I don’t know what to call this other than a semantic fallacy. You can’t just add “market of” to things like an appendix and have it be treated as a market now, especially to the concept of ideas (unless you believe in intellectual property, which you would be wrong for as ideas are not tangible and exchanged, but copied).
I agree; the so-called "marketplace of ideas" is really just a metaphor, not a marketplace in the ordinary sense. It's more like picking up sea-shells on a beach; ideas can be picked up at no cost and readily discarded when encountering others that better suit one's fancy.
If one disregards my critique here, they still have to accept that the state, which monopolizes education, subsidizes media, censors dissent, and distorts incentives—is a legitimate market participant.
As a defender of "dogmatic" libertarianism, I must point out that (1) externalities are not the fault of markets, and (2) libertarianism is about a lot more than just touting the virtues of free markets.
Regarding the first point, an externality is simply a situation where an owner can't enforce their ownership rights to their property, making it possible for others to use that property without the owner's consent, and thus without needing to negotiate any sort of exchange in a marketplace. The very essence of ownership is the exclusive control over the use and disposition of the property by the owner.
Such a breach of ownership rights via involuntary use by non-owners obviously isn't the fault of the market; rather, it represents a fault of the legal system (typically meaning that it is the government that has failed, or has been corrupted by special interests that profit from the externality) or a fault of nature where the irreducible costs of enforcement are simply too high to justify the benefits of eliminating the externality (i.e. no social institution failed; the utopia of absolutely zero pollution and zero free riding not being an option for any social system).
Obviously, the demand for truth will be higher in cases where not knowing the truth means one might face exclusion from use of a property by its owner or face tort liability for one's breaches of the owner's rights. A system of strict tort liability punishes harms arising from ignorance as well as harms arising out of malicious intent.
Regarding the second point, libertarians frequently sing the praises of free markets because of the strident opposition to private profit-making and wealth-accumulation by their egalitarian opponents. However, free markets aren't the defining principle of libertarianism. Libertarianism is defined by the principle that it is wrong to commit acts of aggression against the lives and property of others--one ought to be at liberty to do anything that doesn't transgress against the peacefully-acquired ownership rights of others.
The exclusionary nature of private ownership empowers each individual to assert their own intellectual and moral autonomy without coming into collision with their neighbors. The freedom to engage in voluntary market exchanges are but one dimension of how we benefit from having personal autonomy without social conflict. There are of course many other benefits too.
In the case of the market for ideas, it must be noted that the great ease with which ideas can be archived and propagated, beginning with the invention of book printing in the 1400s and especially in recent decades with the invention of the Internet, means that mankind's stock of easily accessible ideas is huge and constantly growing. The supply side of the market for ideas is not a problem at all.
It might be argued that on the demand side, good ideas are being overwhelmed by low-brow entertainment and faith-mongering, but it doesn't follow from this that we must have a dictatorship of certified progressive intellectual experts lording over the uncredentialed masses. Again, we have the fallacy of trying to shift the blame for the faults of government and the faults of nature onto the exercise of liberty.
In terms of the government's culpability for promoting widespread irrationality, we must keep in mind that the very academics who tirelessly promote technocratic social engineering are very well paid by the state to ignore the limits of their own rationality and instead pontificate anyways in the interest of inculcating obedience to the state's desires. The market for ideas has been badly corrupted by massive state subsidies to the educational sector.
Another kind of state subsidy that is ruining the market for ideas is the government transfer payment. When the masses come to believe that benefit promises will secure them against every negative contingency in their lives, they stop caring so much about being rational, sociable, thrifty, prepared, etc. for preventing or mitigating such negatives themselves. People really only care about abstract truths when they are personally responsible and thus need such truths to make good decisions, not when their foolishness and their spendthrift impulses are being endlessly indulged by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The government is paying a large fraction of the population to be irresponsible (which is obviously the biggest externality of all in America), which in practice is impossible to distinguish from irrationality.
What does this actually prove? Nothing. In consulting we know there is a difference between content and presentation. Yes, the libertarian content (arguments + facts) is surely a winner if society wants freedom and prosperity. However, take a look at the general presentation of the argument - a bunch of PhD's arguing as though they are talking to PhD's. Part of the presentation function is deeply understanding one's target audience, something where libertarians often fail. Without connection to the target audience, good content fails. This is NOT a market problem, this is a presentation problem.
In a world of degraded government schools, plus an adversary (socialism/communism) that connects with their target audience, perhaps libertarians have to up their game.
Might a libertarian argue that the market of ideas is not a free one, with government-funded media, censorship, regulation, "nudging," etc.? Or, if we're arguing that this market doesn't work, in what way? That it doesn't lead to truth? If so, then the food market fails because people choose what's comfortable and do not achieve dietary health. In both cases, the "smart" consumer knows how to sift out and make good choices, yet both markets are successful in providing an overabundance of choices (including many superior ones). The food market has solved starvation (vs. planned economies that starve populations) while the ideas market has largely solved ignorance (access to information/ideas had been largely inaccessible). Yet now, within both markets respectively, one might argue that people are becoming unhealthier in many ways than just undernourished, and more ignorant in many ways.
Maybe I'm missing something in regard to just how you see the market of ideas uniquely? I largely agree that what we have is not helping most, yet I attribute this mostly to the individuals making choices and not the system per se. (The ignorance nurtured in today's education institutions I would blame on government-dominated education (yet another point on there being no free market of ideas!) Yet still, I would argue that there are also more better choices by which to educate one's children than ever. Maybe another example of a market failing or not, depending on the standard?)
I guess that's it. What is the standard of saying a market has failed or succeeded? Truth/health/well-being of consumers, or abundance?
I don't think 'Market of ideas' equates to 'free market capitalism'. The entire point of capitalism is that it allows the individual to set their own values based on productive ability, instead of some arbitrary whim of an authority. Under free markets people who hate each other, have ideas diametrically opposed, can still engage in win-win trades that leave them better off. Trade markets don't need ideological agreement to function.
The London Stock Exchange out competed many Over The Counter brokers. Lloyds of London out competed many individuals brokers. Markets, and the dense liquidity they provide, can out complete the absence of any market.
The market of ideas is the water in which we swim. It has out competed many older models. The market of ideas is winning and it is hard to imagine discourse without it. Revealed preferences speak loudly here: the market of ideas is what modern people do.
Most discourse is a combination of lies and ignorance. Where heeded, it is usually profoundly misunderstood - often deliberately. Nothing works as intended or promised - again, often deliberately on the part of either or both parties.
I don’t know what to call this other than a semantic fallacy. You can’t just add “market of” to things like an appendix and have it be treated as a market now, especially to the concept of ideas (unless you believe in intellectual property, which you would be wrong for as ideas are not tangible and exchanged, but copied).
I agree; the so-called "marketplace of ideas" is really just a metaphor, not a marketplace in the ordinary sense. It's more like picking up sea-shells on a beach; ideas can be picked up at no cost and readily discarded when encountering others that better suit one's fancy.
If one disregards my critique here, they still have to accept that the state, which monopolizes education, subsidizes media, censors dissent, and distorts incentives—is a legitimate market participant.
The "market for ideas" is NO MARKET. One does NOT buy, sell, give away, nor own an idea (they're free).
It's a metaphor, and it's false.
Or it could simply be that “libertarianism”….just like all other “isms”, doesn’t work in the extreme, or in isolation.
Resentment of information falsifies the rational agent assumptions underlying the idea of a "marketplace of ideas."
As a defender of "dogmatic" libertarianism, I must point out that (1) externalities are not the fault of markets, and (2) libertarianism is about a lot more than just touting the virtues of free markets.
Regarding the first point, an externality is simply a situation where an owner can't enforce their ownership rights to their property, making it possible for others to use that property without the owner's consent, and thus without needing to negotiate any sort of exchange in a marketplace. The very essence of ownership is the exclusive control over the use and disposition of the property by the owner.
Such a breach of ownership rights via involuntary use by non-owners obviously isn't the fault of the market; rather, it represents a fault of the legal system (typically meaning that it is the government that has failed, or has been corrupted by special interests that profit from the externality) or a fault of nature where the irreducible costs of enforcement are simply too high to justify the benefits of eliminating the externality (i.e. no social institution failed; the utopia of absolutely zero pollution and zero free riding not being an option for any social system).
Obviously, the demand for truth will be higher in cases where not knowing the truth means one might face exclusion from use of a property by its owner or face tort liability for one's breaches of the owner's rights. A system of strict tort liability punishes harms arising from ignorance as well as harms arising out of malicious intent.
Regarding the second point, libertarians frequently sing the praises of free markets because of the strident opposition to private profit-making and wealth-accumulation by their egalitarian opponents. However, free markets aren't the defining principle of libertarianism. Libertarianism is defined by the principle that it is wrong to commit acts of aggression against the lives and property of others--one ought to be at liberty to do anything that doesn't transgress against the peacefully-acquired ownership rights of others.
The exclusionary nature of private ownership empowers each individual to assert their own intellectual and moral autonomy without coming into collision with their neighbors. The freedom to engage in voluntary market exchanges are but one dimension of how we benefit from having personal autonomy without social conflict. There are of course many other benefits too.
In the case of the market for ideas, it must be noted that the great ease with which ideas can be archived and propagated, beginning with the invention of book printing in the 1400s and especially in recent decades with the invention of the Internet, means that mankind's stock of easily accessible ideas is huge and constantly growing. The supply side of the market for ideas is not a problem at all.
It might be argued that on the demand side, good ideas are being overwhelmed by low-brow entertainment and faith-mongering, but it doesn't follow from this that we must have a dictatorship of certified progressive intellectual experts lording over the uncredentialed masses. Again, we have the fallacy of trying to shift the blame for the faults of government and the faults of nature onto the exercise of liberty.
In terms of the government's culpability for promoting widespread irrationality, we must keep in mind that the very academics who tirelessly promote technocratic social engineering are very well paid by the state to ignore the limits of their own rationality and instead pontificate anyways in the interest of inculcating obedience to the state's desires. The market for ideas has been badly corrupted by massive state subsidies to the educational sector.
Another kind of state subsidy that is ruining the market for ideas is the government transfer payment. When the masses come to believe that benefit promises will secure them against every negative contingency in their lives, they stop caring so much about being rational, sociable, thrifty, prepared, etc. for preventing or mitigating such negatives themselves. People really only care about abstract truths when they are personally responsible and thus need such truths to make good decisions, not when their foolishness and their spendthrift impulses are being endlessly indulged by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The government is paying a large fraction of the population to be irresponsible (which is obviously the biggest externality of all in America), which in practice is impossible to distinguish from irrationality.
What does this actually prove? Nothing. In consulting we know there is a difference between content and presentation. Yes, the libertarian content (arguments + facts) is surely a winner if society wants freedom and prosperity. However, take a look at the general presentation of the argument - a bunch of PhD's arguing as though they are talking to PhD's. Part of the presentation function is deeply understanding one's target audience, something where libertarians often fail. Without connection to the target audience, good content fails. This is NOT a market problem, this is a presentation problem.
In a world of degraded government schools, plus an adversary (socialism/communism) that connects with their target audience, perhaps libertarians have to up their game.
Might a libertarian argue that the market of ideas is not a free one, with government-funded media, censorship, regulation, "nudging," etc.? Or, if we're arguing that this market doesn't work, in what way? That it doesn't lead to truth? If so, then the food market fails because people choose what's comfortable and do not achieve dietary health. In both cases, the "smart" consumer knows how to sift out and make good choices, yet both markets are successful in providing an overabundance of choices (including many superior ones). The food market has solved starvation (vs. planned economies that starve populations) while the ideas market has largely solved ignorance (access to information/ideas had been largely inaccessible). Yet now, within both markets respectively, one might argue that people are becoming unhealthier in many ways than just undernourished, and more ignorant in many ways.
Maybe I'm missing something in regard to just how you see the market of ideas uniquely? I largely agree that what we have is not helping most, yet I attribute this mostly to the individuals making choices and not the system per se. (The ignorance nurtured in today's education institutions I would blame on government-dominated education (yet another point on there being no free market of ideas!) Yet still, I would argue that there are also more better choices by which to educate one's children than ever. Maybe another example of a market failing or not, depending on the standard?)
I guess that's it. What is the standard of saying a market has failed or succeeded? Truth/health/well-being of consumers, or abundance?
I don't think 'Market of ideas' equates to 'free market capitalism'. The entire point of capitalism is that it allows the individual to set their own values based on productive ability, instead of some arbitrary whim of an authority. Under free markets people who hate each other, have ideas diametrically opposed, can still engage in win-win trades that leave them better off. Trade markets don't need ideological agreement to function.
The London Stock Exchange out competed many Over The Counter brokers. Lloyds of London out competed many individuals brokers. Markets, and the dense liquidity they provide, can out complete the absence of any market.
The market of ideas is the water in which we swim. It has out competed many older models. The market of ideas is winning and it is hard to imagine discourse without it. Revealed preferences speak loudly here: the market of ideas is what modern people do.
Most discourse is a combination of lies and ignorance. Where heeded, it is usually profoundly misunderstood - often deliberately. Nothing works as intended or promised - again, often deliberately on the part of either or both parties.