "free", "open" and "equal" is a society where for some classes of people freedom is a fight while for others it's a fact?

Im free to critize them, challenge them, oppose them, and do what I can to reduce and weaken their numbers. That's very remarkable for a society, truly a rarity in the overall history of our stories. It really sucks people can vote for politicians who can, would, and have stripped rights and liberties from those like me and other minorities, but what makes it an open society is I don't have to sit back and take it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you take society as a country you are most probably right but a society can be any group of people. The "society" of my close friends is an open society.

Even small groups have that one person.

 

[epronovost]

It just needs one bad actor and 51% of lazy, indifferent people to topple the balance.

It can be much less than that if you consider the fact that no society has reached a point where inequalities and prejudices of wide classes of people are definitely a thing of the past. They can slow down the progress of social justice and equality especially if it targets particularly vulnerable groups who have yet or only recently gained recognition.

 

[Heyo]

Even small groups have that one person.

By that logic there is no such thing as a tolerant person.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hmn.

Tell me.

Of all the left leaning posters on RF...of the vast majority of the left in the USA, do you know any who are dedicated to the idea that people should be free to say what they think, even if what they say and think doesn't march with their own ideas and beliefs?

Or....are the terms 'hate speech' and 'woke' and 'intolerant of intolerance,' and expressions of 'we should stop these people from spreading their hateful ideas to anybody else...' used much by the moderates and the right?

WHICH end of the spectrum figures that the First Amendment really means freedom FROM religion, rather than 'Freedom OF?"

Which end of the political spectrum is most likely to advocate for a law to restrict what a specific religion may or may not do within its belief system, then justify what happens by saying that 'religions are not above the law, and if they do something illegal, that's too bad?"

That's called 'begging the question,' by the way, if one is going to be polite about it.

Yes...some on the right have been, and are, willing to impose their ideology upon others. They would, for instance, rather see a left wing Democrat win the election than vote for a Mormon (or a Catholic...). People are people, after all.

Right NOW, though, I can only, as I mentioned, fight the battles I see...and right now it isn't the RIGHT that is attempting to shut people up, or calls anybody that disagrees with them 'racist..' not because the opposition is actually racist, but because the opposition AGREES with them.

...and I do not ascribe to the idea that it's OK for 'our side" to do wrong things if the OTHER side does, but.....I can only fight the battle in front of me.

That's called bias. Of course many of us on the Left are fierce defenders of free speech, and tell the woke snow flakes to bugger off quicker than Conservatives. And there is Bill Maher, a celebrity who is a strong supporter of free speech and another Lefty who harshly criticizes pc culture.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

By that logic there is no such thing as a tolerant person.

We all have our issues. Including prejudice.

 

[Stanyon]

A good balance is needed. If people can't vent, if they can't be heard, they are known for acting out. Like a toddler.

"Riots are the language of the unheard"
-Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Stevicus]

Karl Popper argued that open societies could survive tolerating just about any non-criminal diversity except that they could not tolerate intolerance. Consequently, he believed the state should have the power to repress intolerance -- even to imposing the death penalty upon the worst offenders. He called the need of open, tolerant societies to be intolerant of intolerance "The paradox of the open society".

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?

I think it largely depends on how "intolerance" is defined. When it's blatant, obvious, and in your face, then that's one thing. But if one attempts to discern intolerance by "reading between the lines" or picking out subtleties which may or may not be evidence of intolerance, then it starts to go into slippery slope territory. That may be where "intolerance of intolerance" may cross the line, since it often might involve mind-reading or guessing what an individual might be thinking.

 

[shmogie]

Karl Popper argued that open societies could survive tolerating just about any non-criminal diversity except that they could not tolerate intolerance. Consequently, he believed the state should have the power to repress intolerance -- even to imposing the death penalty upon the worst offenders. He called the need of open, tolerant societies to be intolerant of intolerance "The paradox of the open society".

Do you think Popper had a point? Why or why not?





____________________________
And now in an effort to make it up to you for such a boring OP, Tan Wei Wei will sing "Night in Ulaan Baataar". Tan Wei Wei's version of the traditional drinking song is remarkable for its power and emotionalism. She rewrote some of the lyrics to make it a song about getting drunk and missing her dead father.

His idea is idiocy. There are reasons why societies throughout history have been homogeneous. Some good, some very bad, nevertheless it worked.

So, open societies are historically unnatural.

What is intolerance ? What is tolerance ? If I tell someone that " I can barely tolerate you" am I saying I love you and want you to come to my house for dinner ?

As hard as it is for many to accept, open societies came about because of Christian theological concepts, the idea of moral equality of all people. Yet, without Christian commitment, the idea winds up with the government as the great law giver, and that is a fatally flawed immoral dictator.

Humans are humans, they dislike and hate for all manner of reasons. Humans have always had these traits, they are part of our makeup.

So Popper says humans should be executed for being human, for committing thought crimes.

He no doubt despises the US Constitution. It allows intolerance framed within free speech. Unalienable rights are anaethema to a government that demands the right to bend its citizens like Gumby to meet the governments standard.

The governments role in an open society is to protect it's citizens from illegal acts, grant it's citizens their full Constitutional rights, and allow them to sort themselves out otherwise.

Liberty and a forced tolerant society cannot exist together.

I belonged to the most hated minority in America, for 25 years of my life I was under the real possibility of physical harm because of the uniform I wore. I was called every possible name. My life was threatened verbally many times.There were neighborhoods I didn't enter without another Officer with me because of the present hatred.

Should all of those intolerant people be punished because of their intolerance ?

Absolutely not. Most never attempted to harm me, and their words were harmless as well. Off duty, I avoided them explicitly as was my right.

Either an open society survives with the rough and tumble of different humans interacting with other different humans, or it does not.

A government arbitrarily deciding what tolerance must be, and eliminating those who do not meet the standard, is right out of 1984. A holocaust as far as freedom is concerned.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

hard as it is for many to accept, open societies came about because of Christian theological concepts,

Is that why they have butchered Pagans, Jews, Muslims, women labeled as witches N and S American natives, created the idea black people Bear the curse of Hamm, promoted racial segregation and today try to keep LGBT people in the closet, can be nasty towards atheists, and sometimes go as far as claiming that only Christianity counts as a religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is intolerance ? What is tolerance ?

And perhaps the most important question is who will define & enforce it.
Who here trusts Trump to lead a government with such power?