The difference between marketing & arguments

How to recognize what you can safely ignore

I’ll believe in systemic racism when someone suggests the solution is stripping the system of its power to discriminate, but - risibly - the “solution” to systemic racism is always to give even more power to the system. Honestly, does that make any sense at all? If you believe in social justice, you should be the most radical Libertarian who ever lived; instead, they’re all zealous advocates of BIGGER government because we’re supposed to believe that they think a horribly racist government is the solution to the problems created or exacerbated by a horribly racist government? What?

And that illustrates the difference between marketing and arguments. Marketing is whatever the marketer thinks will get you to do whatever it is he or she wants; it doesn’t have to make sense; it doesn’t have to be consistent with the marketer’s other claims; it doesn’t have to be true - it merely has to be persuasive.

In contrast, arguments must be consistent, logical and - often - inconvenient for their proponent. If I’m arguing X and you identify an contradiction between X and my previous claim or some undisputed or indisputable fact, then I have a problem, and I will react accordingly (explaining away the problem or changing my position). If I’m marketing, I won’t react - marketing doesn’t care about the facts or consistency.

When I catch a lawyer in a contradiction, I expect the lawyer to merely shift their rationales for the same conclusion; I don’t expect them to give up because I know they’re merely marketing, representing their client’s interests regardless of the truth or even what they consider true. A good attorney will argue for the client’s acquittal despite everything and anything, outright lying being the only limitation (a limitation often ignored by liberals when “arguing.”)

So, folks, when someone who advocates big government tells you that big government solves COVID, or Climate Change, or Systemic Racism, know that they couldn’t care less about the accuracy of that claim. They want bigger government, and they’re testing ideas to see if you’ll come along for the ride. Anything to make the sale.

The wisest statement ever made about government is that governments don’t collect taxes to provide services, they provide services so they can collect taxes. Their thieves asking you what share of the loot you’ll require to submit to their thievery. They’d as happily kill small children as “educate” them if that’s what taxpayers demanded to submit to taxation.

Look, any rational person would have said, “We don’t know what to do about COVID, so we should let everyone try their own thing - that way, we’ll discover what works & if we make a mistake, it won't affect everyone.” But NOBODY did that. Why? Because they just wanted more government and COVID was a popular excuse for more government.

Likewise, any rational person would have said, “The Fed isn’t doing a good job; let markets decide interest rates.” Again, nobody did that because they just wanted to Fed to run more of the economy and our woes were a popular excuse for more Fed.

I could go on, but the point is clear: we are reversing cause and effect in our discussions. The fans of big government want to do something and that causes these crises and policy errors. None of our leaders is the least bit upset by the prospect of widespread death from vaccines or lockdowns, nor do they care about inflation and its impact on citizens - they just want MORE power, and they’ll say or do anything to get it.

Long and short, whenever anyone tells you that they have a “solution” to some crisis, you should regard them with the same distrust that you’d have for a used car salesman who tells you they have the “perfect” car for you. Actually, car salesmen are more likely to be honest than government, which is uniquely attractive to psychopaths and sociopaths precisely because the prospect of killing people is inherent to the enterprise.

Remember they’re in government because they want power; they get power from your suffering, so why would they minimize your suffering? They’re only goal is to give you just enough that you’ll submit, and that - dear friends - is no friend or savior. A perfect socialist government would give everyone just enough that they don’t rebel because a perfect socialist government still has to conserve resources…is that what you want? Just enough so that you don’t rebel? Some Utopia.

In stark contrast, markets want to give you as much as possible because every EXTRA thing they give you is the margin that makes you choose them over their competitors. Granted, they can’t give you everything either (scarcity still exists), but they’re always trying to give you MORE. Isn’t that a better way to live?