New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Proposal for a Revised Statement # 3 re Human Self-Government


Current Statement # 3.

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Revised Statement # 3

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Reason

I have defended existing Statement # 3 from the Challenge by Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15). Bob Armstrong submitted the Defence (Post # 129 - 23/7/31)

However, the Challenge, on further thought, does point to the fact that the Statement # 3 is poorly worded.

Thus I am proposing a revised Statement # 3.

Processing

If the revised Statement # 3 is not challenged within one week, under our protocol it will join the other "generally accepted" Statements.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement # 3.

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Challenge - Fred Henderson - Post # 109 - 23/7/15:

“your revision of my statement I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.”

Defence - Bob Armstrong - Post # 129 - 23/7/31

I agree with Fred that Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Processing

There is one week for CT'ers to supplement Fred's challenge. It runs from the date of the defence (23/7/31). Of course, other CT'ers can also come to the defence of the Statement # 3.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Challenge - Fred Henderson - Post # 109 - 23/7/15:

“I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.”

Defence – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“Fred has somewhat misread the Statement. The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

So I agree with Fred's general sentiment that people, in a democracy, people "vote for the part of their choice". The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). I disagree with the part of Fred's comment: "They vote......not government structure". In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Conclusion

During one week, not one CT'er has come forward to supplement the Challenge. Thus, according to our protocol, Statement # 2 again joins the "Generally Accepted" Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Lastly, it is my belief that there is a third force involved in this.........see the USA Congress Hearing on UAP's on Wed., July 26, 2023. It is this force (I call it "The Higher Authority") that sees itself as the benefactors of humanity..........but they want absolute domination to "benefit mankind" (It may well be that the CCP, as well, truly believes that world implementation of its views will "benefit" humanity - there is nothing worse than well-meaning zealots").

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

What you are describing in inherent in all governments (except the Libertarian system).
Attn. Bob G: This is why government laws are inherently bad, and the only law we need is the 'Natural Law'...

[Bob Armstrong]

The CCP is only one force seeking world domination. It is making progress on this front, particularly with its Belt and Road Program, by which donees become indebted forever to PRC for their assistance (Bilateral Strategy).

But it is not clear to me that WEF is clearly under "ONLY" the influence of the CCP (Though it appears CCP does have some influence).

Do not underestimate the power of the "World Oligarchs". This covert "cabal" works in league with each other (And has some public and some covert organizations through which they do this). They have significant influence on the program being proposed by the WEF. It is somewhat paradoxical that they are working with Collectivists to achieve their final agenda (Which is more than that put forward in the WEF).

Lastly, it is my belief that there is a third force involved in this.........see the USA Congress Hearing on UAP's on Wed., July 26, 2023. It is this force (I call it "The Higher Authority") that sees itself as the benefactors of humanity..........but they want absolute domination to "benefit mankind" (It may well be that the CCP, as well, truly believes that world implementation of its views will "benefit" humanity - there is nothing worse than well-meaning zealots").

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Sid Belzberg]

What is the Hidden Agenda??

Video -

(Posted by Sid Belzberg in another CT Non-Chess Thread)

What do CT'ers think of this video's analysis of life on Earth?

In my view,for one, the conclusion that the covert power at work, and on a mission, seeks to establish world domination by implementing Old-style USSR Communism is wrong.

It seeks to establish, I fear, a Beneficent Dictatorship.

What do CT'ers think of my comment?

Note: Original link was an error; now correct link.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Thanks Bob

Beneficent Dictatorship

Clarification?
If I am not mistaken you misspelled benevolent substituting the word beneficent but it does not matter. you are saying that this dictatorship is doing
this for the good of the population. Given that the CCP controls the WEF and that the WEF has infiltrated governmemts world wide by Klaus Schwabs own admission you are suggesting that the CCP is a dictatorship that does things for the good of the population? If you disagree with CCP control are you suggesting that the WEF/UN (they created the ESG and Agenda 2030 together and worked with the WHO on pandemic policies are you suggesting that all of this is done for the good of world wide populations?

[Bob Armstrong]

What is the Hidden Agenda??

Video -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZFQLdeRzg
(Posted by Sid Belzberg in another CT Non-Chess Thread)

What do CT'ers think of this video's analysis of life on Earth?

In my view,for one, the conclusion that the covert power at work, and on a mission, seeks to establish world domination by implementing Old-style USSR Communism is wrong.

It seeks to establish, I fear, a Beneficent Dictatorship.

What do CT'ers think of my comment?

Note: Original link was an error; now correct link.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

New World Order (NWO – Label of the Left)/The Great Reset (GR - Label of the Right)

(Started: 22/12/5)




Overview & Update

1. Statistics


Week # 1 (23/7/17 – 23/7/23: 7 days)

(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2023 Average..........................................................2023 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(1wk.)............Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (1 wk.).

…9.....................Not recorded...........9..........................1................Not recorded............1.........

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

We have started keeping statistics again since this thread has somewhat come back to life, with the creation of Commonly Accepted Statements.

The stats do confirm that we have a smallcore group of CT'ers following this thread......and it has grown every day this last week!

Toss in a post when you see one. The topic of human governance is one of the most important in our human future! Do you want a global autocratic totalitarian government?

2. NWO/GR Thread “Responses”

There are some new articles out there from time to time on NWO/GR. The articles come in different forms: on globalization on many fronts, world free-trade, and higher governments stomping on the wishes of the local residents, and their local governments, etc..

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the NWO/GR posts of interest they see elsewhere.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.

2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is going to be necessary that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

3. The Anti-NWO/GR Position

The Time Line

There is much disagreement whether the New World Order project actually exists. There are those who simply relegate it to the realm of “conspiracy theories, such as QAnon.

But there are others, including myself, who assert that already a covert group of much influence is directing government law and policy, in nations across the globe, and incrementally implementing the pieces of an eventual one-world government. We fear this centralization is not good in the long run.

4. A Proposal (Possible; not Utopian)

1. Nations dissolve themselves, and, in the process, devolve power down to Local Political Units (LPU's).
2. Eventually the world will become a “collection of villages”.
3. The goal is to significantly lessen the power of all governments, so as to make any geopolitical conflicts less dangerous for the globe as a whole.
4. It will not get rid of corruption, abuse of power, or tin-pot dictators.......but will limit the damage they can do.

We invite CT'ers to consider this position and to post here, their thoughts on it.

5. The “Conversation Format” Protocol
In discussing items in this thread, we use the "Conversation Format" protocol. It operates on three main principles:

1. If there is no proposed revision of a Statement put forward as a "Commonly-Held" Statement, nor objection, within one week, then the Statement is considered "commonly-accepted" (This follows the Quebec parliamentary procedure: No objection to a motion put, then no discussion or voting necessary - motion is considered passed by a majority, at least).

2. If the Statement is challenged, with reasons, then the proposer, and any others supporting the Statement must raise a defense, with reasons. Of course, it is also open to those supporting the challenge to comment.

3.The goal is not "unanimity", though that would be nice. The goal is "majority" acceptance of a Statement; this gives it the status of "commonly-held".

6. Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“I was not referring to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Challenge - Fred Henderson - Post # 109 - 23/7/15:

“I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.”

Defence – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“Fred has somewhat misread the Statement. The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

So I agree with Fred's general sentiment that people, in a democracy, people "vote for the part of their choice". The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). I disagree with the part of Fred's comment: "They vote......not government structure". In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Current Status of Challenge – in the one-week processing period.

Statement # 3.

Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15):

“your revision of my statement I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.”

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Challenge Period – the deadline for discussion of a Challenge will normally be one week after there is the first Defense of the Challenge. If there are no challenges, then the motion is “generally accepted” after one week.

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (Anti-NWO/GR)

Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15):

“I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.”

Defence - Bob Armstrong (Post # 122 - 23/7/24):

Fred has somewhat misread the Statement. The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

So I agree with Fred's general sentiment that people, in a democracy, people "vote for the part of their choice". The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). I disagree with the part of Fred's comment: "They vote......not government structure". In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.

Challenge Processing Period

The deadline for further supplements to the Challenge, Further Challenges, and defences re this Statement # 2 is 23/7/31 (One week from the Defence to the original Challenge)

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (Anti-NWO/GR)

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15):

“I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example.”

Defence – Bob Armstrong (Post # 117 – 23/7/21):

“I was not referring to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times. So Fred's challenge may more properly be part of his challenge content aimed at Statement # 2.”

Current Status

Fred's Post # 109 has now gone through our week-long processing procedure.
There has not been any CT'er comment to support the challenge during more than one week.

Conclusion

Statement # 1 is "generally accepted".

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re Human Self-Governance (Anti-NWO/GR)

[Note: format slightly edited]

Update

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): “I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example.”

Defence – Bob Armstrong (Post # 117 – 23/7/21): “I was not referring to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times. So Fred's challenge may more properly be part of his challenge content aimed at Statement # 2.”

Current Status - in the week-long processing procedure

Statement # 2. Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): “I reject statement 2 also. What do you mean "" ...democratically accepted the government structure imposed (there's that word again) AT THAT TIME. People vote for the part of their choice in Canada, Left right or centrist. They vote to register ther opinions about economic and social policy, not government structure.”

Statement # 3. Democratic societies have adopted "Rule by the Majority".

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): “your revision of my statement I reject also. A democracy does not adopt "rule by majority". A democracy "MEANS" rule by a majority. If you say otherwise, then explain why. You can't just reject it out of hand, unless maybe you think you are talking to the psycophants and sheep who form the vast majority of your Marxist-Leninist club on Facebook. (I would say "forumn", but nobody there speaks up, they are quite happy to be spoon-=fed, it would seem.”

Statement # 4. People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15) - “... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5. People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15): “...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to.agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): "[I] Reject statement 5 also. People do not have the right to join hands to govern themselves. Not in a democracy."

Defence - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15): "...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get..."

Conclusion

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

In this case, Fred's Challenge has not been supported since Sat., July 15 (One week).

So Statement # 5 has been considered "generally accepted" by the CT'ers in this thread and can remain in the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 4. People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson (Post # 109 - 23/7/15): "I reject statement 4 also. The so called "tyranny of the majority" is just more left wing hype and drivel. "Tyranny is pure hyperbole. Way over the top, and no-one out there is the real world will take you seriously if you try to feed them this kind of whitewash."

Defence - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15) - "even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today..."

Conclusion

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

In this case, Fred's Challenge has not been supported since Sat., July 15 (One week).

So Statement # 4 has been considered "generally accepted" by the CT'ers in this thread and can remain in the list.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Commonly Accepted Statements re NWO/GR

Statement # 1. World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Challenge - Fred Henderson - Post # 109 - 23/7/15: "I reject statement #1. Same old story. Typical left wing propaganda. Are you saying that in a democracy, it is possible for a minority to impose their will on a majority? Not possible. If you say it is possible, then explain how, and give an example."

Defence - Bob Armstrong - I was not referring to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times. So Fred's challenge may more properly be part of his challenge content aimed at Statement # 2.

Processing Protocol

Under "The Conversation Format" protocol we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

We will revisit this in one week to see what activity there has been re Statement # 1.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

I will try for one.......

Libertarians believe not only in small government (The Conservative Position), but in almost no government or regulation. As I understand it, Libertarianism believes highly in the ethical standards of nearly all humans, and that normally they will do the "correct" thing. Thus Libertarianism promotes self-regulation among sectors (Such as the grocery industry), and no regulating where not necessary.

This is a mischaracterization of human nature. Humans (Combination of Spirit and Avatar) have both a "light side" and a "dark side". When born, we lean towards the light, like plants (flowers). But trauma, especially injustice from other humans, turns us to be more self-interested (Which in some ways is necessary) and to embrace our dark side (Impervious to causing pain to others, and in extreme cases, relishing it). Because of this, regulation is always necessary in human civilization. In self-regulation, there is always a conflict of interest - the correct vs profit.

I will provide examples that big corporations cannot be trusted:


Bob: "We generally like to believe that corporations will make profit, that they will do so legally, and that in the process, they will not gouge the consumer."

NOT:


1. Financing - USA - Bank of America - https://apnews.com/article/bank-amer...JBDJlrgOr1792U

2. Grocery Industry - Canada - https://www.theepochtimes.com/costs-...eZfeoYUaqJ_ydo

3. Grocery Industry - Grupo Bimbo - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...2aJAobID0VF358

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Hi Bob A. and Bob G.,

Thanks for articulating what you think. Unfortunately, you fail to realize that in a Libertarian society, everyone is regulated by the only essential regulation: thou shalt not unfairly harm others... and the limited resources of society are all geared to an effective judicial system which ensures that, rather than waste society's resources in making and enforcing a myriad laws, none of which can be fair to everyone, and as you point out, trauma from these inherently unjust (for some) laws turns many people to their dark side. If there is a system which flagrantly mischaracterizes human nature, it is Marxism, because it deprives individuals of their desire to act in self-interest (and nothing wrong with acting in self-interest so long as you do not harm others doing that, other than beating them in fair competition, like in a game of chess... and losing in a competition does not bring out your dark side as much as unfairness does, and as I said, each of the myriad unnecessary laws in a non-libertarian society is inherently unfair to some).

And what makes you think that 'correct' and 'profit' are mutually exclusive? In fact, businesses which have fair prices are the businesses which end up making the biggest profits... simple school of business theory... and those businesses which try to collude in order to gouge, will always be outdone by other smart businesses which refuse to participate in the collusion... and in Libertarianism there are always many many more businesses active (in order for at least some being there to act smartly) than in our current corrupt system, in which only a few 'government favorites' turn into giant entities, while several others cannot compete because of regulations created for and by these giant entities in collusion with the unnecessarily powerful politicians and bureaucrats...

Let me know if the above fails to convince you that Marxism is incompatible with human nature, while Libertarianism is perfectly matched to it...
and if you cannot see the plain truth that Marxism makes people busy in trying to snatch a bigger piece of a limited common pie, while Libertarianism encourages people to bake a bigger pie, which, being social animals, they could willingly share with others they admire for goodness...