I find it ironic that the Swarthmore's "liberals" pride themselves on being tolerant. They usually brand the the religious right, and correctly so, for being intolerant. By advocating prayer in public school, the Right seek to impose their beliefs upon others. But the liberals are just as intolerant is the conservatives. The socialists are a secularized religious right.
Both liberals and conservatives advocate that the government support causes they deem worthy. Advocating government involvment in economics is the advocacy of imposing one's beliefs upon an other. A conservative thinks large oil companies are good, so he wants to subsidize the industry. A liberal thinks the poor need help, so he wants to subsidize charities.
When congress passes a bill for a government subsidy, the new law forces me to support it with my tax money. If I refuse to pay my taxes, the government will initiate force on me. Hence, taxes are a form of crime. But neither the Left or the Right find their support of orgainzed crime disturbing.
Just what am I forced to support with my tax money? I am supporting what others deam as good. These people are imposing their notion of good upon me. My body, mind included, produced my money. What ever happened to the Pro-Choice "keep your laws off of my body?" Check your premises, liberals.
But I hold that my life belongs to me, and that no one has a right to one minute of my life. I shall deal with others on mutual and consenting terms. I think that human beings need the freedom from force imposed by others in order to live as rational beings.
But anyone who advocates non-voluntary government funding is not very tolerant to my views. Taxation is the imposition of one's values upon another. It is intolerant.
Who is tolerant? The radicals for pure laissez-faire capitalism and voluntary government funding. They are the Libertarians, and the truly tolerant folk of Swarthmore should [vote] for them.
Yet, I value having my views judged. An ideal intellectual discussion consists of people of differing opinions sharing the same goal of discovering the truth. I seek judgment of my views because I value having the most accurate view of the world as possible. If I say something that someone disagrees with, it is beneficial for me to hear the critique, provided that it is not a personal attack, but an honest disagreement.
I agree with Eugene that people's "interfering at will" is not good. Yet, this interference is not tolerance, but intolerance. Tolerance is not only agreeing to disagree, but is allowing for people to act on what is disagreed upon.
It is tolerant for people to say "Brian, though I disagree with you, I respect your position that government funded programs inhumane and intolerant." But they go one supporting them.
In essence, they are saying "I respect your values, but I will not allow you to freely pursue them. I will ask the government to force you to pursue my notion of good. And if you do try to pursue your values, and not pursue ours, we'll throw you in jail. But we are still tolerant, since we allow you to hold your opinion. You're entitled to your opinions, but we won't let you act upon them."
To be intolerant is to force someone to pursue one's values, to impose one's values upon another. Taxation does just that.
Brian Schwartz