First, it is justified by fear of others and what bad things they will do to us if they are prevented from expressing themselves. Second, it has force only when the other has power and is willing to use it. It thus requires us all to be on our guard against those who would deny it to us and warns that we must rely on ourselves to protect our core ideals. And finally, it is not an end in itself, some ideal or vision to embrace, but a mere means to an end. It allows us to live, not together as one, but side by side yet apart, as we carry on war by other means.
Negative toleration avoids the four paradoxes that plagued positive toleration.
It avoids them by not allowing them to arise, and it does this by not viewing itself as something good in itself. It dodges the paradox of commitment by understanding toleration not as an ideal but as a means to one's safety. Fear of the other is no ideal to be attained but is hard reality to be addressed. And finally, it finesses the paradox of teaching by claiming that negative toleration is no superior view to be taught but rather an inferior position to be endured. Consequently, almost all of us take great pains to persuade others that we are not working out of self-interest alone, but rather have other reasons to restrain us.