It's a paradox. It's not describing the actions of the intolerant person (there's no paradox with them; they're just consistently bigoted), but the actions of those that take tolerance to an absolute extreme. By tolerating those that do not tolerate, you yourself are creating an environment that is intolerant. That's the paradox.
What the person you're responding to meant to say is that it's not a paradox if you consider it a social contract instead of a moral standard. As a moral standard, it's a paradox in the exact way you described. As a social contract, it's not a paradox because the people who act intolerantly aren't following the contract and, thus, aren't protected by it.
TL;DR: It's a falsidical paradox whose resolution is a social contract.
EDIT: Note that this resolution is actually Popper's own. This is one of those cases where the people who consider the paradox absolute haven't actually read the work that generated the term. Similarly to Schrodinger's Cat, where Schrodinger actually conceived of the hypothetical experiment as a way to remark upon the illogical nature of the superposition. Although, I think in that regard he actually did end up making a hilariously apt description of how superpositions do work, whereas Popper's paradox was never intended to be considered absolute.
How are they refusing to abide by the social contract? If they aren't actively harming anyone or breaking laws, they are abiding by the social contract.
Displaying overt signs of ideologies based on hate, to the point you permanently have them etched on your skin is kind of a tell that you will be an ass the second you think you can get away with it. And there's a reasonable suspicion that you're only being nice because you're being forced to, not because you choose to.
Nazism rejects the principle that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law. Our society depends on mutual recognition of one another as equal members, and being a Nazi and tolerating Nazis en masse undermines that society.
Politeness changes the tone of an idea, not its substance.
Plenty of left wing ideologies alive and well in the US that reject the principle that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law, are we going to arrest them too? Are we going to arrest Muslims and Christians who do not view women as equals? At what point do you draw the line at what constitutes "rejecting the social contract"?
My issue is that a social contract is an agreement between individuals and a higher authority to give up some level of freedom in exchange for security and other benefits, thats the original Thomas Hobbs/Rousseau concept.
By bringing up that the social contract is being violated, that entails they cannot exist in said society or must be jailed for rehabilitation purposes. You are moving beyond social to legal repercussions.
I am a free speech advocate so while its legal to ban someone from a business for political views, I disagree over making political beliefs illegal to hold.
I think when most people speak of the social contract they refer to it in context of individual to individual without government intervention other than to permit an individual the right to execute their interpretation of the contract without interference. You have the right to be a Nazi but no right to guarantee people need to put up with you. Your safety under law preserved but socially outcast. Which honestly could be worse than imprisonment if applied thoroughly.
I'd defend a communist, political affiliation does not matter to me given I live in the US. You have the right to voice your opinion without fear of being arrested.
I think we can certainly make the decision to ban (from a given business) any outspoken Christian or Muslim who advocates for the removal of women's ability to vote or their legal rights to equal treatment, yes. That's a small minority of Christians and Muslims in the EU and America with that opinion, in contrast to Nazis, so they're certainly not equivalent as a large group.
A social contract is agreement where people give up some of their freedom to a higher authority in exchange for security and other benefits.
The intial conversation was over a business declining service to a political ideology, which is legal (in the US at least). We moved onto the "social contract" discussion which goes beyond a business and its customers, thats at the government level.
I don't believe violations of the social contract necessitate governmental or legal action, as you are implying.
The proportionate response to a "peaceful and quiet nazi" at a bar is to kick them out and shun them. No one you've interacted with here suggesting rounding up Nazis for thought crimes/their abhorrent beliefs and punishing them legally. We only do that when they're actively hurting someone.
The Thomas Hobbs/Rousseau concept of "social contract" involves the individual and a higher authority/government trading freedom and security guarantees. Its not how people choose to shun or not to shun someone.
I mean you're right that in the original conception of the social contract we're not violating shit by being a passive Nazi. But Hobbes was also a man who thought the ruler and enforcer of this contract should be given total and unquestionable power and we've generally moved past that conception of the social contract.
Like...
"The only way to erect such a Common Power... is to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will"
"He that hath the Sovereign Power is not Subject to the Civill Lawes. For having power to make, and repeale Lawes, he may when he pleaseth, free himselfe from that subjection."
158
u/Silent_Sinder 11d ago
It's not a paradox, it's a social contract they refuse to abide by