Chandran Kukathas — 2023 Markets and Society Conference Keynote
TL;DR
Chandran Kukathas argues that an open society is fundamentally a regime of toleration that cannot be morally limited, as any attempt to restrict toleration by appealing to truth, justice, or reason begs the question; instead, departing from toleration is always an exercise of power, not moral justification.
🕊️ The Nature of Toleration 2 insights
Toleration as forbearance from power
True toleration means refraining from exercising power to compel others to conform to your views, applying only to behaviors you disapprove of and have the capacity to suppress.
Bayle's rejection of truth claims
Following Pierre Bayle, Kukathas asserts that claims to possess objective truth cannot justify compelling others, as dissenters claim truth with equal conviction, making such justification circular.
⚖️ The Limits of Toleration 3 insights
No moral limits possible
Attempts to limit toleration by appealing to justice fail because they presuppose the contested question of which conception of justice is correct, thus begging the question.
Critique of reasonable rejection
Kukathas challenges Rainer Forst's view that rules must be justifiable by reasons no one could reasonably reject, arguing this standard still begs the question against those who fundamentally reject such reasons.
The Spanish conquistador analogy
Just as Spanish conquistadors read justifications to trees because natives could not understand, offering supposedly unrejectable reasons to dissenters who reject them is futile and resolves nothing.
⚡ Power and the Open Society 2 insights
Power as the ultimate foundation
When regimes depart from toleration, they exercise power rather than enforce morality, acknowledging that power—not justice—is what ultimately establishes social order.
Open society as regime of regimes
An open society is an order of regimes that departs from pure toleration in the name of justice while remaining fundamentally grounded in power relationships both internally and externally.
Bottom Line
An open society must recognize that its boundaries are maintained through power rather than moral certainty, and true liberalism requires acknowledging that we cannot reasonably justify forcing conformity upon those who dissent.
More from Conversations with Tyler (Tyler Cowen)
View all
Arvind Subramanian and Devesh Kapur on India’s Precocious Development Odyssey
Arvind Subramanian and Devesh Kapur argue that India's unprecedented early adoption of universal adult franchise created a 'precocious' development model where democracy served as both the glue for nation-building and a constraint on state capacity, leading to unique patterns of stability alongside inefficient redistribution captured by powerful interest groups.
Arvind Subramanian and Devesh Kapur on India's Precocious Development Odyssey
Arvind Subramanian and Devesh Kapur argue that India's unprecedented adoption of universal adult franchise at low income levels created a 'precocious' development path where democracy served as the primary instrument for nation-building and macroeconomic stability, yet simultaneously fostered a fiscally vulnerable state captured by clamorous interest groups rather than the poor.
State Capture and the Meaning of Democracy with Samuel Bagg
Political theorist Samuel Bagg argues that democracy should be understood not as collective self-rule but as a system for dispersing power and preventing state capture, where public institutions serve broad public interests rather than narrow private factions.
Senator Phil Gramm and Don Boudreaux on the Triumph of Economic Freedom
Senator Phil Gramm and economist Don Boudreaux argue that seven pervasive myths about American capitalism—from the Industrial Revolution to inequality—are factually contradicted by data, asserting that economic freedom has driven the only mass escape from poverty in human history.