{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037444933920704845, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00881057268722467, 'mean_word_length': 4.586065573770492, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Humanomics: How We Can Make the Economy Serve Us—Not Destroy Us . By Eugen Loebl. (New York: Random House, 1976. Pp. 164. $6.95.)

True, King indicates that toleration, as distinguished from tolerance, has a necessary place in democracy. But he does not seem to hold consistently to this view (for example, p. 15, "we can only dispense with toleration . . . in direct relation to the degree of feasibility . . . of democracy.") Further, the distinction between tolerance and toleration is illustrative of the intricacies which burden King's argument. Tolerance exists, we are told, only where the objection to be negated is unequivocal and certain. Toleration, in contrast, arises where the objection is weakened by equivocation or uncertainty, or where the objection altogether disappears. In the latter case one may positively favor the ideas and acts he tolerates. But is this toleration? One cannot positively favor all ideas and acts, and if one achieves toleration merely by permitting those statements and acts which one does positively favor, then apparently we must say that toleration abounded during the Middle Ages and Reformation and that it is exemplified in our own world by priest-kings such as Stalin and Hitler. If this inference rests on a misunderstanding of Professor King's argument, it is a misunderstanding which his words seem to invite.