It seems it has been comprehensively shown that open society is no mere bad idea, but impossible, without caveats.
I rather suspect the architects of the alleged open society were aware of this. Even a small Conquest #1 advantage reveals this sort of thing.
The premise of the alleged open society is that some things seem bad but aren't bad, and you should tolerate them. "Eat your vegetables," sociology edition.
This is wrong for various and diverse reasons.
The major one is a logical problem: tolerance must necessarily be intolerant of intolerance, and thus not tolerance. Self-contradiction. Quis custodiet: who defines what is to be tolerated? An ""open"" society is inherently a closed society. If it wanted to it could even choose to tolerate exactly the same things a regular self-admitted closed society tolerates.
A little bit worse: given that tolerance is necessarily about tolerating things that seem bad, self-declared open society intolerance must necessarily be aimed at things which seem good.
A futher logical necessity: ultimately mortal good and bad are judged against mortal values. Without edge conditions it's impossible for something to seem bad and be good. Open societies are necessarily broadly evil.
In practice it's a race condition. Whoever claims their behaviour is to be 'tolerated' first must necessarily seize the punishment machinery and cause it to intolerate anyone who opposes them. Evil things are secured first, necessarily crowding out security on good things. In other words the parasites, who want it more, define supressing parasitism as intolerance.
Example: "free" speech. It's about tolerating speech you think is bad. This means being intolerant of speech (or any other force) you think suppresses bad speech.
I once said free speech is worth at most what you pay for it. Turns out I was too merciful and forgiving. Too soft.
Free speech is inherently evil speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment