> The marketplace of ideas only works that way when its participants are rational actors with good judgement
You're leaving out the implicit assumption you're making, that the "authorities" in charge of the marketplace are rational actors. You better hope to hell, that they are.
Because when some marketplace participants fail, they fail gracefully. When centralized authorities fail, they fail spectacularly and disastrously. I can virtually guarantee you that Qanon will be a footnote in ten years time. In contrast how would you like to live in Iran, China, Turkey, or any other regime where lunatics have taken over in the name of "protecting the people from dangerous ideas"?
All those people clamoring for authorities to clamp down on irrational Trumpist extremists, have forgotten that Trump and his cronies were just recently in charge of all three branches of the government as well as a supermajority of state governments.
This is how the political cycle always goes. All anybody sees is a sensible, incoming administration with likeminded views. And I actually agree. Biden's a decent man, and I honestly can't see him abusing even very broad powers. But what happens after? But there's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Do you trust President Donald Trump Jr. or President Tucker Carlson or President Josh Hawley with that power?
This isn't even hypothetical. Most people here are too young to remember the post-9/11 hysteria. But I can virtually guarantee you that had the current crop of anti-speech activists managed to put their would-be "anti-extremist" laws in place, that opposition to the War on Terror would have been de facto illegal.
Dealing with some stupid conspiracy theories and LARPer shamans, who have as much chance of overthrowing the American government as my toddler, are a small price to pay for fault-tolerance in liberal democracy.
I don't see that assumption anywhere in the parent comment. Nor any call for authorities of some unknown nature to clamp down.
Just the point that the "marketplace of ideas" doesn't function very well when those in it are not acting in good faith. Qanon may be a footnote in ten years. The Tea Party is a footnote from the last decade. The Klan has gone down to footnote several times and been revived each time. (Although the current incarnation has gotten rid of the name and the outfits. Yay, progress!) I remember the 9/11 hysteria, and I remember checking on my Moslem friends about the free speech they were receiving. Anyway, and yet, here we are.
Blind faith in the marketplace of ideas doesn't work any better than blind faith in the invisible hand of economics.
The standard you're applying is that if anyone, anywhere holds mistaken beliefs that the marketplace of ideas has failed. It's all well and good to imagine what it looks like next to a utopia of angels, but in that case we wouldn't have to worry about any system, would we?
The question is whether the marketplace of ideas works better than other actual systems or cultures found in the real-world. Here's what I do know, the marketplace of ideas was conceived 300 years ago in the Enlightenment. Since then, the amount of human liberty, tolerance, peace, and prosperity has exploded. The societies that adopted the principles of the Enlightenment first experienced the earliest and largest gains along these dimensions. The societies today that most adhere to Enlightenment principles and the marketplace of ideas are by far the freest and most prosperous. Over any reasonable span of time, tolerance, freedom and peace continue to monotonically improve. Especially for the most marginalized groups. Particularly in the most liberal societies.
In what universe could anyone possibly lock at this track record of success and not conclude that the Enlightenment and its principle of the marketplace of ideas has been a resounding success. Arguably the most resounding success in all of human history. Honestly, what possible system, real or imagined, do you believe could have produced better results?
You're leaving out the implicit assumption you're making, that the "authorities" in charge of the marketplace are rational actors. You better hope to hell, that they are.
Because when some marketplace participants fail, they fail gracefully. When centralized authorities fail, they fail spectacularly and disastrously. I can virtually guarantee you that Qanon will be a footnote in ten years time. In contrast how would you like to live in Iran, China, Turkey, or any other regime where lunatics have taken over in the name of "protecting the people from dangerous ideas"?
All those people clamoring for authorities to clamp down on irrational Trumpist extremists, have forgotten that Trump and his cronies were just recently in charge of all three branches of the government as well as a supermajority of state governments.
This is how the political cycle always goes. All anybody sees is a sensible, incoming administration with likeminded views. And I actually agree. Biden's a decent man, and I honestly can't see him abusing even very broad powers. But what happens after? But there's no putting this genie back in the bottle. Do you trust President Donald Trump Jr. or President Tucker Carlson or President Josh Hawley with that power?
This isn't even hypothetical. Most people here are too young to remember the post-9/11 hysteria. But I can virtually guarantee you that had the current crop of anti-speech activists managed to put their would-be "anti-extremist" laws in place, that opposition to the War on Terror would have been de facto illegal.
Dealing with some stupid conspiracy theories and LARPer shamans, who have as much chance of overthrowing the American government as my toddler, are a small price to pay for fault-tolerance in liberal democracy.