27/12/2005 11:31:37 am
Justified Intolerance. In a culture of consensus, like the one in Sweden, there is usually someone who turns up when people have a political or philosophical discussion and says: "Now, now, don′t fight, let him have his view and you can have yours and we can all be friends." If I had had a euro for every time I have heard that when I have discussed something with a statist, collectivist or socialist - roughly the same thing - I could retire now.

But I don′t agree with it at all. Basically there is one major reason. As a classical liberal, my position is about letting anyone keep his or her view and lead his or her life. The problem is that the above socialist will never do the same back. He or she wants to force me into socialism with the might of the majority; that is the essence of his or her belief. And I cannot accept people feeling they have the right to impose their kind of society on me, since I would never do the same.

To be more precise: I would never deny anyone to lead a socialist life. If they are a minority or a majority in the country doesn′t matter. If they want to give up their posessions and income to collective decisions, that is fine. Let them! They can hace an organisation for that. It can be called the state. But they will always deny me the right to lead a life in freedom, where I keep my posessions and income. They feel they have the right to force me into their society.

So what happens when a discussion between a socialist and a classical liberal ends with both respecting the other′s views? It ends with socialism winning. Their view is not limited to them. That is why opposition must not end and consensus is wrong.