What is Toleration?
Classical Liberalism, Explained
What is classical liberalism? It's a set of ideas that places the freedom of the individual as its central feature. Classical liberals disagree about many th...

Toleration is the belief that one should not interfere with a thing of which one disproves.

Toleration does not mean that you allow people to do things because you agree with it.

It is a moral principle that you will not try to force your opinion through for example government, your website or app to stop the things you disapprove of.

People should be allowed to say things of which we strongly disapprove. We are tolerating things even though we dislike and disprove it.

Thanks for posting this.

It’s not the same as what many call “tolerance” today. That sort of tolerance is the opposite of love or caring for mankind. I mean, let’s say you have a child who is suicidal. A loving parent would get them the psychiatric help that they need. One that practices today’s form of warped “tolerance” would be more like, “Let me buy you a gun so when you do commit suicide, you’ll be able to succeed at it and not suffer.”

Now, to stay on topic, maybe to a degree one has to be like the article on the greater scale. On a small scale, we are to be good neighbors to one another, and if someone is in trouble, we help them. But the article here is about the grand scale. Many things take a social movement rather than a legislative approach.

Consider the war on drugs, my principles here and the post can be taken together. Sure we can make every drug legal and remove penalties for buying, selling, making, transporting, and using, while at the same time, activist groups can push for responsible drug usage (like they did with HIV and condoms) and preachers are still free to preach against drug use. Such legal changes would not affect many things. Employers would still be free to drug test their employees. That is valid since the company shouldn’t want accidents or civil liability. Marijuana, for instance, isn’t all that bad in itself, but it can affect coordination and memory, and you don’t want employees making stupid costly mistakes while working. However, changing the laws would make it more acceptable for employers to keep drug-using employees. So long as they are not under the influence while they are working.

I remember a case like that. A man at a dairy would slip into an unused cargo trailer with his girlfriend, and the 2 of them would smoke a joint together and have sex. Then he would return to work. One day, after his dope session, he continues his work of fueling the trucks. He put nozzles in both tanks on the rig. Then he immediately drives off, wasting at least 50 gallons of diesel fuel, contaminating the grounds of the nearby housing project, and doing at least $50K worth of damage to the building. Drug laws didn’t prevent that, and legalizing them might not have either, though, if it were legal to openly use, maybe one wouldn’t do it during their lunch break. They’d have plenty of other opportunities.

I think it’s good to have laws set up in such a way where you can openly be yourself, to the extent you don’t actively harm others. That encourages honesty. For instance, let’s say I’m hiring, and interviewing a prospect who then offers me a joint and proceeds to light it. I would know right then that they aren’t a good fit for the company, though laws say they have a right to use marijuana (which is why in my hypothetical example that I wouldn’t call the police on them unless they became assaultive or some other nuisance). I’d suggest that maybe they aren’t a good fit for my company, though I hear that maybe the nearby dispensary is hiring, and continue looking for candidates.

So yes, if we could take the best of classical liberalism and classical conservatism, I’d consider joining that party. So you could have a strong but small government that honors personal liberties, stops people from harming one another and has a one-size-fits-all set of rules. There would be no need for “hate crimes” laws since all crimes would be treated equally, regardless of who is harmed or why. “Hate crimes” laws came to be because certain victims didn’t get as much justice under the law. It was a hack to try to address a problem elsewhere.


deleted by creator

A community dedicated to libertarian values

  • 0 users online
  • 1 user / day
  • 1 user / week
  • 5 users / month
  • 12 users / 6 months
  • 55 subscribers
  • 85 Posts
  • Modlog