The “marketplace of ideas.” The internet may have brought us this ideal. Many thinkers envisaged that the right answers - the wisdom - would rise out of the cacophony of voices in this marketplace. Nothing is to be censored, else we may risk silencing the truth. Even the most controversial voices need to be heard, no matter how loud they get or how distressing and painful their messages. Why? Firstly, we may never recognize the truth without first hearing the opposite. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the truth often lays in the cries of the unpopular.

It is my impression that The New Wisdom was intended to be something like a marketplace of ideas. How far will this marketplace be tested? That remains to be seen. Surely there will be intelligent perspectives and critical thinking from unique individuals. But this is expected. The contributors are a group of the young, the aspiring, and the educated. And critical thinking is like breathing these days. Our brains, our common sense and logic, are constantly gasping for understanding amongst the contradictions, irrationalities, and lies that keep popping up every day. But I ask again: how far will we take this critical sojourn? The only obstacle is our own irrational attachments to beliefs, our self-imposed ignorance, and our laziness. And though I use the term “irrational,” it may very well be rational to avoid venturing deeply into the depravities of the world or into the comfortable presumptions we have of ourselves. But this is what we so often do, and besides, we would never know the virtues of ignorance without the burden of knowledge. Is it that we enjoy the exploration? Maybe we just can’t help it.

As a law student, I am learning a trade that rewards those who can most effectively analyze facts, law, and objective principles. Sometimes novel legal arguments are rewarded. Generally they are not. Creativity usually comes in other areas of representation, such as counseling, negotiating, and brainstorming alternative solutions to disputes. But the law is the law is the law. There is very little wiggle room.

The law is the end-product of this marketplace of ideas. By its very nature the law is meant to be applied rigidly, with some exceptions. The soundness of a written law should already have been debated. Ideally, it is the people as a whole who debate and decide what is right and wrong in human relations, and the law should be the ultimate manifestation. The lawyer is but an enforcer, an interpreter, a drafter of this collective will, of the dictates of the marketplace’s victors. Conversely, the lawyer is also the defender who tries to mold these dictates in ways that benefit those who allegedly go afoul of this collective will. Both sides must deal with the law they are given.

But there is hope. When we share our ideas, we add to the cacophony of voices in the marketplace, and perhaps influence the law so produced. Since I am not satisfied with the present state of the law, as both a citizen and as an aspiring attorney, I will keep talking and see to it that my voice is not drowned out. I invite everyone else to do the same.