Paradox of Tolerance
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 &quot;The Open Society and Its Enemies&quot;[1]. The &quot;Paradox of Tolerance&quot; appears in Note 4 to Chapter 7:<p><pre><code>    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)
</code></pre>
which is less than a full-throated defense of violence against people whose speech we find disgusting and reprehensible.<p>The context in which the note is referenced is this:<p><pre><code>    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].
</code></pre>
That is, Popper sees paradoxes of freedom and tolerance as related. Later, he resolves this like Kant before him did:<p><pre><code>    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.
</code></pre>
I have always been particularly fond of the conclusion:<p><pre><code>    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.


</code></pre>
[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopperKarlSir" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPoppe...</a>