Hear me out and think past the Deep State’s indoctrination. Q has mentioned several times that changes would be made to prevent all this from ever happening again. He mentioned independent auditors. How well did the independent “auditors”/watchers work in preventing/exposing the election counting? In order to prevent evildoers from having monopoly power over us, we need to remove their primary weapon, which is government, and replace it with a true Free Market. Liberty and Freedom.
Government is monopoly power, with unlimited funding via theft/enslavement, that forces socialized monopoly services on us. It’s a lot easier for the evildoers to gain control of a singular monopoly power wield it against us than to gain control of dozens or hundreds of privatized companies providing those same services in a Free Market.
Who here supports socialism, even for courts, security, roads, etc? How’s the horrible quality and lack of accountability in those devices working out for us? What about the Constitution, which either enabled the evildoers to gain monopoly power over us, or was too weak to prevent it?
All services can alternatively be provided by multiple competing private companies in a free market. Competition generates better quality, better prices, more innovation, and accountability.
We’ve proven we can’t keep the Republic. The falsely perceived authority of Government is derived from “the consent of the governed”, but at any given time it is obvious that the majority of us don’t fully consent to it. We need a true free society with a real free market, where everyone votes with their dollars and is their own ruler, and is forced to be responsible individuals if they don’t want to have to live on charity for life.
Aaaand pure free market becomes stifling monopoly. You need some rules to bind the freedom, or else you get anarchy. The constitution didn't fail, WE failed, due to the natural entropy that afflicts civilization.
Just to add on to that, anarchy itself isn't the problem - the problem is that anarchy is unsustainable; it's a power vacuum. Inevitably, the people with the most drive or greatest means will seize power; coincidentally, those people tend to be the ones most hellbent on absolute authority.
It’s not a power vacuum because each individual is their own master, with full control of their own money either to buy their own guns, subscribe to the security firm of their choice, or start a new one.
There’s no monopoly force that is stealing/taxing money from everyone to fund the evildoers, as there is with government. Your fear is that anarchy MIGHT become what we currently have? That’s not a very good argument in favor of what we have.
A free market would not be a utopia, but at least it would be a society that doesn’t embrace a monopoly power that inherently violates our rights in order to exist. Our individual rights are paramount, and government by definition violates those rights, while it indoctrinated its subjects to believe it is protecting them.
What happens if 50% of the population is bought off? Or even 10%? What if that 10-50% decide they want to impose their will upon others?
The current system has not failed us in our socialized departments. That isn't to say they're good, but their failures are not their own problem. The single greatest problem we have currently, I believe, is that our so called "elected" officials likely haven't actually been elected for a long time. There are three major groups to blame for this, but the outcome is that tax money just simply doesn't go to what it is supposed to be allocated for. A road is only as good as its funding. If the Plan works as is said to, we cleanse the corruption with one fell swoop, leaving the people to truly elect their leadership. From there, we will probably see many regions prosper and flourish with golden ages, because the people will once more be in control and will be acting and electing in their own interests. Money will once again go to roads and public services, problems that have been encouraged by the DS will be fought. The simple fact is that the practical cost of many of these programs that we have is astronomically smaller than the money supposedly going to it; this is true in virtually all facets of government, including the military. With the amount of money already lost in corruption, we could feasibly provide the entire population with good medical care, good infrastructure, and other services (to clarify, I am not saying we should, I'm just trying to make a point to emphasize the extent to which money is simply "wasted" [or rather, embezzled out] in the system as it stands right now). Location by location will be able to chose that fate - some may chose to provide those services, whilst others may chose to dramatically cut taxation and allow people to do with their money as they will.
The question then becomes one of maintaining such prosperity. To approach that, one must truly understand how we got here first.
1.) Corruption of the media - How can one hold their public officials accountable for crimes if the media never reports them, or directly covers them up?
2.) Corruption of government - When politicians are capable of making money through sketchy at best means, illicit at worst, there is no reason for them not to, except perhaps ethics. Some argue that the blame lies on our laws that allow corporations to provide politicians financial contributions to their campaigns. Realistically, that would happen regardless of legality, at least as our accountability systems sit currently (and with the media being as it is, compounded).
3.) Centralization of government - when a lawmaker sitting in DC can decide what you have for breakfast in Wyoming, that's a huge problem. Think of Catholics as you will, but the core principle (as per Catechism) of subsidiarity gets things pretty much correct.
4.) Monopolization - Often, our monopolies have been aided in their formation by our government. That said, most of them likely would have formed regardless, because the simple fact of the matter is that more profit can be made without competition. Such a competitionless state can be brought about two very natural ways - collusion, or absolute destruction of the competition. Both have happened, and both will continue to happen under a totally free market system.
5.) Complacency of the people - Pretty self explanatory. If people were always vigilant, principled, and willing to take action on those principles, such as exposing media bias or voter fraud sooner, we would not be in this mess. We cannot fully place blame on the corrupt people for this; doing so would lead to repetition of the exact same problems in the future.
What is the keystone to all of this? The people. If the people acted to verify the claims of the media, vote in the correct politicians, and secure and protect the integrity of the vote, we wouldn't be in this mess. So, how do you keep the population from growing complacent? Populational programming. The Q program has trained all of us to question things we never would have thought to; to look deeper, investigate, and make rational, informed decisions. The establishment attempts to do the opposite; they feed the people the same narrative, programming them into predictable drones that follow and obey them perfectly.
Our system isn't irreparably flawed by any means. We have NOT proven we cannot keep a Republic. If the plan is a success, the MOST important thing of all is that those of us equipped and motivated to should seek to program or train others to possess the same kind of critical thinking and motivation we do. From there, it is our duty to maintain vigilance and skepticism, and to pass these values on to our children. "Si vis pacem, para bellum", and with it, Eternal Vigilance".
Think about what you’re saying. How much harder would it be to buy off 10 to 50% of the population in a Free Market than to buy off 1000 politicians in monopoly government? And even if you did buy off the 10-50%, the rest of society would be structured to legally oppose/compete with it, as opposed to in a government where they’d be seen as traitors, and have to deal with the monopoly police/courts.
In a free market, the corrupt, wasteful middlemen are eliminated, we directly subscribe to the road/security companies just like a Netflix subscription and there’s no politician taking a cut.
I pressed Save too soon...
The free market is the key to population programming. A government is perceived as the supreme authority and will always have the most influence in population programming, and government will never give the people the education they need to free themselves. It should be abundantly clear that trying to vote for the right politicians hasn’t worked at all despite everyone’s best efforts for over 100 years. And we know how fast people forget even recent history.
I reckon it'd be way easier to buy off 10-50% of the population; a lot cheaper than buying out companies.
What makes you think there would be any (enforceable) laws without government? "legally oppose/compete with it"? What happens when that 10-50% says "F your legal challenges, we're doing this whether you like it or not" and just takes control via force? Before you go and say "well the remaining percent can just work together and fight them off" you should realize that any physical warfare relies on two primary things: 1.) communication/coordination, 2.) training. A standing pre-existing federated army will have communication, coordination, and training together. A bunch of independent folk that decide to ban together to fight that will have none of that, and that's assuming they all were to decide to act together or at the same time. They would get curbstomped into submission, simple.
Let me ask you a question about your road example. How many different companies can feasibly have road networks that connect enough of the country? With such a natural limit on competition, what's to stop said road companies from monopolizing or refusing service to those against them, just like we're seeing in Big Tech right now?
"This won't go away unless government goes away." is incorrect. This won't go away until free will goes away, period. I, for one, do not particularly want to lose free will. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance; I for one am willing to pay that price.
You want proof of that? Look at the course of human history. When has a society not developed some kind of government (proportional in scale to their society)? Short and long answer, none. Any that may have get conquered off faster than you can blink. History has tested anarcho government, and deemed it unsustainable.
"Monopolies in a free market won’t be monopolies for long if they don’t provide a good enough service. If they over-charge, there will be new startups. That’s inevitable." This is false. Before going on to make an argument to prove this you may just not listen to, let me take the Socratic approach:
What makes a monopoly powerful?
You’re in a circular argument and are favoring the worst option. Option 1: Government - inherently violates our rights; monopoly power wielded by highest bidder Option 2: Free Market - MIGHT, one day, eventually turn into government
“We need to choose Option 1!” Doesn’t make any sense.
Do you seriously think every current and former military service member in this country could be bought off enough to turn against their own people?
Laws will be enforced in a free market because the majority of people want protection from rape, murder, theft, various other property rights violations. What will be missing is the 99% of current politician laws that violate our rights and rig things in favor of their highest bidders.
There was a region of Ireland that was free and lasted for 400 years. Far longer than most governments.
Various road owners will have a common interest in connecting their roads so they will be useful. Many private businesses that rely on those roads will have an interest too so customers can reach their business. Amazing that somehow businesses are able to have parking lots even though the government didn’t build them for them. Sometimes multiple business owners, even competitors, share connected parking lots.
What makes a monopoly powerful is the protection government provides to prevent the monopoly from having competition. In a free market, a monopoly service can only sustain itself as a monopoly by maintaining the continued support of its customers. Without that, it would go the way of MySpace. If only MySpace would have hired an army and bought the whole internet and forced everyone to still only use MySpace though...
You reject the Free Market because it MIGHT become what we have today? No, in a free market, there won’t be laws rigged to favor one company or industry or technology over another. If a monopoly formed on a service in the Free Market, it would be because its service was such high quality, it was warranted. But the right for competitors to be created (a new Parler or Gab) would always be there.
A free market would still have rules. The word “anarchy” literally means “without rulers”. It does not mean without rules, and does not mean “chaos”, as your government indoctrination would say. There will always be societal rules, and there would be contracts in a free market.
The natural entropy thing is a lie. That cycle is directly caused by the error of government.
I reject unchecked markets. Even Adam Smith gave reasons for tariffs (national security and development of homeland skills, for instance).
I suggest you read more history. Every single society seems to go through phases, and we were in decline for so long we're at a "crisis point" now. Whether we survive and move forward, or descend into chaos is not yet written.
There aren’t many instances in history where they intentionally imposed a true free market. There was a region of Ireland that did successfully for 400 years though. Other societies always end up replacing their failed government with a new form of it.
The Free Market would not be “unchecked”. It is inherently self-regulating, because people have an interest in spending their hard earned money only on the providers that are confirmed to provide the best value/quality, etc. Compare that to a forced monopoly that has the illusion of regulations, which are merely laws written by the highest bidders to favor their chosen companies technologies or industries as the winners.
That kind of anarchistic self governing doesn't work in the global world. At least, not in a post-ICBM nuclear world.
We do need a government, but we need checks and balances added to ensure that this doesn't continue happening.
Paper ballots, inalienable rights to poll watch, Congressional term limits of two terms, the separation of state elections vs federal elections -- e.g. the Presidential ballot must be separate and held to separate standards from the House or Senate ballots, and must be federally prosecutable.
We also need stricter 230-type laws that specifically hold a small business (certain number of users) to more leniance than megacorps (higher than previous number of users).
Additionally, we need to reinforce the first and second amendments. No cancel culture, no gun laws that override an individual's ability to own firearms.
We need to ensure a stronger castle doctrine. If someone invades your house and stabs themselves on accident, they shouldn't be able to sue you and you should be able to use any lethal force required to force someone to leave your home if they break in.
There's a major list of other things, but federal government is still important. It just needs to be reiterated that they serve the people in their jurisdictions, not vice versa.
It most definitely can work in a post ICBM world. For one, with no globalist cabal ruling our monopoly power, we won’t be making enemies with others or initiating wars of aggression against them anymore.
The free market would be fully capable of building weapons to defend against nuclear weapons.
The space industry is already dominated by the private sector with SpaceX. They could dominate the space military too.
“Reiterating” to the Globalist Cabal that we don’t want to be ruled by them hasn’t and will not work. They don’t care.
If you think we won't make enemies with others then you are naive.
First, what do you think happens with the enemies we already have? They don't just disappear.
The fact of the matter is, the federal government was created as a centralized leadership for a reason -- organization.
We may still have enemies but they likely won’t be enemies due to our actions. If we did have someone stupid enough to try to come attack us, we could still deal with it. Multiple private defense firms could surely still cooperate and coordinate with each other on a large scale just like our current different branches of military can, and just like our 18 intelligence agencies, and just like all the NATO allied countries could in a war.
Central leadership is the problem. Monopolized military makes it easier for enemy infiltrators to control it.
And do you seriously think the government is better at organization than free market innovation would be?
Corporations are a government entity, which grants rights to an unaccountable fictitious person. They would not exist in a free market. There would simply be property rights, and a business owner is simply a property owner. That owner will be accountable.
Leftists certainly don’t want anyone to believe that freedom is worthwhile. If people can’t be trusted with freedom, then why the hell would any rational thinking person believe we can trust them with power?
Failed cause it depends on a morally sound people which we have lost
A free market allows for more efficient compensation/correction of that fact because it gives everyone numerous alternatives. Multiple ships with multiple lifeboats instead of one monopoly sinking ship.
What about the military?
We’d still have national defense. There would be multiple privatized firms providing it, and would be funded by subscribers of those firms who purchase their insurance policies for protection and for dispute resolution.
No more unjust wars that we are forced to pay for with our stolen money. No more deep state making enemies for their own globalist agenda and profit, because we could all unsubscribe from rogue companies and let them whither away.
Most people reactively would reject this idea because they haven’t spent the time to critically think about how it would work. It would work though, if you think about it. People wrongly believe that certain essential services wouldn’t exist without a forced government socialized monopoly, or that it’s at least more efficient or better as a government socialized service. You’re wrong, and there’s simple explanations as to why.
No amount of communism/socialism is good, especially for our most critical services such as policing/security/justice that “conservatives” support, and certainly not for education, housing, healthcare, and food, as the worse leftists support.
We'd reject it because you haven't thought it out.
You act like the free market would just build defenses for our country. Who pays them? What interest is there to doing that? What stops countries from giving them more money via their governments?
It falls apart instantly from there.
I touched on this in other replies already, and this has already been thought out extensively by people like me and many a lot smarter than me who wrote books on it.
Anywhere there’s a demand for a service (such as security) the market will provide it, the people who demand it will voluntarily pay for it. It would likely be structured like this:
There would be large competing businesses called Dispute Resolution Organizations (DRO’s), which would sell insurance policies and security to their subscribers against various disputes such as civil lawsuit defense, car wrecks, theft, assault, and attack from foreign nations, etc. In their interest to prevent you or your property from being harmed, and them having to pay out on your claim, they’d provide security forces to prevent it as much as possible.
It would basically be like multiple competing mini-governments overlapping each other, and when a dispute arises between subscribers from 2 different DRO’s, they would hire a reputable 3rd party arbitration firm to settle it.
If a foreign country attacks, then obviously all the DRO’s would organize together to defend us, just like our current multiple branches of military and foreign allies would band together.
Also, good luck finding a foreign country willing to buy off the entire military of our nation, and having enough real money to do it in the first place. Wouldn’t seem like a good investment on their part. But it’s a lot harder for them to buy off dozens of firms than to buy control of one monopoly.
I agree that Q team will win. I just don’t trust that their solutions will be good enough to prevent an evil deep state from rising again.
When you have a cancerous tumor, you remove the whole thing or else it grows back. You don’t just remove 90% of it.
Ancap?
Dumb.
Freedom and liberty aren’t dumb.