Opinion
Lab
Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
7 comments
The idea of the 'Marketplace of Ideas' comes from John Stuart Mill, in his classic defence of free speech "On Liberty", 1859.
In 'On Liberty', he writes:
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.
His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion...
Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
The core idea of the 'marketplace of ideas' is that truth will eventually replace error in a fair contest of thought.
History bears that out in some areas - science, for example, where there is such a thing as objective truth.
But there's a political sense in which the Marketplace of Ideas works - that it is in debate, through argument, in the 'marketplace' that we build our best political selves. A society in which all ideas can be traded is free, and is ultimately happier and healthier than its alternatives.
Any debate without some form of structure or moderation or impartial 3rd party judgement will be won by the person with the prettiest face, the loudest voice, and the most convincing lies, if your opponent lies and you are the only person who cares whether or not that statement is true, how do you continue the debate? And why would the audience of this debate believe you?
I've spent way too much time thinking about this and reckon for a debate (and therefore democracy) to work it requires three fundamental features:
The ‘prettiest face’ ignores both racial and gendered factors, but in this hypothetical, wouldn’t a bad argument be fairly easy to tear apart? I understand that some liars are convincing, and some bad choices will be made, but people learn and grow all the time. Your argument discounts the better judgement humans have in favor of a more primal ‘prettiest face’ choice.
People can make good arguments for things they themselves don’t even believe, the strength of the argument is rarely, if ever, related to the strength of the idea being argued, that’s the problem
The "marketplace of ideas" works but in a counter-intuitive way. Maybe not as Dave Rubin wants it to, but it works.
How do you mean?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!