What tracks do you guys think will be your favourite? I personally think "Going Under", or "Only Ecstasy". Since hearing the latter live I believe it's their strongest writing lyrically so far, and am so, so excited to finally be able to have it. If you like, I've made a tier list template for the new songs off model, along with the exclusive b-sides, so, to build up the hype, you can rank what you think the songs will be like while we wait for model within the next 9 days or so =).
https://tiermaker.com/create/wallows-model-song-ranking-16633968

NDA Written Exam Institute in Aurangabad

Introduction

In the heart of Aurangabad, where history whispers through ancient monuments and the spirit of valor permeates the air, Major Kulthe Defence Education Institute (MKDEI) stands tall as a bastion of excellence in preparing young minds for the prestigious National Defence Academy NDA Written Exam Institute in Aurangabad. With a legacy steeped in dedication, integrity, and unwavering commitment to excellence, MKDEI emerges as the premier institute for aspiring cadets seeking to embark on a journey of service and honor.
Major Kulthe Defence Education Institute (MKDEI):
Nestled amidst the rich cultural tapestry of Aurangabad, MKDEI beckons aspirants with the promise of a transformative educational experience. Founded by Major Kulthe, a seasoned veteran with years of experience in the armed forces, the institute embodies his vision of nurturing the next generation of leaders and defenders of the nation. With a holistic approach to education that goes beyond textbooks and exams, MKDEI instills values of discipline, integrity, and patriotism in every student who walks through its doors.
A Legacy of Excellence:
At MKDEI, excellence is not just a goal—it's a way of life. With a faculty comprising retired military officers, seasoned educators, and subject matter experts, the institute offers a comprehensive curriculum that covers all aspects of the NDA written exam. From mathematics and general ability to English and current affairs, every subject is taught with precision and depth, ensuring that students are well-prepared to tackle even the most challenging questions with confidence and clarity.
State-of-the-Art Facilities:
In its quest to provide the best possible learning environment for its students, MKDEI spares no expense in ensuring that its facilities are second to none. From spacious classrooms equipped with modern teaching aids to a well-stocked library that houses a treasure trove of reference materials, every aspect of the institute is designed to foster an atmosphere of learning and growth. Additionally, MKDEI offers online resources and mock tests to help students assess their progress and identify areas for improvement, ensuring that they are fully prepared to excel on exam day.
Personalized Guidance and Mentorship:
At MKDEI, every student is more than just a name on a roster—they are part of a close-knit community bound by a shared goal of success. With small class sizes and personalized attention from faculty members, students receive the individualized guidance and mentorship they need to reach their full potential. Whether it's clarifying doubts, providing extra help outside of class, or offering moral support during challenging times, the faculty at MKDEI are committed to helping students overcome obstacles and achieve their goals.
Success Stories:
But don't just take our word for it—let the success stories of MKDEI's alumni speak for themselves. From top-ranking officers in the armed forces to successful professionals in various fields, graduates of MKDEI have gone on to achieve great heights in their careers, thanks in no small part to the solid foundation of knowledge, skills, and values instilled in them during their time at the institute. Their achievements serve as a testament to the efficacy of MKDEI educational approach and the transformative power of a quality education.
Conclusion:
In the competitive landscape of NDA exam preparation, Major Kulthe Defence Education Institute (MKDEI) emerges as a beacon of hope and opportunity for aspiring cadets in Aurangabad. With its legacy of excellence, state-of-the-art facilities, personalized guidance, and proven track record of success, MKDEI stands as the undisputed leader in preparing students for the challenges that lie ahead. So, if you're ready to embark on a journey of service, honor, and distinction, look no further than MKDEI—the gateway to a brighter future and a proud legacy of service to the nation.
NDA Written Exam Institute in Aurangabad

Introduction

In the heart of Aurangabad, where history whispers through ancient monuments and the spirit of valor permeates the air, Major Kulthe Defence Education Institute (MKDEI) stands tall as a bastion of excellence in preparing young minds for the prestigious National Defence Academy NDA Written Exam Institute in Aurangabad. With a legacy steeped in dedication, integrity, and unwavering commitment to excellence, MKDEI emerges as the premier institute for aspiring cadets seeking to embark on a journey of service and honor.
Major Kulthe Defence Education Institute (MKDEI):
Nestled amidst the rich cultural tapestry of Aurangabad, MKDEI beckons aspirants with the promise of a transformative educational experience. Founded by Major Kulthe, a seasoned veteran with years of experience in the armed forces, the institute embodies his vision of nurturing the next generation of leaders and defenders of the nation. With a holistic approach to education that goes beyond textbooks and exams, MKDEI instills values of discipline, integrity, and patriotism in every student who walks through its doors.
A Legacy of Excellence:
At MKDEI, excellence is not just a goal—it's a way of life. With a faculty comprising retired military officers, seasoned educators, and subject matter experts, the institute offers a comprehensive curriculum that covers all aspects of the NDA written exam. From mathematics and general ability to English and current affairs, every subject is taught with precision and depth, ensuring that students are well-prepared to tackle even the most challenging questions with confidence and clarity.
State-of-the-Art Facilities:
In its quest to provide the best possible learning environment for its students, MKDEI spares no expense in ensuring that its facilities are second to none. From spacious classrooms equipped with modern teaching aids to a well-stocked library that houses a treasure trove of reference materials, every aspect of the institute is designed to foster an atmosphere of learning and growth. Additionally, MKDEI offers online resources and mock tests to help students assess their progress and identify areas for improvement, ensuring that they are fully prepared to excel on exam day.
Personalized Guidance and Mentorship:
At MKDEI, every student is more than just a name on a roster—they are part of a close-knit community bound by a shared goal of success. With small class sizes and personalized attention from faculty members, students receive the individualized guidance and mentorship they need to reach their full potential. Whether it's clarifying doubts, providing extra help outside of class, or offering moral support during challenging times, the faculty at MKDEI are committed to helping students overcome obstacles and achieve their goals.
Success Stories:
But don't just take our word for it—let the success stories of MKDEI's alumni speak for themselves. From top-ranking officers in the armed forces to successful professionals in various fields, graduates of MKDEI have gone on to achieve great heights in their careers, thanks in no small part to the solid foundation of knowledge, skills, and values instilled in them during their time at the institute. Their achievements serve as a testament to the efficacy of MKDEI educational approach and the transformative power of a quality education.
Conclusion:
In the competitive landscape of NDA exam preparation, Major Kulthe Defence Education Institute (MKDEI) emerges as a beacon of hope and opportunity for aspiring cadets in Aurangabad. With its legacy of excellence, state-of-the-art facilities, personalized guidance, and proven track record of success, MKDEI stands as the undisputed leader in preparing students for the challenges that lie ahead. So, if you're ready to embark on a journey of service, honor, and distinction, look no further than MKDEI—the gateway to a brighter future and a proud legacy of service to the nation.

Is it just me or has Fallouts personality changed drastically over the decades with modern fallout games like 76 and 4 not having the same charm/feeling as their older counterparts.
I feel the peak of fallout was 3 and NV. It had most of its personality upon those releases for me. With 4 and 76, while there were additions, and they weren’t bad games at all, it just didn’t ever feel really like fallout to me as the other games do. And it’s not a graphical difference that makes the charm be lost either as fallout 1 and 2 look like potatoes yet feel like fallout. There’s just something drastic that changed about this franchises personality after NV to me, and i personally never got the original fallout vibe back until the TV Show was released.
I just wonder if anyone else agrees. They’re all good games in their own right, im not hating on any of the games here (except FO BOS). Just 10’s and 20’s fallout (so far) dont feel like the same franchise as the older ones.
In fact if i had never heard of fallout and was given NV and FO4 to play side by side it would take me a few moments to realise they’re the same franchise, whereas i feel I’d recognise pretty quick if i were to play FO3 and FO1 side by side. I understand as time goes on things change but nonetheless, feels very different in some places.

Hello everyone! This is the songlist feedback thread for the next rate, the Late Gen 2 Girl Groups Rate!

Vote in the Songlist Feedback survey: https://forms.gle/xS5c2amFEg8ZsBP19

^ We do ask that you vote on which songs you think should be in the rate, not just which songs you personally like (though you can factor personal preference into your picks).
How the songs were chosen:
Songs were primarily chosen based off of kpop's Top Ten Tuesdays, and Spotify streams for the songs was a major consideration as well. We also took a look at sonical diversity and other popularity metrics.
Here is the tentative songlist for the rate:
Apink (9 songs):

• NoNoNo
• Mr. Chu
• I'm So Sick
• Eung Eung
• Dumhdurum
• Luv
• Remember
• [+2 of the following 4: Dilemma, Five, D N D, Only One]
• {Bonus: Bubibu OR Another one of the above 4 songs will become bonus}

f(x) (8 songs):

• 4 Walls
• Red Light
• Rum Pum Pum Pum
• Electric Shock
• Airplane
• Hot Summer*
• Pinnochio (Danger)*
• Nu Abo*
• {Bonus: Rude Love}

SISTAR (7 songs):

• I Like That
• Touch My Body
• Alone
• Ma Boy
• I Swear
• Give It to Me
• [+1 of the following 3: Lonely, Loving U, Shake It]
• {Bonus: Lead Me OR Another one of the above 3 will become bonus}

Girl's Day (5 songs):

• Something
• Expect
• Female President
• [+2 of the following 5: I'll Be Yours, Darling, Don't Forget Me, Twinkle Twinkle, Nothing Lasts Forever]
• {Bonus: Thirsty}

miss A (5 songs):

• Hush
• Bad Girl Good Girl
• Only You
• [+2 of the following 3: Goodbye Baby, I Don't Need A Man, Touch, Breathe]
• {Bonus: Love Song}

T-ARA (5 songs):

• Roly Poly
• Sugar Free
• Number 9
• [+2 of the following 5: Sexy Love, Lovey Dovey, Day by Day, Like The First Time, Bo Peep Bo Peep]
• {Bonus: One of the above 5 songs will become bonus}

9Muses (3 songs):

• Wild
• Doll
• Hurt Locker
• {Bonus: One of the following 3 songs: Ticket, Glue, News}

DalShabet (2 songs):

• B.B.B
• Someone Like U

Stellar (2 songs):

• Vibrato
• Sting

Secret (1 song):

• [+1 of the following 5: I'm In Love, Poison, Love is Move, Magic, Madonna]

Rainbow (1 song):

• A

Total Song Count: 48 main songs (& 7 bonus songs)

{4Minute, 2NE1, After School & Orange Caramel, etc. are being allocated to Early Gen 2 Girl Groups.}
{EXID, HelloVenus, Crayon Pop, AOA, etc. are being allocated to Early Gen 3 Girl Groups.}
Feedback on the songlist wanted!
There are two main ways you can give feedback/input on the songlist:
One, you can choose to fill out this Google Form survey: https://forms.gle/xS5c2amFEg8ZsBP19.
Two, if you want to look to solicit fellow kpoprates Redditors' opinions and/or receive responses to your feedback, feel free to leave a comment below detailing your thoughts on the list and what you'd be interested in seeing changed. (Comments are more likely to change the songlist then simply voting, as comments are usually more in-depth and leave room for conversation/discussion, although we encourage you to both vote and comment)
I ask that you submit your feedback by May 18th (Saturday), by 11:59 AM Pacific (AM this time, not PM). The official rate announcement post should be published sometime around May 21st (Tuesday). Thanks!

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.]

Howdy l've been role-playing and writing in general forat least a decade. I am a Male who can play male and female characters. I have original ideas all over and a lot of Fandoms I'm in, which I'Il include below. I'm looking for OCXOC. Every character must be 18+ I have plenty of original characters and ideas along with fandom plots.
For original ideas, i like horror and apocalypse with action and depending romance. I do have a variety. I really like monsters and creepy things from the horror genre like vampires and Tentacles, and l even have my own idea set up in modern times dealing with vampires and hunters and all of that i also enjoy eldritch type horror. I also like old-school slasher films and space sci-fi horror similar to the Alien Franchise.
Now on fandoms! To get some other things down, l only play OC. The anime fandoms i like are Jojo's, Chainsaw Man, Naruto, JJK, Soul Eater, and more. I'm well versed in the Jojo's, Naruto, and JJK, and soul eater fandoms, though it's been a while since ï've stopped keeping up with soul eater. Other fandoms im in include Percy Jackson, Call of Duty, Marvel, and DC.
I tend to use character sheets to describe my character. These are very thorough and usually consist of names, backgrounds, and personalities, along with an in-depth look on appearance. More so on appearances, I don't usually use picture references, but I will if you would like me to. The types of characters I write are the lone wolf type that has some sad past, which leads them to potentially go off the rails and gain a villain arc.
I like all types of tropes, especially enemies to lovers or rivalry. I also really enjoy opposites attracted as a whole from either opposite personality or something else they would be opposites in. Enemies to lovers takes my heart, though. I love seeing the characters go past theurge to ultimately hate each other and/or go past their usual way of disliking the others' lineage or upcoming I also love good written trauma moments. Like character death's, moments of pain and strife only to see the characters to deal and either be consumed or overcome them. I tend to either come up with original ideas for these scenes or use anime scenes as inspiration with narrative tweaks.
REQUIREMENT
I think my two biggest requirements are creativity and good pacing. Like any story, I feel these two things are very necessary to make a good story. Now, by Creativity, I don't mean you need to bring absolute craziness into the story, but abilities, character etc need to have some good genuine thought put into them. Along with that comes good pacing, which means I don't personally care about response length, and mine will vary from scene to scene accordingly.
I'm pretty much done if you have any questions. I'm here, and I'd love to hear back from you in chat the password is your favorite color. Supply it in chat only.

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.]

So, when I was younger, I used to work at an assisted living facility as a cook. There was this one woman, who I don't remember the name of, so we'll call her "Judy". Judy was INCREDIBLY mean; a huge narcissist, acted as if she owned the place, and was just an all around bully. But, she had slight dementia, but high-functioning . Not a single employee, aid to manager, liked her, but they kept her around because she was a huge contributor to the facility's income. How we knew she was a terrible person is because she was extremely two-faced. She went to church every week, claiming it "helped" her (she was going because she thought she could be welcomed into the golden gates from showing up to the big man's house.) She mainly targeted me; insulting my cooking, gossiping about me when she thought I wasn't listening, and always yelling at me for not wearing a hair net, even though (A.) My head was shaved. And (B.) She didn't bat an eye when the other cooks didn't wear one.
Eventually, I found a better job, and I put in my two-weeks notice. It soon became common knowledge throughout the facility. When I clocked out for the final time, Judy said "Goodbye and good riddance, kid." I was SO fed up with this woman, I went RIGHT up to her and said, "Tell me something. Do you go to church?" She obviously said yes. "Why?" Because it helps her. "So you believe that God just let's ANYBODY who goes to church into heaven?" She pauses and gives me a forced confused look. "Do you think God LIKES it when people are completely horrible outside his house, and then show up to it just because they think they're gonna go to heaven doing so? Do you think you can hide from the all-seeing eye? Do you think he doesn't see what you're doing? Do you think he'll be happy with what you did? Do you think intentionally trying to deceive someone is okay? Do you think doing that to GOD for DECADES won't piss him off? Because if there's one thing you shouldn't do to the guy who can send you straight down to Hell and not lose a bit of sleep over it, it's PISS HIM OFF. Because they way I see it, and the way he DEFINITELY sees it, there's a list of names written in lava rock of people going to the fiery pits for eternity. . ." I lean in for the effect. "And yours could be written on it. . ." Judy's eyes were wide open, and she actually shed a single tear. I didn't get in trouble at all due to the fact that I was no longer employed there after I clocked out.
Now that I'm older, I've been conflicted about what I did. She was an awful person for decades, but she had dementia and was living in an assisted living facility. So, Am I the Asshole?

If you've been trying to find a SFH, duplex, townhome, or condo to rent in recent years instead of an apartment, you've probably noticed a suspicious trend that it seems like huge corporations are buying up as much property as they can. THEY ARE!
If you really want to be depressed read This article from the AJC.
They estimate there's at least 65,000 homes in Metro Atlanta owned by these groups!
I personally tried really hard over the last 2 years to find a privately owned home to rent and I finally lucked out this time. I move in on June 1st.
My advice to anyone looking to find the same would be this:

1. Notice a trend of companies that keep showing up in listings? Make a list, check their reviews on Google, then start avoiding them! Invitation Homes (formerly Excalibur Homes), Progress Residential, Main Street Renewal, Tricon Residential, and a few other players have thousands of houses. They notoriously avoid processing applications for homes (like 5-6 week wait for an approval or rejection!) and if you somehow do manage to get approved communication and maintenance work follow through is terrible. Avoid companies like this at all costs.
2. Check Trulia, Zillow, GeorgiaMls, Apartments, and Homes .com websites regularly. I spent a lot of time on Trulia because besides saving homes on their once I made an account I could also "Hide" properties from companies like the above mentioned. I also crosschecked RentingGA frequently because it was tied to MLS listings and it also showed the listing company in the preview. I could quickly see if it was an offender like Invitation and avoid wasting my time on that house.
3. Cross-check listings!!!! Find a good one on one site but it just lists a name and number but now company for the listing agent? Google it. Chances are the address will give you a search result of a listing with 3 or 4 other credible websites like those mentioned above. The first place you find the listing may not say who the listing agent is affiliated with, but the 2nd one might.
4. Still don't find that an agency tied to that name? You might be in luck!!! That could be a private owner. Next, try and find the property owner through county ownership and tax records. Go to this website to look up Cobb County Tax Assessor Records You can look up Fulton County Assessor Records here You can look up Dekalb County Tax Assessor Records here. Enter the address on these sites to search, and see who shows up on the ownership record. Does the company name or personal name match their contact info on the listing? BINGO!!! this might be a private owner! To go a step further, you can click on the name or company name and it will tell you how many properties are associated to this person or company. I verified my soon to be landlord this way, and it showed that he owns 2 other properties in Cobb County.
5. DO target listings by local or known national real estate agencies. Keller Williams, ReMax, and Home Smart appear to list homes for clients, and they may manage them too, but they are not nearly on the same scale of property management as Invitation or Progress for example. Twice I talked to Home Smart RE agents that were listing homes they actually owned and were renting out themselves.
6. Take a chance on listings that show LESS information. Find the ones that don't look like a bad buzzword stuffed sales pitch. Find ones that don't name a company with the listing agent name. Check out listings with vague info or pics further. It might not look like a polished real estate ad because they aren't a polished real estate agent or property management company.

I hope this helps the OP or anyone else reading this, I've been meaning to type up these tips for awhile.

Hello everyone. I am in search of a long term RP partner for a prompt set within a modern fantasy Slice of life at a an Academy for the mystic arts. This will be taking place between the years 2009-2014. Please understand that I am more than willing to change the idea around or add in some elements you might suggest. Below is a small portion of the opening. If you are interested or have more questions feel free to ask me in a DM.
In your hands was a letter stamped with a wax seal. It was an unusual thing to see in this day and age and yet as you opened it, it became clear this letter was far more unusual than you had initially thought. As soon as the seal was broken small celebratory sparks and confetti emerged from within its confines. Upon removing the letter itself the seal burned into the paper seemed to stare back at you. It was only when it blinked that you did a double take as the letter began to speak audibly.
“Good evening! We hope this letter finds you well! Based upon your remotely measured aptitude for the mystical/ magical arts and or predilections for the extraordinary we are pleased to extend to you an invitation to attend our humble institution this fall! Please, if you are interested in attending our academy please report to the admissions office on the 20th of August. Below is the address for your local admissions Office.
4621 Willow Branch Lane, Harrisburg, PA 17110
Wishing you well! Amelia Cartwright, Admissions Department, Mystic Academy of Pennsylvania.”
Below is a list of things I am looking for in my role play partner since this may be a little longer term:
• This particular idea is 18+ so you must be as well if you contact me. This RP will include darker themes and I prefer that it remains dark.
• Someone who will contribute to the idea and is not afraid to share thoughts with me especially if its a twist or new character.
• I am looking for someone who has a good level of experience role playing. I’d prefer someone with at least a year or two of experience minimum.
• I encourage people to use pictures to set the scene or show people, vehicles, objects along with using face claims to give an understanding of their character. It is not a must but it is a preference.
• I mainly use discord to rp on. It is my preferred place to RP though I prefer we have a discussion here before moving there.
• To contact me feel free to send me a message here on reddit as I will usually respond within five to ten minutes if I am not asleep. I am on MST.
These are all my personal preferences for role playing. Sorry if that’s really long I just want to make sure that everything from my preferences to the idea comes across clearly. Please send me the word “Sprite” in the DM you send so I know you at least skimmed this.

This weekend, Ajax Budokan invited Kodokan 9th dan and former head of the Tokyo Police dojo, Michio Fukushima Sensei, to conduct a 4 hour clinic for Kodokan Goshin Jutsu. It was open to yellow belt and higher, though the majority consisted of Yudansha. My senseis had the honour of demoing the kata, as Fukushima Sensei's health did not permit presenting each technique multiple times, though he did show some of the finer details, demo mechanics, and gave comments as to what was good and displayed what could be fixed. He also talked about older versions of the techniques and how/ why they have been changed. Regretfully, it totally slipped my mind to film during the seminar, as there was a lot of good information, translated (and left untranslated) by the interpreter.
Some General Notes on Fukushima Sensei Fukushima Sensei on multiple occasions mentioned how one should carry themselves and move, more specifically he talked about how he usually sees toris get away with bad shisei as uke's attacks are generally to kind or passive, and that if they genuinely attacked, most toris would be off balance. Additionally he mentioned that a lot of IFJ competition now is power judo, where the technical aspects are replaced for brute force and speed.
The main note he makes is to keep the knees alive (slightly bent and bouncy like a spring), and that most novices have a tendency to straight leg their kata. He also made it a great point to explain the logic of the waza in the kata and how the kuzushi is created. Other important details he talked about were that uke shouldn't be a limp noodle once his attack is over, that tori should keep good sabaki (unclear if sabaki was short hand for tai sabaki as he also stated tai sabaki on different occasions (the details were paraphrased by the translator)), and the usage of rotation from the hips to maintain proper balance (tai sabaki). Additionally, he talked about things relating to karada (the body) and some anecdotes (such as stories about judoka such as Michigami, Isao Okano, and Nagaoka if I was hearing correctly, though I don't speak Japanese, only somewhat familiar with it), which were left untranslated or paraphrased sadly.
Emphasised details in the kata (not explanations or descriptions of how to do a technique) and my experiences (FYI Sensei mostly used the Tomiki names for the waza Tori applied)
Attacks when held

1. Ryote dori - my partner and I (both new to this kata for the most part) went in on this one and struggled as we didn't see the detail of thumb in hand for the lock (blind leading the blind, though we later worked near a kind pair after this who helped check more closely as they were experienced in the kata)
   1. Yahazu (hook shape for hand) is very important to direct uke's arm
   2. You aren't pulling the arm away to free it, you are pushing your elbow forward which pressures uke's arm
   3. Te gatana to the uto (point between uke's eyes)
   4. When applying the lock (te gatame), make sure to rotate uke's hand such that the fingers are pointing up
   5. When applying the lock, take the uke's arm in the direction perpendicular to the line made by his feet
2. Hidari eri dori - I particularly liked this one, though my uke was confused the first few times as he kept trying to apply waki gatame.
   1. Tori must grab underneath uke's hand on the lapel when stepping back
   2. When grabbing uke's hand to break the grip and apply the lock (kote hineri), tori should have his thumb in between uke's thumb and fingers, and to take the uke's arm in the direction perpendicular to the line made by his feet
   3. Uke should try to maintain jigo tai rather than lean so the lock is applied cleanly
   4. Tori's hand should not be limp when delivering the strike
3. Migi eri dori - I couldn't get kote gaeshi to work properly, will have to practice and ask my sensei about it later, same with my partner
   1. Tori should maintain a upright posture as uke pulls him forward, and use the landing of his foot to drive his hand for the uppercut to uke
   2. Tori should try to keep uke's hand attached to his centerline as he makes tai sabaki
4. Kata ude dori - My uke was very stiff, so applying the initial lock to him proved difficult, though he claims he felt it. I found this kata easy to remember as the legs go left right left right (step, step, tai sabaki, kick, then lead with the right for the lock)
   1. You are kicking with the side of the foot
   2. The step before the kick pivot around so your feet are almost parallel
   3. For waki gatame, you should be standing inside his feet, near parallel to the line perpendicular to his feet
5. Ushiro eri dori - I had experience with this one as sensei had taught during some free time a while back
   1. The parry with the arm was stated to also be the preferred way to receive punches, though take that as you will (though it is a common method in karate as well)
   2. The strike should be to the suigetsu (solar plexus)
   3. Trap uke's hand with your head so that it can't wiggle all over the place when applying the lock
6. Ushiro jime - My partner and I both had a tendency to lift the shoulder off after spinning out, will have to work on that. I will be honest, had I known this escape, I probably would have come out of an incident a few years back (before I started Judo) rather unscathed as I was jumped and then kicked on the ground by a person who was quite a pain.
   1. The attack and initial defence are identical to that of katame no kata, following which tori rotates out
   2. Keep pressure with your shoulder until your grip has been changed
7. Kakae dori - We didn't have enough mat space to finish the throw without running into other groups, but the technique is surprisingly effective. Though I couldn't initially find out how to do the armlock and had to ask my sensei about it, now it's pretty easy.
   1. Rotate the arm away from you (clockwise from your perspective) and pull uke's arm into you
   2. During the initial stomp, straighten up and raise your arms to loosen uke's grip

Attacks when at a distance - I got less time to try these in general as I wanted my partner to get a feel for them as they are a bit more complicated and he is less experienced

1. Naname uchi - this was a fun situation, it shows how a little bit of atemi can be used to setup a randori waza, and Fukushima Sensei complimented my senseis' performance saying that it was better than the current text book
   1. Te gatana is used to redirect the strike
   2. Osoto otoshi is performed
   3. Pushing the arm through is important to create the kuzushi necessary for the waza
2. Ago tsuki - I didn't actually get a chance to try this one more than once as my partner struggled with it, he kept applying a shoulder lock by pushing on the elbow without the redirect with the thumb up (shoulder is still sore)
   1. when directing uke's attack up and away, do not lean back as then you are unstable
   2. Use yahazu to direct uke's elbow toward his ear
   3. As uke will not like this use the moment after releasing the elbow lock to throw him forward in the direction perpendicular to his feet.
3. Gammen Tsuki - My partner really liked this one, I can see the uses as I've used similar entries when messing around with strikes + judo with this partner as I have a bit of karate experience
   1. Uke is meant to do a break fall, thus tori needs to get out of the way after releasing the choke
   2. Uke should realistically be aiming for where tori's uto would be if he did not evade
4. Mae Geri - this was a relatively easy one to grasp, but quite a bit of practice is needed before a full force kick can be considered
   1. Rotate ukes foot outwards so that it is not easy for him to rotate in to escape
   2. In the original, tori would lift uke's leg high but many ukes ended up injured from hitting their heads, so now tori just pushes back
5. Yoko geri - My sensei has introduced this one at the dojo before as well, though he prefaced it with about a minute of just practicing a side kick. My partner (who suffers from light knee pain) couldn't kneel during the finish
   1. The use of the te gatana to redirect the kick in the direction it is going, very similar to karates low block
   2. During the finish tori creates a void for uke to be thrown but in real life tori would throw uke onto his knee

Attacks with weapons - I understand people dislike these (reasonably in some cases), but I've found them to be useful points to explore
Attacks with a knife - Sensei Fukushima mentioned how despite my senseis making it look easy
Both my partner and I have practiced these quite a lot (I was the only one who was taught it by sensei but we practiced it on our own time), so not as many personal notes. Though I don't have a good experience so my brain switches to serious and my heart rate increases despite the fact that I know these are fake weapons.

1. Tsukkake
   1. The elbow should be pushed forward (I've actually experimented with this in the past by asking uke to try to stab me as I applied the defence, and we've found after the initial push and strike, tori is in a relatively good position, be it to run away or finish the kata)
   2. Push the locked up arm up and towards uke, then guide him to the ground
2. Choku zuki - I struggled to apply the waki gatame, I'm guessing it was control of the wrist that was the problem, this form is relatively straight forward and makes sense
   1. The strike should not be a boxer style punch, but more like the first punch in szkt
   2. uke should not go limp
   3. when moving away from uke, take him perpendicular to the line between his feet
3. Naname Zuki - Personally I think this form is cutting it close in many regards, but the control tori has is quite surprising
   1. Don't grab the blade from the sharp edge

Attacks with a jo - PSA, no matter how much you trust your uke, mistakes happen (especially with such a solid weapon) so remain vigilant to mitigate damage

1. Furi age - this was a relatively easy technique to grasp as it is an application of O soto gari setup with a palm strike to the chind
   1. Tori should enter as soon as uke begins to raise his arm, almost a preemptive entry
   2. Tori strikes at the ago (chin) with a palm strike, then places his hand on the throat for the throw
2. Furi oroshi - My partner leant into the swing and wacked me on the forehead, it could've been worse but it just grazed the outer layer as I saw the jo come closer after my initial retreat and attempted to turn out of the way. Both a PSA for tori and uke. Tori do not keep your eyes off uke, and uke please don't lean into a swing, you are horribly off balance, and you make it harder for tori to read. Also uke don't speed up when you 2 are learning (I don't know why my partner chose too...)
   1. Do not hop back onto one leg and then towards uke with the other, it leads you to have bad posture
   2. Better to make a big retreat than get hit
   3. 2 strike, one ura ken (back fist), followed by knife hand push
   4. Uke's swing should be at a diagonal
3. Morote zuki - I didn't get to practice this one as my partner was taken a bit aback after the previous incident and couldn't get the steps right for this one. Fukushima Sensei mentioned something along the lines of how a judoka was faced with a juken and couldn't figure out what to do, and thus this form was created to address that.
   1. Tori shouldn't be rowing the jow away to shake throw uke
   2. The arm puts pressure on uke's arm forward
   3. Tori should be trying to angle the jo down towards himself after the initial grab

Attacks with a gun - I struggled with all of these, but I think the principles are relatively sound. Though in real life, I'd most likely give up my valuables. Fukushima Sensei emphasised hip rotation in these movements, as he says that you want to direct the gun away without moving your feet, which is what uke would be seeing when looking at your pocket.
Always make sure to begin your defence after uke is clearly focused on checking your pockets, never when his focus is directly on you

1. Shomen Zuke
   1. Grab the barrel of the gun thumb up
   2. During the disarm, push the gun's muzzle to face towards him
2. Koshi Gamae - I kept getting the second hand wrong and thus the barallel was pointed towards me in the final attack, will need to work on that
   1. Grab the barrel of gun initially with the thumb down with your right hand, and push the gun so that it is horizontal after turning left, then grab the gun from below with your right
   2. make sure to not point the gun at yourself when hitting with the butt
3. Haimen Zuke - this is quite a dangerous move in theory, but also one of the more likely ones
   1. Wrap uke's arm with your arm, but make sure to direct the muzzle up with the free arm
   2. [uke] should let go of gun, as this is a hard breakfall

Overarching and repeated themes in the kata

• The use of yahazu to direct the arm rather than grips
• Keeping uke's hand connected to your centerline when applying kansetsu waza
• te gatana is a useful tool to redirect and or strike the opponent quickly
• During the gun portion, always rotate the gun off your centerline, so that even if it does fire, it doesn't penetrate too deep
• Control the gun by the muzzle
• most finishes are done by guiding uke perpendicular to the line in between his feet
• Do not directly oppose an opponents force
• Maintanence of balance at all times and moving from the hips is key
• Uke should attack meaningfully
• Action reaction is used quite a lot to first lock uke up towards his face, so that when he pushes back he is easily lead away

Overall, it was quite a good event, and I learned a lot. This kata isn't the most realistic with the attacks (though apparently a few people I know have used the ryote dori attack shockingly), but what I've learned so far is relatively sound, hopefully some time soon I can convince my partner to do some live resistance sparring with some gear on (which I have done with the knife portion with a plastic knife). Fukushima Sensei had a lot to say, as he was actively discussing his experiences and koshiki no kata after the seminar with another Japanese speaker, and I hope to be able to attend another one of his classes again someday.
Here are some videos featuring Michio Fukushima from a few years back, both where he was actively demoing, and where he had a slightly more corrective position.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1253474818155243
https://youtu.be/VKgdMJS9eck?si=bGMemLfG9aquAHr1

Hybrid Warfare: The Art of Conquest under the Umbrella of Peace
Introduction
The contemporary world is witnessing an era of unconventional conflicts, where the boundaries between peace and war are blurred. Hybrid warfare, a insidious strategy that combines elements of traditional warfare, covert operations, cyber attacks, and propaganda, has become an increasingly prevalent weapon in the arsenal of major powers.
Inspired by the tactics of the NKVD, KGB, and SVR, this book reveals the subtle art of conquering a country without triggering open conflict. The reader will be guided through the labyrinth of strategies for identifying and compromising key individuals, exploiting their vulnerabilities and secrets to gain control over a nation.
Primary Target: Influence
The first crucial step is to identify the most influential person in the target country. Once the target is identified, a meticulous operation follows to uncover their weaknesses, secrets, and loved ones. Children, as symbols of the future and legacy, become priority targets. Neutralizing them, either through direct control or by sabotaging their chances of procreation, represents a crucial strategic blow.
Secret Weapon: Control
The life partner of the target becomes a central figure. Controlling or dividing them through unconventional methods serves to weaken the target's influence and facilitate their manipulation. There are no rules in this hybrid warfare, and any means are permitted to achieve the ultimate goal: conquest.
Infiltration: Eyes and Ears Everywhere
Well-infiltrated intelligence services, similar to Nicolae Ceaușescu's "Securitate", become essential for the constant surveillance of the target and their entourage. Controlling the doctor, the entourage, and anyone who could influence the target is crucial to maintaining absolute control.
"Coughing from the throat."
A Shocking Example: The Doctor and the Child
To illustrate the cruelty and lack of scruples of this type of warfare, let's analyze in detail a particular scenario: the control of the target's child's doctor. Imagine a situation where the child, the symbol of hope and the family's future, falls seriously ill. The doctor, under enemy control, is instructed to conceal the truth about the child's condition, providing a false diagnosis and ineffective treatment. This perfidious action not only endangers the child's life but also destroys the target's trust in those around them, making them vulnerable to manipulation.
Conclusion
Hybrid warfare, with its hidden tactics and ruthless manipulation, poses a real threat to the sovereignty of nations. This book offers a fascinating yet disturbing insight into this type of conflict, revealing the brutal strategies that can be used to conquer a country without triggering open war. An essential read for those who wish to understand the complexity of the modern world and the hidden dangers that can threaten global peace and stability.
The example of the doctor and the child serves as a reminder of the cruelty and lack of boundaries of those who wage hybrid warfare. It is a shocking yet necessary story that compels us to confront the dark reality of this type of conflict.
Another Shocking Example: The Orchestrated Accident
To demonstrate the insidious versatility of hybrid warfare, let's analyze another terrifying scenario: manipulating the doctor treating the target after a serious accident.
Imagine a tragic situation: the target, a symbol of power and influence, is the victim of a violent accident. Rushed to the hospital, severely injured and vulnerable, their fate rests in the hands of the attending physician.
But what if this doctor isn't a dedicated savior, but a pawn infiltrated in the enemy's operation? Under the adversary's control, the doctor receives sinister instructions: to administer medications that, under the guise of proper treatment, will actually trigger a rise in the target's blood pressure, further exacerbating their condition and jeopardizing their life.
This diabolical act not only endangers the target's life, but also serves as a strategic blow. Weakening the target physically and mentally makes them vulnerable to manipulation and isolates them from loved ones who might intervene to protect them.
In the event the target survives, the orchestrated accident could be presented as a mere medical error, a regrettable negligence, not a premeditated crime. The lack of concrete evidence and the controlled doctor's influence would facilitate the concealment of the truth and maintain control over the target.
This example chillingly demonstrates how hybrid warfare exploits human tragedy to achieve political objectives. The manipulation of the medical profession, a symbol of trust and compassion, represents a pinnacle of perfidy, showcasing the utter lack of scruples of those who wage such war.
The story of the orchestrated accident serves as a shocking reminder of the hidden cruelty of hybrid warfare and how it can infiltrate and corrupt even the most noble institutions. It's a dark reality we cannot ignore, forcing us to remain vigilant and fight to defend humanity's fundamental values.

I'm looking for friends that enjoy the following titles. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Payday 2, and THE FINALS.
I also have some other FPS games in my steam library that aren't listed here. The games listed above are what I usually play.
Age range: 14 - 17
Note: if you're a high level player with 200+ games and 60 friends then I'd rather not friend you. It's just a personal preference of mine.
If you would like to friend me then here is my friend code 1298757543

i love all music, i can bet you we overlap somewhere. we can talk 60s psychadelic, brit invasion, 60s/70s classic rock, 70s folk, disco, 80s new wave n punk rock, 90s grunge, 90s brit pop, y2k garage rock, some modern alt-ish hip hop stuff here & there. personally really obsessed with arctic monkeys and the beatles they've been my favorites for a while. my spotify is in my bio if you wanna see or you can just dm me about playlists or songs or whatever!
i like to do music-based art also, so if you're an artist that's super cool and we can talk about that too
(fyi I'm finishing up AP testing this week so I might be slow to respond but i'll get there, I just felt like making this post tn idk)
p.s. send guitar pics I'll swoon

I’m on day 2 (or is it 3?) and can’t figure out how to progress! I have spoken to everyone, have either called/texted or attempted to with everyone, and don’t seem to have a dialog left. I have the following task list items:

• Recover Adela’s Necklace
• Find the Dean (open item is “Later, follow up with the police”)
• Research the workshop Adela mentioned (I’ve checked off “Ask around about alchemy”)
• Open Marek’s trunk (I know what to do but Oskar is hanging around)

Any pointers on a person, place, or thing I should take another look at? Not ready for spoilers but some vague direction would be awesome!

✨ Modern and Cozy 1B1B Room in a 3B3B Detached House for Sublet! Only $1249/month, including water, and internet!✨
📍 Location: The Yards at Old State, 1830 Blue Course Dr, State College, PA 16801 🏞️ Environment: Newly built community with modern design, surrounded by mountains, quiet and peaceful, excellent natural lighting!
Property Features:
1 Bedroom, 1 Private Bathroom: The bedroom comes with a private bathroom, spacious walk-in closet, desk, chair, and comfortable mattress. Shared Luxury Amenities: High-end washer and dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, oven, super comfy sofa, 50" Class LED Smart TV, and dining table. Wired/Wireless high-speed internet: personally tested to have gigabit speed Pet-Friendly: The community welcomes pets (small additional management fee required). Convenient Parking: Exclusive free parking spot right outside the door.
Community Amenities:
Top-notch Club House: Free coffee area, quiet study area, group study rooms, free printing, swimming pool, gym, indoor basketball court, beach volleyball court, yoga room, and entertainment facilities (pool table, arcade games). Trash Collection: Convenient trash bins right outside the house with daily morning collection.
Transportation and Nearby Services:
Convenient Commute: 12-minute drive to campus, bus stop within the community with routes to campus and downtown. Shopping and Dining: Within a 10-minute drive to Walmart, Trader Joe's, Aldi, Walgreens, and restaurants like Chick-fil-A, Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Red Lobster, and more.
Flexible Lease Term: Lease starts from August 16, 2024, to July 25, 2025. If you need to sublet for just one semester, we can discuss the details.
I am subletting because I will be studying abroad in the UK for a semester, and I don't want to miss out on such a great place! If you're interested, please contact me as soon as possible!
📞 Contact: +1 925-699-9814
📧 Email: [peterzhong431@gmail.com](mailto:peterzhong431@gmail.com)

✨ Modern and Cozy 1B1B Room in a 3B3B Detached House for Sublet! Only $1249/month, including water, and internet!✨
📍 Location: The Yards at Old State, 1830 Blue Course Dr, State College, PA 16801 🏞️ Environment: Newly built community with modern design, surrounded by mountains, quiet and peaceful, excellent natural lighting!
Property Features:
1 Bedroom, 1 Private Bathroom: The bedroom comes with a private bathroom, spacious walk-in closet, desk, chair, and comfortable mattress. Shared Luxury Amenities: High-end washer and dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, oven, super comfy sofa, 50" Class LED Smart TV, and dining table. Wired/Wireless high-speed internet: personally tested to have gigabit speed Pet-Friendly: The community welcomes pets (small additional management fee required). Convenient Parking: Exclusive free parking spot right outside the door.
Community Amenities:
Top-notch Club House: Free coffee area, quiet study area, group study rooms, free printing, swimming pool, gym, indoor basketball court, beach volleyball court, yoga room, and entertainment facilities (pool table, arcade games). Trash Collection: Convenient trash bins right outside the house with daily morning collection.
Transportation and Nearby Services:
Convenient Commute: 12-minute drive to campus, bus stop within the community with routes to campus and downtown. Shopping and Dining: Within a 10-minute drive to Walmart, Trader Joe's, Aldi, Walgreens, and restaurants like Chick-fil-A, Chipotle, Taco Bell, McDonald's, Red Lobster, and more.
Flexible Lease Term: Lease starts from August 16, 2024, to July 25, 2025. If you need to sublet for just one semester, we can discuss the details.
I am subletting because I will be studying abroad in the UK for a semester, and I don't want to miss out on such a great place! If you're interested, please contact me as soon as possible!
📞 Contact: +1 925-699-9814
📧 Email: [peterzhong431@gmail.com](mailto:peterzhong431@gmail.com)

Hi legaladvice,
I (28M) think this is more for relationships but this is really more pressing.
Some key points before you read; I moved to Orlando, FL from Washington state in February of 2023. It was closer to family and I had a lot of friends here. I truly love it here. I’m convinced there is something mentally not-okay with my mother and we’ve had a hot/cold relationship for years. My dad divorced her and got re-married to her and these days just puts up with it. We used to have a significantly better relationship but this has frankly tarnished all of that and he just puts up with it. My parents are real-estate investors in the Orlando area and generally buy some of terrible homes in even worse areas and somehow find renters. They act like they’re mansions but they truly are terrible. I’m 28 years old.
When I initially moved here, I got my own apartment in a great suburb of Orlando. My parents helped me move and were really excited for me to get back on this coast. At some point during my residency, my parents brought up a notion to attempt to “help” me by buying me a house. My credit is shot and there is no way I qualify for a conventional mortgage. Maybe before the big short but certainly not in today’s housing climate. I didn’t actively reach out to them for this sort of assistance but I toyed with the idea.
Given the fact that they are real-estate investors, their interest rate was going to be somewhere in the realm of 7%. That left me with a max value of about a $400,000 house in order to be comfortable with the payment. Daily my mom would send me listings to some of the shittiest homes I’ve ever seen and get upset when I say I don’t like it. That would generally be when I would cut off the conversation after I’m told I’m “ungrateful”. Mind you they haven’t even done anything yet.
Months pass and I find a decent townhome in a location that I’ve always wanted to live in. It’s a townhome that has 2beds, 2baths and was about $380K. In an effort to make my parents happy and not be so “ungrateful” I agreed that they can put an offer on it. Mind you this house is one that I would likely never buy with my own money, but given the interest rate I sort of had to stick with it.
The agreement was that they would put down $100K for the house, I pay the full escrow (mortgage payment, PMI, taxes and HOA dues) and, when it comes time to sell, I would get every dollar above the selling price. It was an enticing deal to get some equity that I otherwise wouldn’t get living in an apartment complex. This was all something that was verbally discussed and I can’t find any physical copy of this being said either over text or another medium.
I broke my least and move in came in October of 2023 which also happened to be when I met my beautiful and loving girlfriend who I am extremely happy with. My parents came over in December for Christmas and I actually had my girlfriend stay in my house while my parents were in town so we can all do stuff together. I thought it went well. My parents met her family, my friends and we generally had a great time.
That apparently wasn’t their idea of the week and they are super upset that my girlfriend basically lives here. Text exchanges with my mother generally result in me being called a disgrace, ungrateful, disrespectful, etc. I would bore you with the text threads but I’ll probably share that when I post this to relationships.
I’m not looking for advice on the relationship piece, but at the end of the day this is all stemming from the fact that I got a girlfriend, they apparently don’t like her, are losing control of me and now we’re both suffering navigating business and family. It’s taking a huge toll on me to the point where I woke up today and cried after receiving another demeaning text from my mother. That same person they hate was there to comfort me.
This is where y’all come in. I’m really worried about the integrity of this “deal”. At this point I don’t think I will get any equity and my parents will just cut ties. When I brought up that I’m concerned about this, my mother always skirts the conversation over text, starts attacking me and they scoff when I bring up the idea of signing some sort of agreement. This house is riddled with issues because the inspector, the real-estate agents friend, missed so many things. I would love to get them fixed but not if I never have the opportunity to see the money again. The dishwasher is loose, the fridge is broken, the breaker panel is buzzing, the toilets are leaking and the air conditioning sounds like a car from the 1930s. I’m paying $2800/month for this house and while my payment at this stage goes almost all to interest, the property value did rise.
What I’m also more and more concerned about is my rights as a “tenant”. I have no formal lease agreement and just have electricity bills and other documentation to show that I live here but I could just as easily be kicked out on the street, correct? What should I be doing here to protect myself?
Your guidance is so appreciated.

Hello all! I’m looking for some recommendations about the next card to add to my travel portfolio. In particular, I’m traveling to 3 countries in Europe late August/early September and would like to cover as much of it on points as I possibly can. Especially hotel rooms as the price of those can add up quickly. Including my credit profile below to help with recommendations.
CREDIT PROFILE

• Current credit cards you are the primary account holder of: Two non-travel cards opened in mid 2019 and April 2023 and a Chase Sapphire Preferred opened January this year with a combined credit limit of $21,500
  
• FICO Scores with source: My experian score about a month ago was 687 but have since seen a large boost in other scores. Transunion and Equifax are both around 760
  
• Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 6 months: 1
  
• Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 12 months: 1 technically (one was late April 2023)
  
• Number of personal credit cards approved for in the past 24 months: 2
  
• Annual income $: 75k
  

CATEGORIES

• OK with category-specific cards?: I think so but would prefer not to have an annual fee if it’s category specific
• OK with rotating category cards?: Not preferable
• Estimate average monthly spend in the categories below. Only include what you can pay by credit card.
• Dining $: $200
• Groceries $: $250 of which $50 is spent at Costco and or BJs
• Gas $: Ranges from $80-$250 depending on the month. No more than half would be purchased at Costco or BJs
• Travel $: I don’t spend on travel regularly really. Only when I’m preparing for a trip but I currently set aside about $200/mo to spend on trips when they come up
• Do you plan on using this card abroad for a significant length of time (study abroad, digital nomad, expat, extended travel)?: I’m specifically looking for a card for this week long Europe trip but am looking to try digital nomading later this year so would be nice to choose a card I can use for that and keep long term
• Any other categories (examples: phone/internet, insurance) or stores (example: Amazon) with significant, regular credit card spend (the more you specify, the better): $ My 6 month car insurance payment is coming up and is around $1K. I would love to get the most points/value possible out of this
• Any other significant, regular credit card spend you didn't include above?: I am able to and usually do put $350-$400 of monthly expenses on my card in addition to groceries (parking, internet, etc.)
• Can you pay rent by credit card? If yes, list rent amount and if there's a fee for paying by credit card: $ Technically yes but the fee is around $50 MEMBERSHIPS & SUBSCRIPTIONS (delete lines that don't apply)
  
• Current member of Amazon Prime?: No
  
• Current Verizon postpaid customer?: No
  
• Current member of Costco or Sam's Club? Free Costco Membership and annual BJs membership
  

PURPOSE

• What's the purpose of your next card (choose ONE)?: Travel rewards
• If you answered "travel rewards", do you have a preferred airline and/or hotel chain? Not really. I’ve come to like Hyatt since having the Chase Sapphire Preferred since they have a published chart and a good point valuation but open to others
• Do you have any cards you've been looking at? Thinking about Amex gold, Hilton Honors Surpass, Marriott Bonvoy Boundless and the World of Hyatt card to a lesser extent (the sign up bonus feels kind of low)