Item — HN Reader

I'm a little confused by this. Here is how I'd summarize what I think I'm hearing:

1. Tolerance isn't a moral value, but is a pragmatic value [why?]

2. Therefore, only people who abide by the terms of tolerance deserve to receive tolerance, else they're in violation of the treaty and excluded [why? where are these terms listed? who agreed to them?]

3. Suggests due to incompatible interests, constant peace is an impossibility [?]

4. From a speech from Patrick Henry [Appeal to authority?]

---

What I find confusing is, to suppose that basic tolerance is subject to a treaty that I don't even know the rules of and never agreed to, then how can I know some stranger's differing ethics (e.g. pro-life) won't say I violated their ethical code and now have am no longer tolerable?

Perhaps this was heavily excerpted? It seems like social contract theory with all of the logistic details left out.

Let me see if I can help:

Tolerance is not an end in and of itself. It's sort of a game-theoretic equilibrium, equivalent to an iterated prisoner's dilemma where cooperation is enforced by punishing defectors.

Society is full of unspoken rules that govern how we interact civilly with one another. It's sometimes frustrating that the rules are tacit, but it couldn't really work any other way.

To your point though, there will always be those who use the tacit, emotional nature of the social rules to manipulate others. The "place their nose in the way of other people's fists" as it were.