Obviously we shouldn’t let assholes have unchecked power, and we shouldn’t give liars positions of trust, or pedophiles unmonitored access to children, but I think even the shittiest person is still a person and they deserve a base line standard of comfort and respect, and therefore society is morally obligated to at least try and meet that standard.
A lot of people would agree with me that far, but say this approach breaks down in real world scenarios where we have limited time and resources, and I have a hard time disagreeing. But I recently came across a Fredrick Douglass quote that crystalized an idea for me:
“The American people have this lesson to learn: That where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons or property will be safe.” - April 1865
Even if a group isn’t oppressed, the mere fact that they feel oppressed is, in and of itself, a problem. That problem gets worse if it is generally socially acceptable to publicly degrade that group, and powerful people who think they are oppressed can be incredibly dangerous
And it’s not just people who fall into those groups neatly, any one who has to worry that they might be part of one of these groups will be effected by this. It’s part of why the angriest homophobes have a history of being gay. Or how, very few people in America will ever starve to death in the streets, but the fact that so many of us have to worry about that scenario is not healthy for our society, and drives people to desperate measures.
If we just made sure that everyone was guaranteed a safe place to stay, and enough food to not die, then we wouldn’t all be trapped in this high stakes game of survival, and we could focus on just being better people, rather then weeding out the bad ones.
(Also, what ever standard of living we eventually decide is the baseline, all nationally elected politicians should have to live under it)
The paradox of tolerance applies here.
I’ve always said that you should tolerate intolerance, but not accept it.
What does that mean, practically?
That OP is willing to accept everyone, by effectively saying “it takes all kinds.”
I wholeheartedly disagree, of course. One’s actions define who a person chooses to be and if those actions are harmful to others, then they should endure the consequences.
I don’t think it takes all kinds, we’d be better off without assholes, but so long as we have assholes, we need to figure out a way to handle them, because if we just try getting rid of them, we end up with a bunch of sneaky assholes who are aligned against the rest of society.
Getting rid of fascists works actually. The reasonable thing to do is try to educate those who will listen, deplatform those who will not, and imprison or exile those who try to act on their politics. The few who are left over won’t be able to build up enough of a movement to do anything. They’re just terrorists who want to fuck it up for everyone and institute totalitarian corporatist society, if we tolerate their right to frozen peaches, everything goes to shit.
Other than that I agree wholeheartedly with your main point. Everyone but fascists deserves a place in society, a home, a job, education, and health care. If we crack down on fascists, we can have that.
People should be called out for being intolerant, and you can restrict intolerant behaviors, but still have to let participate free in discourse, because other wise intolerance never gets confronted, and you end up with a bunch of intolerant people who feel like they to lie and be secretive about their opinions to participate in society