Breaking the Social Contract – Why Tolerance Equals Death
According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms, including the “right to all things” and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless “war of all against all” (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gain civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority.
Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with arguments about military service.
What liberals do not understand is that the contract only works if it is mutual. If you tolerate people who want to kill you, then your tolerance causes your own death.
Openly intolerant political ideologies cannot be tolerated by groups with the stated aim of preserving peace. That is the contradiction of liberalism. In order to preserve peace, you have to support war against people who are against peace. In order to stop crime, you have to commit a state sanctioned crime against the criminal. But by declaring war on those who wish to destroy you, and supporting aggressive acts against criminals which limit freedom, you become more similar to your enemies. In order to defeat your enemies, you have to become more like them. If you are unwilling to fight, then the contract will crumble. The violent aggressor will gain power. The necessary response against a legitimate threat forces people who claim to defend peace to become violent. This contradiction applies not only to liberalism, but also to Marxism. Marxists claim to oppose imperialism, but construct their own form of red imperialism while arguing that it is necessary to stop imperialism. Other Marxists feel that Islam is an adequate substitute (which is another contradiction).
Mussolini (unlike Hitler) had this to say about peace:
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace.
He was right for reasons I outlined above. If you want to stop political movements that are labeled intolerant, then you must counter their intolerance with your own intolerance. But then you’ve done what you’ve accused your enemies of doing. Peace is not possible to the extent people want to destroy it as the contract can be broken unilaterally, and peace is not desirable because it is not possible.
What we need to do is replace the ideals of tolerance with the ideals of strength. The idea of the social contract is filled with contradictions that require violating it to stop intolerance, but in a way that is itself intolerance. We should embrace intolerance and smash liberalism.