My argument for them is not altruistic in the least, but…
““My argument for them is not altruistic in the least, but purely selfish. I should dislike to see them harassed by the law for two plain and sound reasons. One is that their continued existence soothes my vanity (and hence promotes my happiness) by proving to me that there are even worse fools in the world than I am. The other is that, if they were jailed to-morrow for believing in Christian Science, I should probably be jailed the next day for refusing to believe in something still sillier. Once the law begins to horn into such matters, I am against the law, no matter how virtuous its ostensible intent. No liberty is worth a hoot which doesn’t allow the citizen to be foolish once in a while, and to kick up once in a while, and to hurt himself once in a while.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
He argues that protecting fools is essential for liberty; law should not suppress harmless eccentricity.
In simple terms: Protecting fools preserves freedom.
Key Takeaway
Defend harmless eccentricity.
Themes
law
liberty
foolishness
vanity
Mood
skeptical
wry
Type
philosophical
political
When to use this quote
- legal policy
- public discourse
- personal behavior
- social norms
Key Concepts
civil liberties
social tolerance
Questions to Reflect On
- Should society protect all eccentric behavior?
- Where is the line between harmlessness and harm?
A Different Perspective
Overprotecting folly may hinder progress.