Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar hell. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. For one thing, it is exceedingly repetitive and therefore tedious and therefore usually nasty.
We want curious conversation here. That means people hearing each other and learning from each other across differences. This is very different from (and incompatible with) ideological battle, in which the goal is simply to defeat the other side: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679.
We've had to ask you about this quite a few times before. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart? We'd appreciate it.
There's a time and a place for these kinds of claims but underneath an article titled "Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health" may not be it. ;)
Not really. Paradox of tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. The word “inherent” makes it wrong, though. There’s nothing inherent about conservatism that is anti-democratic.
The Paradox of tolerance only endorses the right of being intolerant towards intolerance; it in no way suggests that it's always a good idea to practice such intolerance. On the contrary, the actual "paradoxical" idea is that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. IOW, Popper's position is, to a limited extent, consistent with the one most clearly phrased by Thomas Jefferson: "let [the intolerant] stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
People keep parroting this term, but I don't know if they have actually read the quote on Wikipedia.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Because a core value of modern conservatism in the U.S. (as expressed through the leadership of the Republican Party) is questioning the outcomes of freely- and fairly-held elections (including the last Presidential election), to place new obstacles in allowing qualified citizens to vote, and resisting changes that would make it easier for more people to vote (such as voting by mobile phone, or on a weekend).
You won't find liberals questioning election outcomes that were determined by a margin of thousands of votes with a clear paper trail. The 2000 election in Florida, which you're probably thinking of, involved just a few hundred votes where the intent of the voter wasn't super clear (hence the "hanging chads" brouhaha); and once the election outcome was finally determined, liberals let things go. While they disagreed with the procedure and were upset about the outcome for a while, they didn't let it define their party for the next 4+ years.
Observations of possible irregularities in an election are not proof, however, a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates, and each voter's valid status can be verified after the vote is completed and counted and a winner is declared. Is that true in today's elections? (and was it ever true). If so, any questions can be resolved through executing an audit, and no one needs to seek the Supreme Court.
Allowing the votes of qualified citizens to be counted in an election is part and parcel of operating a fully auditable election. Whatever fully auditable approach offers the fewest obstacles is where we should land, as long as feasibility and practicality are contemplated. At least once, each voter needs to provide evidence that they are a US citizen, and that they reside in the district for which they are voting. Thereafter, there needs to be an auditable trail connecting their vote with their eligibility.
> a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates
You're confusing a verification procedure with an outcome. A fairly held election -- i.e., the outcome -- is simply one in which the pollsters and voters adhered to all the rules. And it is possible for an election to be fairly held that is not auditable. Sure, it might make people feel better post hoc about whether it was fair, but that doesn't mean that an unauditable election cannot be fairly held.
We've largely had non-auditable elections throughout our nation's history, and we've survived reasonably well thus far as a democracy. If there were past evidence of fraud that might be serious enough to change the outcome of an election, then the case for strict auditing would be much stronger. But to date, compelling evidence of fraud has never appeared.
