@ noahrevoy

As more of us step outside captured institutions and begin to build parallel systems, networks of trade, law, education, and family, we must face a truth most would rather ignore:

People do not crave freedom. They crave legitimate rule.

Freedom without form is chaos. Unbounded liberty invites disintegration.

And yet the traditional institutions, states, churches, families, have failed to govern justly. They are criminalized, parasitized, and collapsing. The bureaucratic nation-state is no longer a source of order. It is a source of predation. And in that vacuum, a new demand has surged.

A demand for rule. A demand for boundaries, clarity, reciprocal authority, and protection from a broken system that no longer safeguards the good, the innocent, or the future.

Those building Network Societies must understand: You are not just building alternatives. You are entering a market. Not just for goods, services, or media, but for governance itself.

There is a massive unmet demand. And if you do not meet it, someone else will.

Governance as a Market Good

There are many misconceptions about where governance comes from.

Some believe it begins with the state. Others with the social contract. The left claims it is built through consensus. The right often believes it arises from tradition. And there are those who believe the state arises from violence, they may be closest to the truth, but the picture is still incomplete. None of these explain why people accept rule in the first place, nor why they desire it even when it is flawed or costly.

One common error is the belief that people desire maximum freedom. Another, more plausible view, is that people want bounded freedom. But even this is incomplete. What people ultimately seek is meaning they can depend on, consequences they can predict, and a moral structure they can build within.

They do not want to drift untethered in a void of infinite choice. They want a world with form, where boundaries make sense, roles have weight, and consequences align with effort.

What they truly desire is rule that reflects their responsibilities and protects their ability to fulfill them.

This creates a universal and underappreciated demand: the demand for governance.

Just as there is a market for food, shelter, and security, there is a market for rule. People trade submission, cooperation, compliance, and trust in exchange for order, protection, and stability. Governance is not just imposed; it is purchased, voluntarily, unconsciously, and often desperately.

Projecting Libertinism

Libertines, who desire maximum autonomy and zero constraint, project their impulses onto the population at large. But most people do not want chaos. They want the burden of constant decision-making reduced. They want to avoid harm, not just physical harm, but moral and reputational hazard, existential drift, and social disintegration. Rules are not oppressive to them; they are reassuring.

What the libertine ideal refuses to admit is that it is parasitic. It cannot reproduce itself. It depends on healthy, rule-bound societies to generate the social capital, structure, and offspring it needs to survive. Once those host systems collapse, so does the libertine fantasy.

Network societies that attempt to adopt a libertine model will inherit the same sterility, fragmentation, and collapse. If your aim is to build a durable polity, you must reject the false promise of unlimited autonomy and embrace the truth: healthy governance is not the enemy of freedom. It is its prerequisite.

Rule as a Service

People want to know what to do, what’s expected, and what will happen if they comply. They do not want to reinvent reality with every decision. They want to inhabit a world where the moral and social structure is clear enough to act with confidence and build with others.

This is what rule provides: a substrate of meaning, predictability, and consequence.

And because there is always demand for rule, there will always be someone ruling. The only question is: Will they be wise or foolish? Benevolent or corrupt? Clear-minded or captured?

Freedom Is Not the Goal, Sovereignty Is

Many network societies never take root, because they aim to maximize freedom, not cultivate sovereignty. But freedom that is not bounded by duty will collapse under its own weight.

Below, we will outline the essential sequence required for any polity to form or survive:

• Agency: the development of individual capacity to carry responsibility.

• Federation: the uniting of high-agency men to accomplish what no one man can achieve alone.

• Sovereignty: the collective defense of duty against outside interference, creating the foundation for legitimate rule.

Why Men Develop Agency

From first principles, we know that life exists to persist and propagate. For men, this means securing the resources, relationships, and authority necessary to protect, provide, and lead. To fulfill these roles, men must act. They must take responsibility. They must overcome internal and external resistance.

Agency is the capacity to do so.

• Agency is the ability to choose action over passivity.

• It is the will to shape outcomes, not just endure them.

• It grows in men who accept the burden of responsibility and reject the sedation of comfort.

Men develop agency because they must. A man without agency cannot protect a woman, raise a child, or defend the good. He becomes prey. Or worse—irrelevant.

Agency is not a luxury. It is a precondition for moral adulthood.

From Agency to Federation

Once a man develops agency, he discovers its limits. There are tasks too great for one man alone. There are enemies too large, duties too heavy, consequences too far-reaching. So he seeks brothers, other men who have also chosen responsibility over freedom.

• High-agency men federate to fulfill obligations they cannot meet alone.

• Together, they strip power from outsiders who would interfere with their duties.

• They generate sovereignty through the shared will to defend what is theirs.

This is how legitimate rule begins, not from a throne or a vote, but from men who refuse to be stopped from doing what must be done.

Case Study: The Sexual Marketplace

The sexual revolution did not liberate anyone, it removed the structure that once made sex intelligible and reciprocal. It dismantled the social systems that governed courtship, fidelity, and family.

Parents, churches, extended kin networks, and the law once enforced norms that reduced chaos and protected the vulnerable. These were not arbitrary traditions, they were governance mechanisms. They ensured that sex was tied to meaning, and mating to responsibility.

Once these were removed, what replaced them was not freedom, but a deregulated market.

And like all deregulated markets, it produced predators and casualties.

• Divorce soared.

• Marriage collapsed.

• Depression, anxiety, inceldom, feminism, and sterility rose.

• Families disintegrated.

The result was not a paradise of pleasure. It was a battlefield of brokenness.

People do not want an unregulated sexual marketplace. They want rules, reciprocal rules.

• Rules that make mating, marriage, and parenting intelligible and achievable.

• Rules that reduce sexual risk and reward long-term investment.

• Rules that allow ordinary people, not just the elite, to succeed in family formation.

Sex is not exempt from governance. It is the domain most in need of it.

If your network society does not establish rule in this and other domains, it will collapse here as surely as the old world did.

The Cost of Libertinism

The cost of libertine ideology, whether in the sexual marketplace, the economic order, or the dissolution of cultural authority, is always externalized. It is never borne by the ideology’s advocates. It is absorbed by children, women, men, and the elderly. It atomizes society, collapses fertility, destroys intergenerational trust, and hollows out every domain where long-term responsibility once ruled.

In sex, it turns mating into a competitive bloodsport. In economics, it creates a class of hollow consumers and debt slaves. In culture, it erodes reverence, loyalty, and the transmission of wisdom. Only the most genetically or socially advantaged win. Everyone else suffers.

If your network society does not include rule in this domain, the same collapse will come. Sex is not exempt from governance. It is the domain most in need of it.

Restoring Reciprocity in Courtship and Family

To rebuild civilization, we must re-regulate the sexual marketplace, just as we re-regulate economies after financial crises. We must restore incentives for long-term mating, simplify expectations, and reward contribution over consumption. That means:

• Moral and legal constraints on sexual behavior

• Promotion of courtship norms and family formation

• Disincentives for single parenthood and non-reciprocal mating

• Restoration of intergenerational involvement in match-making

This is not oppression. This is civilizational maintenance. And it is in demand.

The Next Twenty Years: Collapse and Snapback

If current trends continue, delayed marriage, declining birthrates, rising male disengagement, and chronic female dissatisfaction, the sexual market will continue to fragment. We can expect:

• Widening inequality in sexual access, leading to greater violence and social alienation

• Further collapse of marriage and fertility, deepening demographic winter

• A decline in trust between sexes, increasing ideological polarization

• Institutional and cultural dysfunction from lack of family formation and civic stability

This trajectory will only reverse when the cost of libertinism becomes unbearable. As with every failed market, collapse precedes reform. When loneliness, sterility, and disintegration reach peak pain, society will snap back.

Network societies that endure will be those that anticipate this reversal, and build for what comes after collapse.

The Snapback: A Regulated Future

Some of what follows may seem impossible to imagine now, because you are judging possibility through the lens of current incentives. But incentives change. And when they do, so does what is possible, what is probable, and what, in hindsight, was inevitable.

This corrective phase may include:

• Cultural glorification of family, motherhood, fatherhood, and legacy

• Legal structures favoring early marriage, long-term commitment, and paternity assurance

• Technological and institutional match-making with community or parental validation

• Harsh disincentives for promiscuity, adultery, and abandonment

• Integration of religious or pseudo-religious moral systems to stabilize social roles

In essence, the pendulum will swing back toward constraint. Not out of nostalgia, but necessity.

The family will be re-centered, not as a preference, but as a precondition of survival.

And civilization will either enforce this change, or cease to exist.

Conclusion: Rule or Be Ruled

There is a massive, unmet market demand for governance, not only in economics or law, but in mating, marriage, culture, and meaning. People want to be ruled, but justly, predictably, and reciprocally. The failure to meet that demand has produced civilizational decay.

Meeting it is the key to renewal.

To those building network societies: do not chase freedom. Build rule. Build legitimacy. Build trust. And in doing so, you will become sovereign.

If this message resonates with you, and you understand that reform doesn’t come from complaint but from construction, reach out. I’m assembling a cadre of capable young men ready to work, learn, and lead.

This is not coaching. This is not a sales pitch. This is not a cult. It’s a startup for civilizational restoration. I’m offering mentorship, training, and a place in something real. In return, I require reciprocity: your time, effort, and loyalty to the mission.

You will receive help getting your own life in order. You will be given meaningful tasks. And you will be expected to contribute to a team dedicated to building what must replace the collapsing world around us.

If you're ready to put your shoulder to the wheel, if you understand that leadership is not a title but a function, then reach out. Let's begin building the institutional scaffolding for the next era, together.