The Strength of Democracy - Tolerance

Lately, the push for more and more control of free speech is increasing rapidly.  We see this in the new policies on twitter, facebook, and other social media.  We see this as activists protest lectures at universities and attack people they see as having views that oppose their own.  The irony is that although these people believe they are doing good for society, the reality is just the opposite: they are damaging our society greatly.

All the nations in the world these days that are considered to be a good place to live have one thing in common: they are democracies.  We notice that democratic countries are more civilized, more progressive, and more tolerant.  It's in these countries that we see gender equality, religious freedom, and respect among fellow citizens.

So naturally, the question arises: What is it about a democracy that makes it progressive?

 

The strength of democracy is that it allows varying and conflicting viewpoints to exist.  People with opinions that are in complete disagreement with one another are still able to live in the same society peacefully: democracy is not about the will of the majority imposing itself on to the minority - quite the opposite - it's strength comes from preserving that minority viewpoint.

As a result, democratic societies are able to find and take advantage of better ideas and ways of being.  Because we don't suppress viewpoints, ideas and concepts that are good for the society as a whole are able to be heard, considered, and then ultimately accepted by the majority.

For example, think about the concept of equal rights in England.  200 years ago, British society was a patriarchy; the household was run by the husband and his word was law within the family.  So how did things change into today's society in which women have equal rights, and such a concept would be considered outlandish?

It happened because the first women and men who supported the first of equal rights were able to speak out.  They were not dragged off into jail for presenting a viewpoint that opposed the common views of the day.  They were not punished for having an idea that was different than the socialtal norm of the day.

And over time, as more and more people heard the idea, the idea of equality began to spread until eventually it was adopted, and it is now commonplace today.

This example illustrates exactly why we, as a democratic society, cannot support the suppression of ideas or viewpoints, just because we don't agree with them.  Imagine how our society would be today if the first people to speak up for equal rights were beaten and jailed?  How would things be if Martin Luther King Jr was arrested and all his followers given the death penalty for expressing their ideas?

When someone protests against free speech, or calls for a person to be publicly attacked because of their viewpoints, that person need to be opposed.  They are trying to shut down the very thing that makes democracy strong: the tolerance of ideas that are different that the norm.

Anyone who wants to repress another person's right to feel, think, or act a certain way - is being a tyrant, and un-democratic.

But wait, you say.  So often we see this, but we also see how people say it is "necessary" or for a good cause.  People try to justify their behavior in repressing others by essentially saying it is for a "greater good".

Is that a realistic claim? 

No.

What history has shown us is this: in a society in which everyone is free to express themselves, good ideas and things that will benefit the society as a whole - end up getting adopted and accepted.  The free expression of ideas allows society to change - rapidly, and for the better.

Bad ideas, such as REAL hate speech - end up going nowhere.  Ever since WWII, there have been people who still speak out against the Jews.  But if you live in the USA, ask yourself this: how often does the topic of the extermination of the Jews ever come up in ordinary life?  We don't see it in movies, we don't see it in mainsteam media, we don't see it anywhere - because it's a ridiculous idea that the majority of society has rejected.

So allowing a few people to believe and speak out for such a dumb idea - ends up *causing no harm to society whatsoever.*

And that's the point: there is no need to censor "hate speech" or to "control ideas" - because bad ideas like race hate, repression of women, etc, will never be adopted by mainstream society anyways.

This is why when activists argue for control of speech and thought, they need to be opposed.  Those activists do not understand what they are really asking for: they would like one of the core fundamentals that makes democracy progressive and positive for humanity to be removed.

And for what?

These people are acting out of an irrational fear that somehow the entire society is going to go insane and decide to embrace something like race hatred.  That is never going to happen.  And the more loud these activists get, the more violence they use, only proves the point that they are wrong.

Free speech and tolerance is what makes democracy progressive.

Democracy's strength is that is accepts all viewpoints, all speech, all ideas - and the end result is that the best of those things can be heard, become popular, and eventually end up changing society for the better.

But for democracy to be strong, we must allow freedom of speech, no matter whether we personally agree with another person's viewpoints or not.

LKvi