Ordered pairs on a grid picture

I’m M (31) and my girlfriend of 2 years is F (29). We are in a long distance relationship and we want to take the next step and move in together. I currently have a 1 BR apartment through a friend of mine and pay very cheap rent. I’m a partner in a growing business and do not want to move out because of the deal that I have on rent. I know I’m going to be a lot better off in another year or two and need a bit more time to invest in my business. Both our incomes are comparable, I make around 25% more than her but I have student loans to pay and that’s the main reason I want to stay where I’m at. She said it’s absolutely out of the question to split rent 50/50 and just because I’m the male in the relationship I should be paying more plain and simple. Am I selfish for wanting to invest in my business in order to give us a better life down the road ? For me it’s about the bigger picture and for her she does not want to move back to a smaller place and downgrade living. Feel as if I’m in a tough spot and need some opinions. Thank you for the advice
TL;DR; Am I being selfish?

I’m M (31) and my girlfriend of 2 years is F (29). We are in a long distance relationship and we want to take the next step and move in together. I currently have a 1 BR apartment through a friend of mine and pay very cheap rent. I’m a partner in a growing business and do not want to move out because of the deal that I have on rent. I know I’m going to be a lot better off in another year or two and need a bit more time to invest in my business. Both our incomes are comparable, I make around 25% more than her but I have student loans to pay and that’s the main reason I want to stay where I’m at. She said it’s absolutely out of the question to split rent 50/50 and just because I’m the male in the relationship I should be paying more plain and simple. Am I selfish for wanting to invest in my business in order to give us a better life down the road ? For me it’s about the bigger picture and for her she does not want to move back to a smaller place and downgrade living. Feel as if I’m in a tough spot and need some opinions. Thank you for the advice
TL;DR; Am I being selfish?

Consolidating my homelab and parting out my Lenovo server, this is what I got for sale:
Lenovo ThinkSystem M.2 SATA Boot Adapter with 2x 256GB SATA SSDs
Picture: https://i.imgur.com/ulON1Rh.jpg
This is Lenovo part 01KN512 along with a pair of Intel 545S 256GB SSDs. This does RAID 1 only as far as I know. Used as an OS boot drive for Lenovo ThinkSystem servers. Everything works fine, except that I accidently damaged the plastic piece that secures the SSD to the board. SSD on the top slot may be OK but it won't hold the bottom SSD in place.
Price: looking for $40 shipped OBO
Lenovo SAS 9460-16i RAID controller with Battery Backup Unit
This is Lenovo part FRU01KN508. Looks to be a 12Gbps SAS RAID controller, can be installed as a regular PCIe card if you buy the brackets for it. Working pull unit, comes with BBU - this is functional but I cannot guarantee remaining health and the BBU comes as-is
Picture: https://i.imgur.com/apK30iS.jpg
Price: pricing seems to be all over the place on eBay, I'm thinking $250 shipped OBO
Will accept PayPal from a confirmed address only, or do local pickup for cash in the Northern Virginia area. CONUS48 only please, if interested please reply in the post then send a DM (no chats).

I’m M (31) and my girlfriend of 2 years is F (29). We are in a long distance relationship and we want to take the next step and move in together. I currently have a 1 BR apartment through a friend of mine and pay very cheap rent. I’m a partner in a growing business and do not want to move out because of the deal that I have on rent. I know I’m going to be a lot better off in another year or two and need a bit more time to invest in my business. Both our incomes are comparable, I make around 25% more than her but I have student loans to pay and that’s the main reason I want to stay where I’m at. She said it’s absolutely out of the question to split rent 50/50 and just because I’m the male in the relationship I should be paying more plain and simple. Am I selfish for wanting to invest in my business in order to give us a better life down the road ? For me it’s about the bigger picture and for her she does not want to move back to a smaller place and downgrade living. Feel as if I’m in a tough spot and need some opinions. Thank you for the advice
TL;DR; Am I being selfish?

So I purchased some duradero boots and I decided to take them out for a walk in order to break the leather in. As I was walking they went from making a rubber squish noise, to then making a pop noise as I began to walk 20 minutes after.
I contacted duradero and they decided to send me a new pair of boots and the right one began to pop when I began to walk through my house to test them. Is this normal? I was looking at other reddit posts about this issue and from what I've read it means that either the soles aren't well placed on, or the shank was not glued and could be causing the popping noise.
I contacted Duradero again and am waiting for a response? I do genuinely ask if this is normal with Duradero boots or was it right for me to have contacted them for their QC? have any of you guys experienced popping in your boots? and if so. did it go away? Just want to know if this is normal or not for the boots I got. no other boots have made this sound. Which is why I came to ask you guys for any feedback, Thanks

I realized after the Christopher Alvarez article that the more you dwell in this shit, trying to make connections off of bread crumbs, the more you get lost in the sauce. That being said, I just saw someone post a TikTok of Christopher Alvarez happy and bouncing on a bed after hitting 50k followers, and they titled it "Weird Post From CA"... What the fuck is weird about that??? That is probably the only action he can really do, and he's excited about 50k followers, and you're calling it weird??? I don't know if OP was trying to make fun of him, or was trying to tie this to a conspiracy theory, but either way- that's fucked up.
That leads me to say this. EbonyPrince2k24 is a scammer. He wanted to auction off Drake's items and in order to do that, he needed to create hype for them to increase the value. What better way to do that than taking a picture of footage of OVO surrounding a disabled man, and alluding to the fact they hurt him? From the very start he was advertising this auction, and he just wanted money. That's it. He even admitted that there were other moles that told Kendrick the information about the daughter and pedophilia shit. So basically, this nigga knows nothing. If he really had incriminating shit on that footage of OVO doing something to CA, and really wanted it out there, he would've posted that shit on Twitter the first day he hopped on that bitch.
I get y'all have unanswered questions. Why was CA following minors? What was that dog audio in Ak's stream? Did Ak and CA get paid off? I get it. There's some weird holes. However, the reason the main sub keeps calling you schizo, is because IF YOU TRY TO MAKE CONNECTIONS BASED OFF CRUMBS OF INFORMATION, YOU LOOK SCHIZO. The truth is, if the authorities can't find out this shit, most likely there's no fucking way you're gonna find out this shit on the internet.
Most of the people y'all used as sources are fucking frauds. Lakers faked dms, Ebony is a scammer, and I'm pretty sure Kendrick's best friend or something said he don't know Coolee, and he crashed out, went on a blocking rampage and deactivated his account. You shouldn't be trusting twitter accounts for proof of serious accusations anyways. Also, blind items are based off rumors, so you can't 100% lean on them as a credible source.
Drake is a fucking weirdo, and if Kendrick is telling the truth, I want that mf exposed. But when it gets to the point y'all are stalking a disabled man's tiktok posts and posting them on the subreddit acting like you found something, you need to take a step back and realize that you're going full fucking schizo.

This happened in my late sophomore year of high school. I was in a club so I got to stay at school late, and that meant we were allowed to go off campus. One day, I decided to head to head out to order something at a restaurant. There was a basketball court outside my school. As I was walking near the basketball court while heading towards the restaurant, a woman was also walking about a few meters in front me.
Suddenly, a group of boys playing basketball started yelling out phrases such as “little whore” and “cum slotter” presumably at the woman in front of me. I thought this because they were looking at her while they said those things and because there was nobody else on the court besides them. As a girl myself, those words felt extremely personal, but I didn’t react, and neither did the woman. How could I blame her? I probably wouldn’t know how to react if I was in her place as well.
After ordering my food and heading back to the school, I felt guilty that I didn’t stand up for her and let those boys get away with it, so I decided to go back to the court to take a picture or video of them to show to student discipline. I knew they were from my school but I didn’t know their names so that’s why I took a video of them. They caught me filming them, and I ran back to the school. I stopped to ask security what to do with situations like this, but 2 of the boys from the group soon entered the building.
We then had a whole discussion about how it wasn’t them. They said there were 50 other people on the court so it could’ve been one of them that harassed the lady, but I saw with my very own eyes that they were the only ones there. The security guard then started saying that I’m in the wrong for filming them and not minding my own business. AITA?

I have a rooftop 2.5T Trane Package Heat Pump system and have had issues with it over the past year.
First time the capacitor was bad and replaced about a year ago.
Worked up until 2 months ago when the whole system shut off. For some reason, the fan would also not turn on after the compressor shut itself off, but it WOULD if you waited a long while (just the fan, not running any cooling function).
Tech came out and showed me pictures of the inside of my unit and it was absolutely filthy from over a decade of neglecting to give it more than rinsing from rain (again, it's on the roof of a condo building and it is difficult to get up there to even look at it). Evap and condensor coils need cleaning. Guy wanted to sell me a new AC unit since it is 12 years old.
Got another guy over for a second opinion. He hops up on the roof, gets some of the dirt off, and gets it running again. Says yes it's dirty and you should probably clean it, but all of his tests said everything was in working order. Says the issues might be with my thermostat.
After he got it started again, unit works for a full two months perfectly normally and cools my home just as well as it always has.
Three days ago, it shuts off again. I remember the last guy's advice and install a new thermostat.
Try to turn the fan on, it works. I wait 5 minutes, then try to turn on the Cooling. I hear it start up, then the whole thing shuts off 10 second later.
After it shuts off, I can't get the fan running again.
Gonna have a guy come out to clean the coils and am hoping the compressor wont shut itself off after it has better airflow. Will also have him retest capacitor and maybe intall a hard start capacitor?
MY QUESTION IS THIS: During all these times where the whole system shuts itself off to protect itself, why does the fan not start afterwards (again, I'm only trying to start the fan just to have some airflow, not the cooling), even after turning the power off and back on again? Why do you have to wait a long time for the fan to work again? Why would the system prevent the fan from running when the compressor shuts itself off rather than simply shutting off only the compressor? If the system tells the fan "dont run" after a shut off, how does the system "remember" this even after completely cutting power to the unit for an extended period of time? When the compressor shuts off, it seems like it's telling the fan to also not run, and the fan remembers this instruction even when power to the entire unit has been shut off for a while.

Before I get into this long rant, let me say that I loved the show, met amazing people, and have generally enjoyed Red Rocks for other shows I have attended (though their accessibility leaves a lot to be desired). This show, however, was a total clusterfuck in how it was handled. I saw ST when they played Mission last year and got there an hour before doors and the line was super long. From my experience at that show, knowing how the fan base is, and knowing that this was sort of a “special show” I decided to get there about 3 hours before doors yesterday. Parking attendant was rude when I didn’t turn when they wanted despite me hesitating because there was a car behind her she didn’t see heading toward me. Fine, whatever. Ended up parking in upper north because I have severe asthma and it’s typically less stairs to go in at the top. Was camping out and had so much fun with fans. Seemed like we were in the first 300 or so at that entrance. Closer to 5:30 maybe we see a worker walking down. Think nothing of it. She then comes back with a whole bunch of people from the back of the line and practically whispers come this way for a shorter line and directs them to some different line that is apparently shorter. No notice. We all have chairs and food and a bunch of stuff we can’t just pick up and get up. Plus she had a huge line of people following her from the back that made it hard to jump in. That was annoying but figured maybe they are sending them somewhere else and it will be fine. Nope. They got the main north entrance up top. Our line ends up getting directed to a little side entrance instead of the main entrance at the top. The security was a joke. Only two people checking the line. They didn’t even look in my bag and just asked if I had anything in there. I had a huge blanket on top. I could have had anything under there. Ended up getting dumped at the bottom of the stairs so had to climb up even more with my asthma and at this point I was tasting blood. Because we got directed to such a small entrance where they took a while getting people in instead of the several people checking at the main entrances, the show was half full already (later saw pictures from people on twitter who were ahead of us by like 150 or so at like one of the first few rows after the ticketed seats). They should have directed the front of the line forward and had people move up. I know that fan lines aren’t honored but this wasn’t like a, I gave myself a number and came back at 6pm situation. Would have saved that worker from having to walk to what I assume was all the way to lower north too. So thus far we have getting fucked in line order, getting fucked at the entrance, and absolutely terrible security. Again, I’m just trying to enjoy my night so still trying to shake it off. Nope, the venue clusterfuck saga continues. Try to get in a merch line and there is attendant there who is turning everyone away in a very rude manner saying it’s too full. You need to climb all the way to the top to get in the back of the other lines. Greatttt. Get our spots, get in the other merch line. The merch line took about an hour or so and I missed all of ESB but it was worth it and the merch people were super nice. Come back and see how OVERSOLD it is. The whole time I was in merch line I could see the upper south entrance and it was completely slammed the whole time. When I was trying to get back there were people everywhere because there were no seats left. I decide to get a drink and while I’m waiting I see probably a 64 year old worker literally grabbing people forcibly by their arms and pulling them in the direction she wants. She yelled at me asking if I was in line and I awkwardly laughed that I hoped so. She was not amused and went back to grabbing people roughly by their arms and yelling at everyone. I get back and enjoy the show but you couldn’t help but notice just people standing everywhere because they oversold by so much. These tickets were like $190 base with fees and people traveled from everywhere so I can only imagine how frustrated they felt. I saw posts after of people saying how they couldn’t see through the trees and attendants kept telling people where they couldn’t be but not where they could. I have worked crowd control before and I understand it is hard, but the venue really fucked this one up. Overall the fans themselves were great and the vibes were amazing, but Red Rocks needs to get it together. Staff grabbing and yelling at guests and not properly checking bags is so absolutely not okay.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

First, I'll do the TL;DR since not everyone has 15 minutes to spare.
- GPT-4o is NOT a replacement for GPT-4 (or turbo). - GPT-4o is NOT more powerful. - GPT-4o is designed to provide similar quality to GPT-4 at a decreased operational cost to OpenAI.
Now on to the meat and potatoes:
I am seeing comments, and posts left and right discussing GPT-4o's coding output degradation when compared to GPT-4 (or turbo). By simply reading the release notes and FAQs you can see it says "GPT-4o is OpenAI's new flagship model that can reason across audio, vision, and text in real time.". This means that OpenAI is claiming it's strength is reasoning when speaking of Video, Audio, and text, not coding. It's very important that we understand that distinction because whereas GPT-4 is a "well-rounded" model or a "jack of all trades", OpenAI has made it clear where GPT-4o's strength lays.
You can see by the pricing details that it's 50% cheaper than GPT-4 Turbo, Increased Rate limites, Speed increases (2x faster), Vision capabilities have also increased, and lastly it does better on multilinguistic tasks.
Now let's discuss some possible use cases, uploading a short video and asking it what's happening in detail which I tested. In order to make sure I was not just having the LLM "read the title of the video" I changed the title to "YoungBoyEatingApples" even though the video is a young woman putting on headphones and slowly bobbing her head while she seems to be deep in thought. Bottom line? It can't even do that correctly at this stage... but..... hear me out.
This is the pre-alpha model which will ultimately collect the data that will go into training Sora. Why do I say this?
Look at the interaction below:
Prompting GPT-4o to create a video
We have GPT-4o using OpenCV to use individual frames to create a video. The code is clear as day. With this this however it's important to take into account the fact that in order to analyze an actual video, GPT-4o would be taking the video (.mp4/.mov/ect) and turning that video into tons of pictures, deciphering what each picture has going on, and ultimately creating a description that's detailed and rich based on the keypoints/main purpose for the recoding.
Below you can see an attempt to ask GPT-4o to describe a video in a detailed description, and you can see it once again uses Cv2 which is Python OPENCV. When asked for a description it does the opposite of create the composition but it tries to deconstruct the provided file.
Prompting GPT-4o to explain a provided video
Important sidestep. I am not paid, endorsed, acknowledged, loved, respected, raised, sexually recompensated, or virtually applauded by OpenAI. The purpose of this post is to hopefully put a sock on the people complaining "NEW BOT NO CODE". It does, but instead of helping you code, the code is all part of it's dataset and it's aimed at handling the true functionality of this upcoming model.
​
​
​
Release notes.

I want to order a pair of VT Nike dunks but I'm not sure if there are any limitations on Nike right now. Does wegobuy have any legal issues? Thanks for answering

I caught my narcissist mom in a lie and I don't know what to do.
I need help and opinions. Thanks for reading if you do!
In the last year or so, I've recovered some bad memories of my childhood and some of that was preceded and followed by other bad memories of growing up with my mom and dad, Mostly my mom, and have realized that she is a narcissist among other things.
I am also currently in nursing school and if anyone has been through a grueling education process, you'll understand that your time cannot be on what you want or what other people want it to be all the time. It is 2 full time jobs worth of studying, sometimes more, on top of 2+ jobs and other responsibilities. Due to this, our relationship is growing further strained because I am not able to do what she wants me to do when she wants me to do it. She guilt trips me for studying or even just taking care of my mental health, and consistently interrupts or even stops me from studying all together. I do not study at home anymore due to that and so she guilt trips me when I come home from work or school for not being here to help or whatever it is. The thing is, I've tried to do it all plus school and multiple jobs. I can't. I almost failed my last semester because I did everything she wanted to me to do all the time bc I figured it would be easier. Obviously it wasn't. It is a lot to type out so this not everything that happened but gives you a little bit of background.
Well there has been a couple of big fights, a lot actually. And it's mentally messed with me. Now I'm at a point where I don't let it bother me too much outwardly but can't help but let it bother me on the inside sometimes. So much so, that I've decided it's time for my sister, her son and I to get an apartment. I think my parents and I's relationship would be better if I weren't here. And I told them that.
Now all of a sudden, my mom has started with this desperate campaign to show me how much of a waste of money it would be for me to move out and pushing on me that if I'm not going to buy their house that they're either going to keep it til they die (another trigger for me) or sell it to someone in the family. Earlier today, she told me that my cousin wants to buy the house. I told her, yes that's a good idea because when we get our apartment, that they could move out and get a different house and if I wanted to buy the house later on, I could. Well, apparently, she didn't expect that reaction from me. I told her that it was a good idea and she was flabbergasted. She stopped talking about that and moved on.
A few days ago, one of the fights she started was about the fact that she had accidentally taken one of my scrubs and dried them, which I dont do. I hang dry them. It wasn't a big deal to me. I just rewashed them and had to retrain the fabric again. Not a big deal but it was made a big deal bc i had to rewash them, wasting time and money. She freaks out and when I tell her that she is literally freaking out about NOTHING, it makes her angrier bc how dare I tell her that? How dare I say that she made a mistake, no matter how small it is. This blew up into her refusing to accept a mother's day gift or even read a card until I let her belittle and scream at me that I've changed and how horrible of a daughter I am, how I'm using my studying as a crutch to not do anything (even though I do), and how much I've hurt her by not doing what she wants me to do. She also said, along with my dad, that I am a narcissist because I'm setting boundaries that I do not want to talk about anything political and have to make hard boundaries about studying... in order for me to pass my classes, mind you. Only after an hour and a half of her and my dad belittling me and telling me how I've changed for the worse and how much I've hurt her, did she open the card and say "thanks for the beautiful card." She initially refused to take my card but took my sister's, literally in my face, and took the time to read everything out loud from her card before saying she will not read mine because I don't care about her or love her. This is a tactic she does often to try to pin my sister and I against each other. This is not everything, but more for background.
Her M.O. is to push the blame onto me about absolutely everything. And I mean, EVERYTHING. Even stuff that has nothing to do with me. Well, today she tried that but I caught her in a lie instead.
I had done some of mine and my sisters clothes right before she came down and I had a pair of scrubs under a sweater on the dryer that I hadn't put away yet. When she went into the laundry room to switch her laundry over (because she also tries to gatekeep the laundry room,) she lied and told me that she had just pulled the scrubs out of the dryer and said that even I mess up because I had actually put her clothes in the dryer and I hadn't taken them out. Of course she doesn't know that I knew those scrubs were NOT in that load and were already done previously.
It blew my mind.
I know she's done this before but my mind is so lost on how many times I thought I was just crazy or maybe thought I remembered wrong. And she's done this about everything. For my entire life. But I never caught her like this before.
It spiraled me and kicked up some other memories. Not good ones.
But now, every time she talks to me, I feel disgusted and angry. I can't do anything other than laugh because if I show emotion, especially the one I want, it won't end well and I'll end up being kicked out or something. But she also has an issue with me laughing with everything she says (which I would too, but I don't know how else to react). I can't believe a damn thing she says, which I thought I didn't before, but now it's so... open, is the best descriptive word I can say. I'm not exactly sure how else to describe it.
What do I do? I'm reeling. I made an appt with my therapist on Thursday but I realized today is MONDAY. I'm not sure if I can do this til Thursday.
I am not allowing myself to dive through more memories bc who knows what else I'll uncover.
Do I tell her I know? Would it help, would it make it worse? How do I stop myself from reacting to every little thing she says. I cringe and shiver even she says she loves me. It's a big physical reaction. Same when she tries the desperate thing. I can't help but laugh. I have to because otherwise I'd scream or end up sobbing. What do I do?
Has anyone been in this situation?? I need help.
I am so sorry if this does not make sense. I work overnight and haven't slept more than 2 hrs in two days. If I didn't answer something or you have questions about something, let me know and I'll answer. I need help on how to move on from this. Thank you in advance.

Hi. I have a touch of arachnophobia, so I started doing research on how to kill all the spiders. Through my research,. I learned that they are actually helpful And I do not want to kill all of the spiders. Now , I'm focused on keeping the bugs out and killing the ones that get in. But I've been doing a lot of reading, maybe too much, because the biggest roach/wasp??/crawling thing with wings and legs just strolled into my apartment and now I'm standing in a corner after having smashed it and doused it in vinegar and soap and I'm watching it to see if it's really dead and now I'm heading to the store to buy the entire pest control aisle but I don't know what to do or what I need please send help im a fully grown adult and I'm considering getting a hotel for the night
I would take any and all advice. I have a couple questions at the end but I'll take anything you can share with me.
My problem and reason For making this post is because I found so much conflicting information that i'm just not sure anymore. Can anyone clear any of this up for me?
Candles. Attract or repel? Light attracts insects, but they don't like fire (right?) I have a beeswax candle, I heard they don't like that. What about citronella as a general stay-away -from -me- tool?
Some sites say you can make your own super killer spray with bleach and vinegar, and the next page I read would say that still just attracts them.
Ultrasonic plug in repellers- good to add to the arsenal or should I just throw my money away?
I know that there are different types of insects and bugs and all of that stuff. I might be able to grow a pair and post a picture if someone really needs it...hopefully not though.
What I have already done:
I. Sprayed the ortho home defense max inside and out, carefully following instructions II. Laid down diatomaceous earth outside III.Laid down diatomaceous earth inside in the baseboard cracks and openings and then sealed them up with caulk/putty caulk, pushing the d.e. inside to act as an insulator IV. I just moved here. So it was fairly clean to begin with. But I just re-cleaned everything on the inside just in case.
Thank you if you're still here. I might also need a therapist, (lol) but for now, it's bug murder time. If anyone can help I would appreciate it.
EDIT: i am looking at the diatomaceous Earth that I bought And I think I bought the wrong one. It's from Lowes. Is it safe for my health to use inside my home, and will it still kill bugs? 85%silicon dioxide 15% other INGREDIENTS. Thank you thank you thank you
what I bought