23 votes

Define: Tolerance

according to google:

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance"

The biggest division I have witnessed since the election is the utter lack of tolerance here at the DP. Our Constitution was written to restrain the government and protect individual Liberty.

In order to keep ourselves united may I suggest a healthy dose of tolerance to those we disagree with? Be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic.. can we put aside those differences and unite under the banner of Liberty? Is it possible?

The social issues are what tears us apart and I keep banging my head against a wall because of it. Define tolerance!! What is it?? Can you accept the fact you live in a country that protects your religious freedom and still protects those you disagree with?

I love this community and I love the philosophy of Liberty. In my time here I have not witnessed a thread dealing with the issue of tolerance in correlation with our Constitution and Rights.

We can bridge our divides and unite ourselves if we understand the definition of tolerance. If we are to win, we must be united. The philosophy of Liberty brought us here and lets make sure that it is not squandered over personal beliefs. A common understanding of Liberty can unite all of us, from every religion, color and background. Liberty shines like the eyes of Justice. It may be blindfolded but it does not need to see a thing to understand its philosophy.

The greatest gift ever given to humanity was our Constitution. We had a brief moment in time where our leaders believed in their cause. Washington was man enough not to seize power.. and leader enough to make sure a government was in place before he left. The effects of our Constitution freed the oppressed, freed slaves, freed women and children, freed minorities and created the most amazing country ever known to mankind. The greatest minds that signed on understood the value of tolerance. America has led the world because of our rights and proven system of wealth for the lowest denominator. Dave Thomas was an orphaned illiterate that proved how great America is. A hamburger flipper that could not read or write made millions because of our system of govt.

What is tolerance and what does it mean to our movement?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh heck man,

it doesn't matter. I am simply waiting for a mod post and if not reinstated I am afraid 6yrs will be the end for me.

The paradox of tolerance

Karl popper wrote about this. Consider

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.

The utterence of intolerant philosophies should not always be suppressed, “as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion.” However,

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.

Furthermore, in support of human rights legislation in the second half of the 20th century, he stated:

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.


Thus in Poppers view, Freedom of association is only allowed when the association is public (and can be countered by ratioal argument) - if it is secret, and closed to outside influence, he claims it should not be allowed.

So what does the DP think? is freedom of association absolute or not ?

I see the logic, but I also see the exception.

Would you agree that people "can" change?

Sometimes(?) tolerance is simply due to ignorance. Would you agree?

Should people be given that "chance" to change, or should they be forever labeled as such?

I don't see it as "black & white" as you put it. Maybe it has to do with my(our) personal level of tolerance?

I really wish you would make

I really wish you would make a new thread explaining this essential concept to these forums.

Tolerance just means you have

Tolerance just means you have to tolerate something and not use force to sway people. It doesn't mean you have to accept something. Like Mr. Garrison said, "You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off!" That's how I live. Everything [liberal, worldly, progressive, hedonist] pisses me off so I simply don't deal with people anymore. I don't have friends and I have no woman. I demand almost perfection around me and I don't accept other people's opinions or misdeeds that I am not hypocritically judging against. It's better to live alone with this attitude than to deal with trying to get people to see things my way or GTFO of my life.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Hold on.

"The biggest division I have witnessed since the election is the utter lack of tolerance here at the DP. Our Constitution was written to restrain the government and protect individual Liberty."

I stopped reading at that point. I think that you may be suffering from too low of a tolerance for lies.

If you continue to tolerate lies such as the lie that says that "our" "Constitution was written to restrain the government and protect individual Liberty," then the door is open for anything imaginable, it seems to me.

I'd like to read the rest of your welcome communication here on this forum, but that regurgitation of that demonstrable lie is intolerable to me. If you can see past your false statement, then I can agree to read the rest of the words you offer.


darn it..

My phone and the DP doesn't jibe well. I'll make this brief.

It is the intolerance of others I keep seeing here. In order for our philosophy to work, being tolerant of the person u disagree with is key. (IMO)

Yelling sodomite and damning people who have a different belief system or lifestyle will only divide us.

I hope that cleared that up... your comment certainly confused the heck outta me...

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Division is a form of Unity

If we are all going on our own paths, is that not the definition of Liberty?

The problem is false divisions put in place by people who cause those false divisions, in other words the problem is crime.

The solution to crime requires an intolerance of it, or it perpetuates, and grows larger by the second.


Wait a minute.

As I understand the constitution, the purpose was excactly as described in the op: To restrain government and protect individual liberty.

Care to explain why you disagree? :)

Even Greenland knows what's going on!

Anti- Federalist

Read the Anti-Federalist Papers and you will get a better idea of why the Constitution can't protect Individual Liberty. Although it is a nice place to start they were right in thinking it would not last and that it would eventually destroy the free and independent states.

Why wait?

"Care to explain why you disagree?"

I care not to have my personal opinions matter in the least, for you to couch the subject matter into my personal capacity to "disagree" is intolerable to me; hence this sentence objecting to the move from the topic to me personally.

The facts speak for themselves, as being self-evident.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In other words: Insurrection is a duty when criminals take over voluntary government.

The proof of the fact, self-evident, having nothing to do with my disagreements, my personal opinions, or your effort to twist a discussion on the topic, into a personal attack, the proof of the fact of the duty to throw out (insurrection) the criminals is abundant in the form of The Revolutionary War, which was a war of aggression, occupation, and enslavement perpetrated by the people called The British.

13 constitutionally limited Nation States banded together into a Voluntary Union under The Articles of Confederation, and the REBELS conducted an Insurrection in that form.

That form was a Democratic Federated Republic or Confederation, and it was demonstrably a Voluntary, or Free Market, Government experiment, and it worked.

After the British were driven off, with the help of The French, and despite Generalismo Washington's bungling.



Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty

Despite the elements of Despots operating within the Democratic Federated Republic known as a Confederation under The Articles of Confederation, with 13 Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Nation States Voluntarily joined into one defensive force, despite the Despots among the Sons and Friends of Liberty, the British were driven off, and after the Rebels finished the Insurrection, there was an incident in Massachusetts called Shays's Rebellion.

The incident was a continuation of the duty people posses in fighting against Tyranny.



Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle

Under The Articles of Confederation there was no POWER centralized into ONE MONOPOLY UNION from which to mount a conscripted army of soldiers to conduct an aggressive attack upon the Rebels who were doing their duties as explained in The Declaration of Independence, so there was no "Federal" Army to use to Crush the Rebellion in Massachusetts.

The criminals running Massachusetts crushed the Rebellion.

That was bad. But the incident produced a historical precedent that you, and any Friend of Liberty living today, ought to know about, but you don't, and you attack me personally because you are trained to do so by whatever power works upon you now, I suppose. I am supposing because you brought up the personal angle of view.

Back to the subject:

The precedent set by Shays's Rebellion had to do with the defeated Rebels, doing their duty in rebelling against a criminal government in Massachusetts, being defeated, and then running like slaves up to Vermont. There was no false authority from no false "Federal" office holder in office to demand that Vermont return the slaves that ran away from Massachusetts.

If you have no clue as to how that worked that way, then you don't, and that is the way that is, in fact.

There is a very good explanation as to how a Democratic Federated Republic is designed to work, and does work, when Free Market Voluntary Governments are made to work that way.




Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

The despots, the slave traders, the money changers, in particular a guy named Alexander Hamilton, knew that Shays's Rebellion spread the wrong message if their groups, those slave traders, those money changers, those Monarchs, and those Monopolists, were to ever take over American government, consolidated it, and create an Involuntary Government POWER, complete with TAX power, and Legal Money Monopoly Power.

The Spirit of Liberty, as proven by The Revolutionary War, and as proven by Shays's Rebellion, both precedents occurring under The Articles of Confederation, and each Sovereign State Constitutions, had to be CRUSHED if the Monopolists, Slave Traders, Despots, etc. were to gain, and maintain, absolute POWER, over all the States, and all The People in particular.




One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.

Returning to the Virgina and Kentucky Resolution source:

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."

National Debt at a State Level is intolerable to The People, if they can walk on over to another State that is less Despotic when the government power is VOLUNTARY.

So Hamilton got Generalismo Washington to break his promise and return to "politics".

To CRUSH so fatal a Spirit as Liberty.




And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.



The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution

Whiskey was competitive money produced at the local farms, it had to be crushed in order to create, and maintain, National Debt, which is necessary for Legal Money Power.

If you don't know how that works, that does not mean that it does not work that way.



Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.




Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted.

There were two combatants within American history, still are, Ron Paul on one side, everyone else on the other, but in the old days there were the Nationalists hiding behind a false front they called "federalism" and the Ron Pauls of the day were falsely called Anti-Federalists.

Returning to the Con Con source:

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States,ans who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.



My personal opinions mean nothing in light of the facts, so why bring my personal information into the discussion?

What is the point?

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home
Do so by July 4th, 2013, so so peacefully, competitively, and equitably.


Thank you

for taking your time to reply.

For the record, I never intentionally brought your personal information into the discussion, at least not with anything negative in mind whatsoever. Furthermore, my question was merely out of curiosity and interest - You posted a comment that was in complete disagreement with what I know and understand, and I wanted to know what it was about. If I'm wrong, I need to know.

That's the point of asking you as a person. I excuse the inconvenience it may have caused, but appreciate your reply.

Even Greenland knows what's going on!

My error

Please excuse my error in judgment, too often I repeat the same mistake, as if blaming everyone for the acts of the few people who willfully attack me personally so as to censor specific information I may offer to anyone caring to know better from worse.


No worries

Although I'm not the most active member on DP, I do see the attacks going back and forth, whether caused by paid trolls, ignorant individuals or lack of respect, it's really taking it's toll on the community.

Keep up the good spirit - I imagine it's not easy.

Even Greenland knows what's going on!