Of Ducks and Gays and Tolerance

The advantages of classical liberal market cosmopolitanism–the
idea that it’s best to set aside peaceful differences of opinion
and creed and worries about different races, nationalities, and
genders when deciding how we interact with the world–has a great
track record of making us all richer and happier.

The idea that that people should be punished with boycott or
losing their jobs over having wrong beliefs hobbles the flowering
of tolerant classical liberal market cosmopolitanism.

There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of
expression was summed up in the epigram: “I disagree with what you
say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!”

That has a different feel than: “I disagree with what you
say, I think you are evil for having said it,
I think no one should associate with
you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn’t
agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well,
but hey, I don’t think you should be arrested for it.”

A stern insistence on boycotting or refusing any truck or barter
with those who hold different beliefs or practice different ways of
life (peacefully) does not directly implicate specifically
libertarian questions about rights or freedom. No one’s freedom in
the true libertarian sense is harmed by people trying to drive them
from society or the market because of their beliefs or creed as
long as it is done through mere refusal to associate, or advocacy
of refusal to associate. We have no right for others to do business
with us or to tolerate our beliefs or practices as long as said
intolerance does not turn to violence.

But regularly acting on the idea that those with wrong ideas
deserve to be driven from society in any conceivable non-violent
way might, I suggest, make for a less lovable, rich, and peaceful
world. When we start regularly restricting people’s opportunities
in commerce or association over differing beliefs, what could be
peaceful ideological differences start to tip over into people
fighting for what they can understandably see as their metaphorical
life–their social or economic life. It’s a dangerous game and if
pursued vigorously and across the board by everyone who disagrees
with everyone else on issues or practices they consider vital, will
make everyone worse off.

Centuries after the Enlightenment, most people’s notions of
“free thought and expression” still amount to: it’s OK to think and
express OK things. It’s a limited view that can lead to a less
varied, vital, and livable culture.

Jonathan Rauch wrote on these issues of
true liberal tolerance of differing opinion in the December
issue of Reason