For those of us who grew up in the United States, particularly those who attended public school, you will recall that one kid (or perhaps more than one) in your grade school class who wielded his/her minimal understanding of our Constitution like an impenetrable shield.  They would shout the words “FREE SPEECH” or its corollary, “…it’s a FREE country” with the sort of fervor reserved almost exclusively for the ignorantly overconfident.  Many of us grew to understand that the extraordinary freedoms we enjoy as American citizens are not without limitation.  We began to understand the unique “social contract” that democracy and freedom require – where we submit to certain, universal limitations on those freedoms so that we all can continue to enjoy them.  Of course, from time to time, these limitations are expanded, contracted or otherwise revised to accommodate the growth and change of American society, but in the end we remain aware of the fact that one of the prices of freedom is some of that freedom, itself.

I come to the need to write about this because of a pervasive and wildly ignorant trope which appears to have infected much of the modern (i.e. post-2015) conservative movement in the United States – and that is, the faux indignation of noting how “intolerant” the “left” has become.  This usually includes a sigh of feigned disbelief over just how much “hate” is spewed at them for the simple act of “having a different opinion.”  These missives are universally determined to claim the moral high ground from those who actually sacrifice to have it, and it is (always will be) insane and wrong.  What’s more, the reason it’s wrong is the kind of concept that is not easily packaged into sound bytes, memes or other modern propaganda – and so it remains largely inaccessible to those who need to hear it most.  However, I have come to believe that any concept, if taught well, can be accessible by almost everyone.  I have been teaching complex corporate legal concepts to business owners from all walks of life, and I have never come across anyone who, if I stuck with it, couldn’t understand.  So, rather than remain frustrated and disappointed, I would like to see if I might properly “break it down” for those who find mid-20^th century philosophy inaccessible.

Importantly, this is not my innovation.  In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper published “The Open Societies and Its Enemies” which details the philosophical case for why intolerance of intolerance is not only not inconsistent, it’s actually required for any measure of tolerance to exist.  Dr. Popper’s erudite prose and innovative approach is something I’m neither qualified to or interested in attempting to recreate or improve upon, as such would be a fool’s errand.  Dr. Popper’s explanation is worth reading, and you can find it here.  It is, however, not the type of reading that is accessible by everyone – despite the fact that it has never been more necessary.  Inasmuch, I believe that I can provide a more practical and accessible version – in the perhaps misguided hopes that at least one more person can change how they behave as a result.

Imagine there is a small, midwestern farming town where five farmers each live and own their own, separate farms.  It is the intent of the town, and indeed it is set forth in the town’s charter, that each farmer be free to grow whatever they like on their land, without restriction.  In fact, that freedom is the reason that each farmer determined to buy land and set up their farms in town.  To wit, each farm is permitted to consume twenty percent (or its fair share) of the available (finite) water supply, and each farmer is permitted to exclude whatever and whomever they choose from their land.  Initially, this works out.  The farmers may not all like each other, but they respect the freedom the town’s arrangement provides.

Suddenly, one of the farmers decides to plant an exotic coterie of fruits from all over the world.  They grow in a wild variety of colors, shapes and smells, many of which are, even objectively offensive (particularly the large eggplant).  Of course, when the other farmers complain, the fruit farmer points to the town charter and notes gleefully that she is free to plant what she likes, as its her land and it’s a “free town.”

Alternatively, imagine that two of the farmers decide to plant a new type of corn which yields twice as much crop, but grows expansive root networks which render neighboring land infertile.  These two farmers are pleased to have twice as much corn, and are even willing to share a small part of their bounty with the remaining farmers – provided they don’t make any noise about not being able to grow their own crops any longer.

The town fathers are deeply committed to maintaining the “freedom” of each farmer to grow what they like on the land they own.  After all, land ownership is the quintessential American right, and the town takes great pride in the freedom it provides.  However, it is clear (or it should be) that they cannot continue to provide freedom without limitation to everyone, equally.  The town fathers simply never imagined that by permitting every farm to grow whatever they like, they might be limiting that very right.

The difference here, however, it quite obvious. For the farmer growing the wild fruits, the fact that their crops offend the sensitivities of the other farmers offers no consequence to the town charter.  Indeed, the remaining farms are unaffected and a little discomfort is a small price to pay to grow what you’d like.  Further, anyone of the farmers who loudly refuses to “tolerate” the wild fruits should rightfully be considered “intolerant” and objectively less moral than her neighbors.  However, for the farmer with the insidious corn, it’s not so simple.

She bought her land with the expectation that she could do with it what she pleases, and she rightfully wants to produce as much as she can from that land for herself and her family.  On this, all the farmers agree.  However, for the corn farmer to fully enjoy her freedom, the rest of the farmers must sacrifice theirs.  These farmers objectively and rightfully should not tolerate the corn farmer’s actions, and this is not inconsistent with their membership in the town.  Here’s why: the corn farmer’s “freedom” necessarily includes the inability for any of the other farms/farmers to even exist in that town.  If the town were to “tolerate” the corn farmer they would similarly tolerate themselves out of existence.  The corn farmer’s implicit intolerance of other farms highlights the tolerance paradox.

Certainly, any tolerant society should seek to include as much diversity as it can.  However, the one thing it cannot tolerate is intolerance.  This is as true for opinions as it is for farm policy.  If your opinion reduces or eliminates another person’s right to exist, then it is intolerant and should not be tolerated.  In terms of the farmers (and farm policy), every farm in town is free to plant what it likes no matter how offensive, provided that it does not threaten the other farms’ right to exist and exercise their freedoms.   What’s more, in order for the town to be consistent, it remaining members must not tolerate the corn farmer.

In calling for consistency (as they often do), the alt-right dooms itself, as the only way that a tolerant society can be consistent is to be intolerant of intolerance.  Even thinking about it for a few minutes can tie your mind in knots, but it comes right down to simple farm policy.  If the other farms refuse to tolerate your wild fruit, they’re bigoted, but if they refuse to tolerate your corn that renders their fields infertile, they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to do.  And you’re an a**hole for planting that corn.

Got it?  Good.