Copernicus, Galileo, and Flat-earthers
It is often asked whether, as individuals and a society, we must — in the name of “tolerance” — tolerate the intolerant. This gives rise to the “Tolerance Paradox,” which was expounded upon by Karl Popper:
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.
It was formerly said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Today, official speech (i.e. propaganda) is being dictated, and any opposing speech is routinely deemed “hate speech.” It does not matter if the underlying belief is sincerely held or if the resulting opinion is reasoned, the argument goes that it must be suppressed or even eliminated if it is inconsistent with the adopted and self-serving narrative. In essence, the argument is that the purity of the faith must be protected against blasphemy.
Proponents of various positions, policies, and programs often adopt binary arguments: Yes-No, A or B, Good vs. Evil, etc. Not coincidentally, the adopted positions are most often consistent with the self-serving interests of the proponents. Nevertheless, a position is often presented as singularly proper and right, or even morally compelled. Opponents often couch their replies and define their opposition in similarly stark blank-and-white terms. The hope is that, with limited options, the public (as discerners of “truth”) will be forced to choose an option, which directly benefits one of the entrenched parties, even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.
The intended result of moralistic arguments is to squelch debate not advance it. In presenting the argument as a moral imperative, the objective is not compromise or consensus. Instead, it is a winner-take-all mentality, in which the “victor” enjoys the spoils of war. It is an adaptation of the argument, “If you’re not with us, then you are against us.” It allows opponents to be conveniently ignored ant their opinions to be readily dismissed on the presumption that they are inherently “evil,” fundamentally wrong, or represent an existential threat. In order to assure that the accepted concepts and approved speech prevail, there is an inclination to disparage, censor, and even eliminate opposing points of view. There is an intolerance of the erroneous, and error is attributed to anything inconsistent with the accepted narrative, official policy, or approved dogma.
However, it is most often a false dichotomy. There is likely a variety of possible answers and viable alternatives between the presented extremes. Even if the beliefs or contentions are mutually exclusive, is it necessary that one position must survive uncontested? Is it necessary that all parties “agree” and conform to the prevailing zeitgeist? Does it matter that one option is entirely consistent with objective reality and the other is readily falsifiable? Should the dominant party be privileged to impose its (self-serving) concept of right(eous)ness on all other parties?
Thomas Jefferson said in Notes on the State of Virginia:
The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The key, as I see it, is voluntariness: Within some very broad parameters — limited in instances where potential or realized harm to other persons or their property is demonstrable, material, and proximate to the act to be proscribed — persons should be free to hold beliefs, which are objectively irrational, contrary to orthodoxy, and inconsistent with established norms (and to act consistent with those beliefs).
The classic example is a flat-earther: For almost the entire span of human history, persons and peoples — based upon their perceptions and observations — believed that the earth was flat. Thousands of generations of our forebears lived their entire lives consistent with that belief. Given the nature of their lives and the state of their existence at the time, it is unlikely that their lives would have been materially changed by the knowledge that on a planetary scale Earth is a sphere.
In fact, many persons even today could live the entirety of their existences consistent with the belief that the “earth is flat” without significantly altering their day-to-day activities and without suffering deleterious effects. Could they be rocket scientists or astrophysicists? Of course not; however, they could be functioning and capable doctors, accountants, lawyers, mechanics, carpenters, architects, engineers, etc.
Are they, as individuals, “lesser” for their belief? It depends. If they are content with their lives — if they succeed in their individual pursuits of happiness — is their resulting “bliss” any less beneficial or enjoyable because it is founded in “ignorance”? If my interaction with them is related to an area in which their expertise is standard, traditional, or accepted, and if my involvement or transacting with them in that area is personally beneficial, I may be willing to overlook certain eccentricities and idiosyncrasies.
That does not mean that I or others have to embrace their beliefs, opinions, or delusions. It means that those contrary beliefs likely do not matter at least to the extent of my limited interactions with such individuals. In fact, their nonconformity (or “abnormality”) may be specifically what makes a relationship and interactions with that person uniquely beneficial. That is not to say that “unique” is always “useful,” but adhering slavishly to the status quo is a recipe for stagnation and obsolescence. Individuals should feel free to paint outside of the lines, but they should not be able to demand that their efforts be accepted as “art” or that they be hired as house painters.
Similarly, any voluntary association of individuals should be free to establish for the group and its members whatever standards of membership, rules of behavior, and mores that it wishes. The group (or tribe) should also be free to exclude parties, who do not meet the established criteria for membership, and to expel parties, who do not conform to the expectations of the group or conditions of membership.
Yes, this may result in “discrimination.” Another word for discrimination is “discernment,” and without discernment, our actions and behaviors are indiscriminate. There should be a concerted effort to eliminate “irrational discrimination,” which does not effectively advance the positive interests of the individuals and productive objectives of the group. Again, the resulting “freedom” is subject to limitations of affirmative harm imposed upon others: One’s right to swing his fist ends at the tip of someone else’s nose. However, it should be noted that absence of a derived benefit or reduced efficiencies should not be deemed affirmative harm so as to prescribe or proscribe behavior (individually or collectively) or to compel membership or association.
Yes, the desire or need to “belong” may result in individuals adapting or masking their preferred behaviors in order to conform to the expectations of the group. To the extent that the changes are positive and productive, both the individual and the group benefit from the practiced behaviors.
Should the individual feel that the benefits of “membership” do not justify the challenges and restrictions on his free will, then he may withdraw from the group. Thereafter, he may join or form a group more to his liking and consistent with his interests and beliefs; however, he cannot demand membership in groups having criteria or expectations, to which he cannot (or will not) conform. One cannot have his cake and eat it too. Should the group prove too restrictive and not effectively advance the productive interests of its members, then it likely will cease to exist or will adapt itself to better advance those interests.
While the existence of “misinformation,” or even “disinformation,” may interfere with operational efficiencies, the alternative is the adoption of an official dogma, which is deemed inerrant and which cannot be challenged. While sincere flat-earthers may exist even in our modern world and despite the fact that their existence is not directly harmful to the existence of others, their belief is no longer predominant. Most persons accept and acknowledge that Earth is round, that it revolves around the sun, and that it is but a single planet within a vast universe consisting of billions of other planets, stars, and galaxies.
This change of mind was not mandated or imposed by force (of law). As already noted, such a belief is not necessary for the average person to survive, to function, or even to thrive. This became the dominant belief because it was most consist with the reality, which we have come to know and to understand. In the marketplace of ideas, some persons will make bad bargains, but through trial-and-error, the efficiencies are likely to be improved, as will the quality of the product offerings.
However, we must also accept that some decisions are driven by personal preferences, objectives, and priorities, and these things may not be universally consistent or even objectively reasonable. We must also accept that the “latest and greatest” may with time become “old and obsolete.” All of this is “OK” so long is it a “free market” with free flowing ideas and voluntary transactions.
The dynamics change dramatically, however, when the association with the group is not voluntary. Membership may be mandatory, as with the relationship between citizens and government, and also consistent with such an involuntary relationship, the institution may be empowered to impose its collective will upon adherents and opponents alike. The same effect can arise from a situation in which the whole of humanity is treated as one “tribe” or singular collective. One-size-fits all propositions are seldom effective, fair, or equitable.
While applicable to any controlling institution, the process is most conspicuous with regards to the state. An unlimited state and unrestrained government are antithetical with individual liberty and incompatible with personal freedom. With each expansion of state power and government action, liberties necessarily erode and freedoms are usurped. Liberty and freedom are consumed as fodder to feed the Leviathan, and once fully unleashed, it is unlikely that the beast can ever be returned to its fetters. It is for these reasons that our forefathers sought to limit the powers of the state and endeavored to make government deferential to individual liberty and personal freedom.
If unrestrained, the collective takes on a life of its own. The protection of the institution itself comes to be the overriding objective. All other priorities and parties must be suppressed in deference to the presiding authority. As the power of the institution trends toward absolute, so does the certainty of corruption, and with corruption comes abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
This is why individual liberties and personal freedoms, such as free speech, are so important and why they must be actively defended and zealously protected. It is an example of use it or lose it. Hopefully, we will choose to exercise them productively and use them wisely, but we must risk others being less industrious and judicious.
