【文章】James Lindsay - Reciprocal Tolerance

連結

• 文章 - newdiscourses.com/20...

原文及個人翻譯

In a footnote in his famous (or infamous) The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper relates a famous (and famously misunderstood) idea called the Paradox of Tolerance. It is, as it turns out, one of the most important concepts that any free society much reckon with—and solve.

Popper only devotes a single paragraph to this fundamental paradox of freedom, which can be summarized as “being tolerant of intolerance eventually results in an intolerant society, but being intolerant of intolerance is already a feature of an intolerant society.” In that paragraph, he outlines a solution, though he’s thin on the details. Here’s how he phrases it, in full:

在卡爾·波普在他的著名（或臭名昭著的）著作《開放社會及其敵人》中的一個腳註中，他闡述了一個著名的（並且經常被誤解的）思想，稱為「寬容悖論」。 事實證明，這是任何自由社會都必須認真對待並解決的最重要的概念之一。

波普只用一段話來描述這個關於自由的基本悖論，可以概括為：「對不寬容的人保持寬容最終會導致一個不寬容的社會，但對不寬容的人表現出不寬容本身就是不寬容社會的特徵。」 在這段話中，他概述了一個解決方案，儘管他對細節描述不多。 以下是他完整的表述：

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: 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. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

「一個不太為人所知[的悖論]是寬容悖論：無限的寬容必然會導致寬容的消失。 如果我們對那些不寬容的人也給予無限的寬容，如果我們在沒有準備好捍衛一個寬容社會免受不寬容者的攻擊的情況下，那麼寬容者將被摧毀，以及他們所代表的寬容本身。 在這種表述中，我並非暗示我們應該始終壓制不寬容思想的表達；只要我們能夠通過理性論證來反駁它們，並通過輿論來控制它們，那麼壓制無疑是非常不明智的。 但是，如果必要，我們應該主張有權使用武力來壓制它們；因為很可能他們並不願意與我們進行理性的辯論，而是首先會譴責所有的辯論；他們可能會禁止他們的追隨者聽取理性的辯論，並說因為這是欺騙性的，並教導他們用拳頭或手槍來回答論證。 因此，我們應該以寬容的名義主張不寬容的權利。 我們應該認為任何宣揚不寬容的運動都將置於法律之外，並且我們應該將煽動不寬容和迫害視為犯罪行為，就像我們將煽動謀殺、綁架或恢復奴隸貿易視為犯罪一樣。」

Radicals on both the Left and the Right have run with this famous paradox of free societies in various ways. For example, it is popular on the Left to present only Popper’s conclusion about claiming the right to suppress intolerance without expressing his rather strict criteria for that suppression. On the (radical) Right, on the other hand, this formulation has been criticized (e.g., by R.R. Reno in Return of the Strong Gods) as planting a dialectical seed that turns tolerance into totalitarian intolerance over time

In these analyses, the Left is dishonest, and the Right is simply wrong, as is their wont in each case. The Left desires, like their Nazi pseudo-nemesis Carl Schmitt, to have the power to declare the intolerant enemy and have him destroyed without acknowledging how seriously Popper takes the conditions of such action. The Right simply fails to recognize that the devil is in the details for working with such a situation in reality. Of course, by way of its error, the Right also desires, like their Nazi semi-hero Carl Schmitt, to have the power to declare the enemy and have him destroyed.

左右兩派的激進分子都以各種方式利用這個關於自由社會而聞名的悖論。 例如，在左翼，人們經常只引用波普關於主張有權壓制不寬容的結論，而不闡述他對於這種壓制的相當嚴格的標準。 另一方面，在（極右）派別中，這種表述受到了批評（例如，R.R. Reno 在《強神迴歸》一書中），因為它埋下了一種辯證的種子，隨著時間的推移，將寬容轉變為極權主義的不寬容。

在這些分析中，左翼是不誠實的，而右翼只是錯誤的，正如他們通常所做的那樣。 左翼渴望像他們的納粹偽敵人卡爾·施密特一樣，擁有權力來宣佈不寬容的敵人並將其摧毀，而沒有認識到波普對這種行動的條件有多麼重視。 右翼只是未能意識到，在現實中處理這種情況時，「魔鬼在於細節」。 當然，由於其錯誤，右翼也渴望像他們的納粹半英雄卡爾·施密特一樣，擁有權力來宣佈敵人並將其摧毀。

Though Popper doesn’t develop the idea further, and though the devil will remain in the details, he does lay out criteria by which intolerance of the intolerant might be acted on wisely, as opposed to unwisely, to borrow from his own phrasing. This is where the rubber meets the road for the Paradox of Tolerance, to quote the relevant section again

"…for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."

雖然波普沒有進一步闡述這個思想，而且「魔鬼」仍然隱藏在細節之中，但他確實提出了標準，說明如何明智地（而不是不明智地）採取行動來應對不寬容者，用他自己的措辭來說。 這就是「寬容悖論」的實踐部分，讓我們再次引用相關段落：

「…因為很可能他們並不願意與我們進行理性的辯論，而是首先會譴責所有的辯論；他們可能會禁止他們的追隨者聽取理性的辯論，因為這是欺騙性的，並教導他們用拳頭或手槍來回答論證。」

What Popper is proposing here, though thin on the details, is a theory of tolerance in free society. He is saying we must retain the right to suppress intolerance that might answer our tolerance with a combination of irrationalism, intolerance, and violence. He clearly states we should regard such militant and subversive intolerance as a kind of incitement and refuse to protect it as free expression.

In practice, this is trickier than can be contained in a footnote. It is not sufficient to invoke legal intolerance against views that are merely irrational, anti-rational, that denounce argument, or that forbid followers from listening to rational arguments because they are allegedly deceptive. The law already has some mechanisms for dealing with intolerance that looks to answer arguments with fists and pistols, imperfect as those might be. Further, these are not the central part of the problem of overreaching tolerance.

Popper seems to miss the most essential characteristic for finding a strong solution to his paradox. This essential characteristic is located in the fact of the paradox itself: the intolerant will not reciprocate tolerance, given the opportunity. In essence, what he is looking for, but does not find, is a Golden Rule for the issue of tolerance.

波普在這裡提出的，雖然細節不多，是一種關於自由社會中寬容的理論。 他的意思是，我們必須保留有權壓制那些可能用非理性、不寬容和暴力來回應我們的寬容的不寬容行為。 他明確指出，我們應該將這種好戰的和顛覆性的不寬容視為一種煽動，並且拒絕將其作為自由表達進行保護。

在實踐中，這比腳註中所能包含的要複雜得多。 僅僅因為觀點是不可理性的、反理性的、譴責論證的，或者禁止追隨者聽取理性論證（因為他們聲稱這些論證具有欺騙性），就不能僅憑法律來壓制不寬容。 法律已經有一些機制來處理那些試圖用拳頭和手槍來回應論證的不寬容行為，儘管這些機制可能並不完善。 此外，這些並非解決過度寬容問題的核心部分。

波普似乎忽略了找到解決他這個悖論的強大方案中最關鍵的特徵。 這個關鍵特徵在於悖論本身的事實：如果給予機會，不寬容者不會以等價的方式回報寬容。 基本上，他正在尋找（但沒有找到）一個關於寬容問題的「黃金法則」。

We might call such a strong solution Reciprocal Tolerance. In short, Reciprocal Tolerance would be a doctrine like: we, the people of a free society, should extend tolerance only to any who, given power over us, would also extend tolerance to us in return. That is, we will treat others as we can reasonably expect they would treat us, as determined from their own words, deeds, charters, relationships, and organizational principles.

This principle of Reciprocal Tolerance is not reversible like through some postmodernist trick or psychopathic “DARVO” because it is applied from a free society. In full generality, it is that free societies are perfectly free to be intolerant of any politically intolerant political organization.

我們可以將這種強大的解決方案稱為「互惠寬容」。 簡而言之，「互惠寬容」是一種原則，例如：我們自由社會的人民應該只對那些如果他們掌握了我們的權力，也會以同樣的方式對待我們的人給予寬容。 也就是說，我們會根據他們的言語、行為、章程、關係和組織原則，以我們合理期望他們會如何對待我們的方式來對待他人。

「互惠寬容」的這一原則不能像某些後現代主義技巧或精神病患者的「DARVO」（辯護、攻擊、轉移責任）那樣被逆轉，因為它是在自由社會中應用的。 從廣義上講，自由社會完全有權對任何政治不寬容的政治組織採取不寬容的態度。

This principle is also not a principle regarding speech. People are free to say whatever intolerant, hateful, or bigoted thing they want, even in their group settings. It would apply to any political group and its members or leadership that organize a faction with the expressed intention of acquiring political power at least in part in order to revoke tolerance from others who, absent the case of such intolerance, would not revoke tolerance from them.

Free societies live or eventually die based on their solution to the Paradox of Tolerance. Tolerance cannot be unlimited or it will be exploited and taken advantage of, but it also must be broad enough to keep society free

這個原則也不是關於言論的。 人們可以自由地發表任何他們想說的，無論多麼不寬容、仇恨或偏見，即使是在他們的團體中。 它適用於任何政治團體及其成員或領導層，這些團體和個人組織一個派別，其明確意圖是至少部分地爲了從其他人那裡剝奪寬容（而如果不存在這種不寬容，這些人就不會剝奪他們自己的寬容）。

自由社會要麼蓬勃發展，要麼最終滅亡，這取決於它們對「寬容悖論」的解決方案。 寬容不能是無限的，否則它會被利用和剝削，但它也必須足夠廣泛，以保持社會的自由。

The solution is toleration in the bounds of good-faith, Reciprocal Tolerance. We are under no obligation socially to tolerate subversives who operate in bad faith, nor are we under any obligation legally to tolerate any demand for tolerance that would not be reciprocated if the people making the demand themselves got their hands on the levers of power. While the first of these may only be a social convention unless people are illegally deceived and defrauded, the latter certainly falls within the range of legally actionable responses to intolerance we could enforce well within the boundaries of the Constitution, which we are seeking to protect and preserve.

Once either of these fouls against a free society is detected and verified, some generally acceptable and legally narrow mechanism of intolerance against them must be able to be employed. Practically speaking, at a minimum, there is no reason to extend tax-exempt status to nonprofit organizations that explicitly espouse agendas to amass power to abolish the existing tolerant political order in favor of intolerant ones that would, if successful, revoke tolerance of those who allowed their growth. Further, entities that espouse or articulate such beliefs that receive funding from foreign sources should not be tolerated.

A principle of Reciprocal Tolerance could therefore serve as a solid basis for both social norms and legal activity to better navigate the Paradox of Tolerance that lies at the heart of every society that wants to be free. Organized intolerance ought not to be tolerated for precisely the reason that it would withdraw tolerance from those it seeks to rule.

解決方案在於在「善意」和「互惠寬容」的框架內進行寬容。 我們沒有社會義務去寬容那些以惡意為目的而行動的顛覆者，而且我們也沒有任何法律義務去寬容任何要求寬容的要求，如果提出這些要求的那些人自己掌握了權力，他們也不會以同樣的方式對待他人。 雖然第一點可能只是一種社會慣例，除非人們被非法欺騙和詐騙，但第二點肯定屬於我們可以合法執行的、對不寬容的迴應範圍之內，並且完全符合憲法的界限，而我們正在努力保護和維護憲法。

一旦檢測到並驗證了這些違反自由社會的行為中的任何一項，就必須能夠採取一種普遍可接受且在法律上明確的不寬容機制來應對他們。 從實際角度來看，至少不應該再向那些明確倡導通過積累權力來廢除現有寬容政治秩序、取而代之的是會剝奪那些允許他們發展的群體的寬容性的團體，而這些團體通常被視為非營利組織，並享受免稅待遇。 此外，那些宣揚或表達此類信仰並且從外國來源獲得資金的實體也不應該受到寬容。

因此，「互惠寬容」原則可以作為一種堅實的基礎，既能為社會規範提供指導，又能為法律活動提供支援，從而更好地應對「寬容悖論」，而這個悖論是每個希望保持自由的社會的中心問題。 組織性的不寬容不應該受到寬容，正是因為如果它成功地統治，它會剝奪那些允許其發展的群體的寬容性。