On Liberalism & Tolerance

In asserting a pluralism of existing viewpoints, it seems that unavoidable conflicting possibilities may arise without some sort of check and balance.

Consider this idea: Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant? Better yet, if the idea of freedom is threatened for all on the basis of someone or some group’s “hard principles” (i.e., individuals that represent those who are intolerant or unwilling to compromise on some issue, whether it be politics, religion, morality, etc..etc..) shouldn’t those committed to freedom step in and defend this notion (to maintain liberty for all)? But wouldn’t this make the “freedom-fighters” intolerant in a sort of round-about way as well (i.e., that nothing less should be accepted than their notion of liberty)?

I am tending to lean on a pragmatist humanist response that the only way to prevent such atrocities would be through a type of persuasive “coercion” – that is, my viewpoint is that only through successful reasoning and argumentation will the most plausible conclusion be arrived at. One can rest assured, if this method is in place, a solid conclusion will be arrived at. Any other method inevitably leaves the possibility of authoritarianism, or otherwise unverifiable claims which are, I believe, grounded in nothing less than fear and insecurity.

“So step up, and argue” – nothing less should be tolerated. Getting everyone to this point, however, calls for an argument in its own right.