Paradox Of Tolerance

Ideas of tolerance have become synonymous with liberal democracy with some going as far as saying that it is “the substantive heart of liberalism” (Hampton. 1989, p.795). Whether or not this be the case opinions regarding the “heart of liberalism” are split, racist and politically extreme parties and ideas have been banned from the majority of Liberal democracies particularly in Western Europe. The United States in comparison does not ban extremist speech arguing that the first amendment can be interpreted to allow all forms of speech (Smith 1978). This is only one of a few of the paradoxes of toleration, it is at heart self-contradictory. Tolerance implies that we have to be tolerant of everything. We are not permitted to choose what we can tolerate which leads to the dilemma of being tolerable to the intolerable. K. Popper argues that the only way to resolve the paradox of toleration is to limit

As previously touched upon Popper believed that if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance itself would be threatened. This sentiment in voiced in The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato, he argues that “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.” (Popper 1945) Rawls advocates this idea of self-preservation at the cost of tolerance in A Theory of Justice "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."(Rawls