Freemoblepron men on men

I’d like to begin this invitation of advice or experiences by stating that what I want in life is a partner who feels like home, will always give me their genuine effort, & will love me through all of the highs, mediums, & lows of life.
I specifically want to know about any advice or things I should consider when it comes to the age gap I have with the man I’m seriously considering making a staple & serious part of my life. I (29f) met Chance (40m) 3 years ago & we have been seeing each other for a little over a year. We met at the middle school in which we both work- he’s the social worker, I’m the art teacher. When I first saw him, he looked like a meat head (he’s pretty muscular, bald, beard, wears hoodies) & I’ve always been into nerds so it never occurred to me that I’d end up attracted to him. The first year we knew each other, it was very surface level, & then, during the second year of my time at the school, I got to know him better, as I did a few coworkers I now consider close friends. This second year of friendship was also a tough period for me as I was going through a divorce from a 5 year relationship with a man who wasn’t on the same life path as me & kind of made me dislike myself just for being me (wanting kids, needing to be intrinsically motivated in my career rather than financially motivated)- basically he was type A & I am B. Anyhow, as I was processing my divorce & creating friendships, I got to know Chance better both at work & at hang outs with friends outside of work. I watched how the kids at school just flocked to him & how kind he was with everybody. He coached the basketball team, did an after school program with the SRO to help at risk kids, & often stepped in to help others with tasks that weren’t related to his job as social worker. & he always did it with a positive attitude & good sense of humor. People just LIKE him, you know? It became obvious that he was just a really good person. One day, we had a discussion about kids & how we both wanted them. He told me I’d be a great mother because of how I treat the students & I told him he’d also be a wonderful parent. & he cast his spell on me & I slowly started falling for him. I couldn’t quite figure it out. Here I was, recently divorced from a relationship that had a tremendous affect on me mentally/emotionally, & I was gaining feelings for a man who was very different from my ex, & 11 years older than me. Was I just looking for a distraction? Was I using him to boost my confidence up after it had spent so much time at all time low? Or was I simply recognizing that this man had all of the features that I’d been missing in my past relationship & maybe I should pay attention to that? I was worried that my judgement post- divorce couldn’t possibly be clear, so I expressed that I had feelings for him but had to take things very slow. I was a bit of a mess as I tried to take the initial steps to get closer to him. I’d get emotional & have somewhat of a panic attack, or I’d go through some wishy washy phases when it came to wanting to see him in general. No matter what it was, he said that he understood, he wasn’t going anywhere, & that he just wanted me to be ok. He’d always ask what he could do to help & what I needed from him to feel better. If we were kissing & he felt that I wasn’t comfortable, he’d stop. One time he could tell that I wasn’t feeling great & he cried because he thought he’d made me feel bad. Needless to say, he was always there for me & ACTUALLY cared about how I felt. As we got closer, he was always respectful, would leave me flowers on random or special occasions (like when I was in an art show that he attended, or the first day of a new semester at work), wanted to make things like holidays memorable for me (one time I specifically thought was sweet was when he decorated my place with a Christmas tree & lights because “it’s your first Christmas in your new apartment, it should be festive!”). I consistently got solid evidence that he was emotionally mature, ready for a relationship, & wanted the same things as me.
So, I thought, “why is this sweet, courteous, kind, responsible, funny man single?” I’d heard some woman at work “pick” at him about this & say “I just don’t get how you’re single!” & I honestly wondered myself. You always heard that it’s a ref flag if a man dates a woman over 10 years younger & that it’s because “women his age didn’t want him”. Well, there are a few rational explanations I could think of: 1. He’d been sexually abused by his stepsister for years as a child. He’d told me that he’d had a few relationships during his 20s & 30s, but they didn’t last long & he’d had some issues with women not dealing with his anxiety around sex well. With me, this was not an issue, really. We’d taken the physical really slow, & when one of us felt anxiety as things heated up, the other stopped & supported. After a few months, it became a non-issue & we were able to have great sex with no fear that one of us would get anxious. 2. When he was younger (childhood-20s) he was overweight. He began balding in his 20s & so he shaved his head. Maybe there weren’t a lot of women who wanted to be with the overweight, bald guy? Women can be just as shallow as men.
So, I began to try to look for any signs that maybe this man is “grooming” me or something. I looked for issues as well as green lights. How’s his family? His brother is happily married with children & Chance is close with his family, seeing them weekly. What are his friends like? I enjoy his friends. They’re nice, fun people & his best friends are in happy marriages. Does he manipulate you? No, he treats me like a princess (I’m not used to it) & tries to establish healthy relationship patterns (he always insists on a weekly date night, suggests activities together, such as me weight lifting with him & him running with me). He also hypes me up like no other- If I’m wearing a risky outfit that I love but know my mom would insult, BAM Chance is the first one to see it & his jaw drops to the floor. Always telling me how strong, sweet, & cool I am. Made me take his gloves when we went on a snowy hike & I’d forgotten mine. Just basically an endless stream of courtesy.
I have gotten a lot of evidence that this is a solid person with whom I could build a beautiful relationship & family with. Everything he’s shown me has been positive as far as communication, morals, empathy, kindness & life plans is concerned.
So… is the 11 year age gap a concern? Should I be more paranoid about why he is still single, or are my theories valid? Although he goes to the gym daily & is like a kid at heart, should I worry about his age when it comes to us potentially raising kids? He’d likely be 43-45 by the time I was ready for that.
If you have any thoughts, please let me know. Truthfully, I do have other potential options if I pursued them & I’m not afraid of being alone, but I’m feeling that I’d like to commit to a relationship.

I still remember time was pretty slow in the 80s and 90s. But in the 21st century, time definitely has wings! Because many men are very busy nowadays, some of them don’t even have time to meet single ladies from Ukraine via online dating, even though they really want to. Therefore, if you are wondering how you can find time to meet women, this article is for you!
It’s time to break up with busyness. To help you find solutions to busyness, I have a list of ideas for you to consider.

1. De-scheduling: This is a way to edit your time and manage your week. De-scheduling your calendar opens space to expand your well-being and happiness rather than extending the timeline of your busy day. Now please have a look at your calendar and ask yourself, “Which activities bring me results and which activities don’t bring me results?” Then you can cancel low-leverage activities.
2. Join an international dating website: This technique is just like making passive income if I can use a business analogy. That means when you become a member of an international dating site that introduces single international women to you, the website will automatically send suitable candidates to you. This works even more if they offer online dating.
3. Hire an international dating agency that offers international trips that include flight, accommodation, translators, and so on, so that you don’t need to spend your time organising your trip by yourself when you want to visit your lady.

Online dating will change your love life. Why don’t you take the first step today?!

I am dealing with the shortest love story i’ve ever encountered thru LDR (never met him), but the most painful breakup we both have ever experienced.
I’ve had 2 tarot readers who were accurate with my love life and have suggested to do a cord-cutting ritual and healing past trauma ritual since I was told I needed it badly. The thing is, I am ready for the healing ritual BUT the cord cutting? Not sure yet. I’ve read some on google and it some say it’s beneficial for u since it releases the negative energy u have with the receiver. I wanna know how would the receiver feel on his end? Will he feel anything too or not? How permanent is cord-cutting ritual? Will my feelings for him fade? It’s one thing I’m afraid of since life gives you the best feeling ever which is falling in love. I’ve never had this kind of love before compared to previous men. Kindly enlighten me more about cord-cutting ritual please. Thank you 🫶🏻

I am planning on traveling to japan with my friends in the near future. My girlfriends and I are planning on traveling pretty light with just a carry on to get there. That way it’s easier to move about and we can bring back stuff that we buy as our checked luggage. However, I would hate to pack too light, anticipating on buying clothes there, just to have nothing fit us XD.
So I was wondering, what is in general a safe measurement range to find clothes relatively easily in Japan? Are there specific clothing items that you find are harder to find that fit? I’ve heard that undergarments, pants, and shoes can be the most difficult to find for foreigners. I would love to hear from both men and women as it’ll be a mixed group!

So my players are higher level and have been traveling all over the Sword Coast and when they got to Goldenfields I ran it more or less as it was in the book, but Strog Thunderblade is a problem. His incompetence got a lot of soldiers killed, and my table is entirely made of combat arms soldiers, mostly who worked in dismounted recon, so they really look at him as a real piece of shit getting all those dudes killed on guard by not listening to the recon element. He also got crops trampled and animals killed which makes the druid pretty mad.
Anyway, they get the 6 sidequests from the 6 NPCs and the first one they do is escorting the Zhent rogue, Shalvus Martholio, to Wormford. They have already killed the Wormford bat and have bad blood with the Zhents so I thought they may kill Shalvus so I tried to make it a bit of a moral dilemma. They find out he is a Zhent and decide to manipulate him pretending they are tight with Zhents to get him talking. He reveals 'Yea I am spying on Goldenfields for the network but in my report I am going to explain that the Emerald Enclave and Goldenfields are great to the Realm, they feed everyone and steward the land and animals wonderfully. My only issue is their pesky alliance with the Lord's Alliance. They feed Waterdeep, who then feel a "duty" to provide aid, like that piece of shit Thunderblade, whose incompetence nearly lost loads of food, and got a bunch of people and animals killed. I am too low rank to have taken him out on my own accord, but I plan to recommend we do take a hit on him.'
Surprisingly, my players all agreed with him. They heard his Zhent sales pitch which was basically "The Lord's alliance are all a result of nepotism, the harpers are naeive and insufferable, but the zhents can actually control crime by turning it into a regulated guild rather than pretending you can stamp it out, we would be better defenders of Goldenfields and alley to them than the Lords' Alliance'
So now how do we make Strom Thunderblade an interesting element narratively? I have one of two ideas.
The first one is he is in fact an incompetent officer from the Lord's Alliance, he is there from nepotism, he is up his own ass, his station as a military officer was bought not earned, but because of his powerful connections harm cannot be allowed to come to him. Though people in Waterdeep were tired of how useless he was and shipped him off to Goldenfields for a 1 year "broadening assignment," working as a watch commander on a section of the wall and that turned out giving him just enough power to get good men killed. The Emerald Enclave are furious with him but can't do much due to politics, the Lords' Alliance know he is an ass, but his family is too valuable to him and will predict he now has a target on his back and send some muscle out to protect him, and to advise him as they actually do have experience leading at least small units.
The second option is he is not incompetent, but a saboteure. He works for a nefarious organization such as the Kraken Society, or the Iron Throne, or both, and they use his noble status to get him in places to overhear important meetings mostly, but this time they asked him to fuck up the defences of Goldenfields to destabilize the region and shift the balance of power to make the crops in Yartar more valuable, as they have vested interests there, and believe they can control that market much safer than Goldenfields who has super fortified walls, emerald enclave everywhere, and an established relationship with the Lords' Alliance of Waterdeep.
Any thoughts on what I should do? Has anyone else punched this part of the story up?

2 out of the 3 talking stages I've had in the past year have reached out to me in the past month, and i'm feeling really confused. why are they reaching out, and why now? i don't know if i should do anything either
for context, guy 1 and i dated for a few months, then he ended things with me when i couldn't commit to him due to previous relationship baggage. he reached out a year later this year by trying to re-follow me on instagram. i ignored it.
guy 2 and i also dated for a few months, and he ended things with me when i got really upset at him for something he did. he reached out 6 months later by sending a simple "how are you" type of text. i also ignored it, but i miss him. however, he treated me quite poorly but i doubt he's even aware of it since he seemed to lack self-awareness.
why do men reach out months / a full year later randomly? idek if i can call what guy 1 did "reaching out" since all he did was try to re-follow me, but still both men are confusing me. if they had sent me a text explaining why they're reaching out, i think i would've felt more inclined to reply.
can anyone chime in? have you ever done the above to someone you've previously dated, and why? are these guys just bored and i caught them in a weak moment or what? thanks in advance

Stuck and need to let it out
Before i start i know i am very stupid for the choices i made. I (26f) got married to my husband (30m) when i was 21 we met from mutual friends and i fell in love with him and it was a feeling ill never forget. He was an amazing guy until he wasn’t he was always very charming and people instantly liked him when meeting him. There is more details but i am going to try to sum it up. I worked a little after marriage than covid hit and i got pregnant with my first born. He took care of me financially always and assured me i dont need to work anyways. I was with him when he was struggling i never complained as a newly wed who barley got to spend time with her husband because i understood i never asked him to take me out or anything i stood by him and now hes very successful (ill get back to why i mentioned that later) my pregnancy was very stressful in my 7th month he hit me and i had bruises on my neck and face i dont even remember what the fight was about after giving birth i struggled alot i was 22 years old i kept finding porn and videos being sent between friends which i have seen before but it started to make me feel bad about myself which i have always been confident before him i told him it bothered me and it never stopped so now im 23 and insecure and i alter my body and do a procedure thinking that will fix things (as i said i know im stupid) he strangled me 2 months after giving birth to the point that i passed out and woke up he almost killed me i never told anyone. He kept saying hes changing and well work things out so i forgave him. My family dosent believe in divorce and as much support i have from them i don’t want to disappoint them. We did good for a little bit we moved to a bigger place and than we moved again to another bigger place that i am in currently. In between all of that there was stuff that i kept seeing that hurt me and bothered me but anytime i say anything he says its me who keeps digging which is true because i grew up having a father who cheated on my mom and i saw it first hand im not going to lie it traumatized me but i did not project it on him until after he started doing the things he did. Hes a very jealous person himself he always tried to control everything he hates that im good looking he tells me all the time he should have married someone “ugly” i do NOT dress provocative at all i barley show any skin but somehow EVERYTHING always leads back to how i dress and all our problems are my fault because of how i dress he says that when we go out men always check me out and it angers him even tho i am not showing any damn skin. Anyways mothers day 2022 he hit me again but he says he didnt but the bruises on my arms say otherwise i have pictures of it and it was bad he tried to throw me down the stairs i begged him not to. Sadly i still wanted to be loved i forgave him moved on he is would buy me gifts and cards and because im so stupid i believed he was sorry anyways now its 2023 and i find out im pregnant i didnt know how i felt my first born was lonley so i thought at least they will have a sibling.. surprise its twins and i knew im going to go through it i had the worse pregnancy i almost died i developed pre eclampsia and my doctor missed it i gave birth early my whole pregnancy i was alone i was so lonley just me and my first born i cried everyday husband was working so i couldn’t complain without it turning to a fight even though its his company and he could afford to have been there a little for me it is not 7 months after i gave birth physically i feel good mentally i dont he is never there for me as a husband i been telling him i feel like he’s just a roomate at this point we have no dates barley any intimacy which had been going on for years i know hes insecure and i never used it against him but he always would to me he hates now that i bounced back quickly and like to dress up again because the end of my pregnancy i was very swollen i was wearing all his clothes. I kept crying telling him i have needs just like anyone else i want to feel loved i dont want to live like this but anytime i say anything he says i complain to much now last week he beat me over nothing it was 60 seconds into a petty argument and he attacked me i packed myself and my 3 kids he watched me packing calling me names i left to a hotel for a night nd than my moms house he got backlash from both our families i ended up having to come home for the kids im miserable hes not sorry mothers day he barley acknowledged me But we spent the day and today any time we try to talk about anything he blames me.
I know im stupid i dont know how i can start over again i have 3 kids i am in the works of going back to school so when the babys start school ill have my career because i am financially dependent on him which is my fault i worked since i was 14 but he convinced me not to anymore My oldest loves their father so much it hurts me to put my baby through this drama There is soooooo much more detail and stuff to add Hes not the worse person i guess i bring out the bad in him when all i ever wanted was to be in a healthy marriage and give my kids what i didn’t have growing up I dont know what to do i know i have to finish school so i can get a stable job but that means i have to stay and suck it up
I never wanted to be divorced but this marriage is over i always thought cheating was the only reason for divorce i am not in love with him but its so hard to let it go i never was like this i was so out going the life of the party i dont even recognize myself i feel so sad and depressed and alone i have the most amazing friends but i cant get myself to open up

So On a daily basis I struggle as to whether I think I’m gay or bi. I watch gay/Trans porn 80% of the time then Lesbian the other 20% .01% straight porn but it just bores the hell outta me and when I watch it I imagine myself as the female. When I fantasize I think about guys or Trans girls majority of the time to. I also crossdress as well and love to act feminine cute outfits nails done makeup wigs have to have the complete female look. Most of time I catch myself checking out women more than men as I have little to zero attraction to masculine males as I prefer femboys/Feminine guys and femboys are pretty rare lol. I basically think about crossdressing TGirls, Femboys, anything girly or feminine constantly wishing I could be girly or feminine 24/7. One day I’ll think about girls then the rest of the time I’m thinking about guys and crossdressing. Honestly I think more about dating guys rather than girls I don’t seem to lust after women even if I think there pretty I just crave guys more lol. I just can’t stop thinking about guys and having a boyfriend even while currently there’s a girl interested in me all the while there’s a guy I’m crushing on to which I talk to way more and think about him all the time. Does anyone else struggle with this as well? Like one day or most days you fantasize about the same sex but still think about the opposite sex just not as much?

Tarot Reader since 2017 who has fully mastered in depth readings to bring true insight to the energies and circumstances you are dealing with, with the use of Oracle and Astrology as well. Shaneka's Services And Contact Linktree
get a tarot reading
how often should you get a tarot reading
should i get a tarot reading
is it good to get a tarot reading
how much does it cost to get a tarot reading
how often should i get a tarot reading
best time to get a tarot reading
reasons to get a tarot reading
where can i get a tarot reading
why you should get a tarot reading
get a tarot reading online
getting a tarot reading in a dream
how to get the tarot card at arasaka tower
how to get the tarot card above misty
what age can you get a tarot reading
how to ask for a tarot reading
ways to do a tarot reading
how to get tarot reading
what to do if you get a bad tarot reading
what to know before getting a tarot reading
what to expect when getting a tarot reading
get a tarot reading for free
a tarot reader
is it bad to get a tarot card reading
when you get a bad tarot reading
best tarot cards to get in a love reading
can you get a bad tarot reading
how to get a better tarot reading
can you get a tarot reading online
where can i get a tarot card reading
can i get a free tarot reading online
how often should you get a tarot card reading
get a tarot card reading
worst cards to get in a tarot reading
what do you get from a tarot reading
i got a tarot card reading
i want a tarot reading
i need a tarot reading
how to get a free tarot reading
what is a general tarot reading
when should i get a tarot reading
how long should a tarot reading be
how to get a tarot reading
how many times can you get a tarot reading
how to get the most out of a tarot reading
how to get a good tarot reading
is it safe to get a tarot reading
when is the best time to get a tarot reading
why get a tarot reading
learn tarot reading near me
what happens when you get a tarot reading
where to get a tarot reading near me
get a card reader natwest
buy tarot card near me
when not to get a tarot reading
what to get a tarot reading on
buy tarot card online
quick tarot reading
questions to ask when getting a tarot reading
questions for a tarot reading
should you get a tarot reading
getting a tarot reading
what to do when you get tarot cards
get a reading with theresa caputo
where to get a tarot reading
x tarot reversed
z tarot
1 tarot card reading
2 tarot card reading
2 card tarot reading free
2 card tarot spreads
3 tarot reading
3 card reading tarot free
3 card tarot reading new age store
3 card tarot reading questions
4 card tarot reading free
4 tarot card reading
4 tarot card reading meaning
5 card tarot reading free
5 card reading tarot
6 card tarot reading free
how to read a 6 card tarot spread
6 card reading tarot
6 card relationship tarot spread
7 tarot reading
7 card tarot reading free
7 card tarot reading free online
8 card tarot reading
8 card spread tarot reading
9 card tarot reading
how to read a 9 card tarot spread
psychic reading
psychic reading near me
psychic reading free
psychic reading online
free psychic reading by date of birth and time
psychic reading free love
psychic reading cards
psychic readings by danielle
psychic readings by alicia
psychic reading meaning
eva tarot psychic reading
rebecca's psychic reading ted lasso
free psychic reading app
psychic reading ai
psychic reading apple pay
psychic reading banner
bali psychic reading
bobby brown psychic reading
benefits of psychic reading
bts psychic reading
birth chart psychic reading
best psychic reading
psychic reading cards meaning
psychic reading cards deck
daily psychic reading free
dallas psychic reading nyc
david schultz psychic reading
dark psychic reading
dangers of psychic reading
psychic reading elijah vue
psychic readings near me
psychic reading near me open now
elijah vue psychic reading
empress chain spiritual psychic reading
ethical psychic reading
email free psychic reading
experienced psychic reading
elsa psychic reading
psychic reading for taurus
psychic reading for today
psychic reading for riley strain
psychic reading for 2024
psychic reading free by date of birth
psychic reading flyers
psychic reading for aries
psychic reading for elijah vue
free psychic reading for love
free psychic reading cards
free psychic reading for leo
fertility psychic reading free
free psychic reading for virgo
free psychic reading for libra
free psychic reading for cancer
free psychic reading for taurus
psychic reading generator
psychic reading gif
psychic reading german
psychic reading gold creek
gemini psychic reading
gretchen fleming psychic reading
ghost psychic reading
goddess elite psychic reading
kelsey grammer psychic reading
sal governale psychic reading
psychic reading hannah mount sinai
psychic reading hoodie xplr
headache after psychic reading
horoscope psychic reading
howard stern sal psychic reading
henry cavill psychic reading
hand psychic reading
psychic reading in st louis mo
psychic reading in weymouth
impractical jokers psychic reading episode
i get a free psychic reading
i free psychic reading
psychic reading jobs online
psychic reading joslin smith
psychic reader joyce
psychic reader jerry
tarot reading jobs
tarot reading jakarta
tarot reading jobs from home
tarot reading jobs near me
tarot reading journal
tarot reading jobs remote
jungkook psychic reading
joslin smith psychic reading
january psychic reading
jade psychic and tarot reading cape town
kate middleton psychic reading youtube
kyle psychic reading
kim porter psychic reading
kim's psychic reading room
kris jenner psychic reading
kim kardashian psychic reading
kpop psychic reading
kelsey psychic reading
princess kate psychic reading
psychic reading lounge reviews
psychic reading ltd
love psychic reading free
libra psychic reading
leo psychic reading
love psychic reading free by date of birth
live psychic reading free online
love psychic reading online
leo psychic reading today
psychic reading meaning in hindi
psychic reading malaysia
psychic reading malvern
psychic reading meaning in hindi with example
morgan nick psychic reading
matthew perry psychic reading
my psychic reading today
psychic reading near scarborough
nebula psychic reading
nebula astrology and psychic reading
turkish coffee psychic reading near me
yes or no psychic reading
psychic reading online free
psychic reading online cards
psychic reading on riley strain
psychic reading on elijah vue
psychic reading on samantha murphy
online psychic reading manchester
old port maine psychic reading
online psychic reading
psychic reading pathfinder
psychic reading pismo beach photos
psychic reading pismo beach reviews
psychic reading princess kate
psychic reading quiz
tarot reading questions
tarot reading quotes
tarot reading questions about love
tarot reading quiz
spiritual reading quotes
tarot reading questions about career
tarot reading questions about life
tarot reading queen of cups
tarot reading quezon city
question psychic reading
relationship psychic reading questions
que significa psychic reading
que es psychic reading
psychic reading riley strain
psychic reading royal family
relationship psychic reading free
rebecca welton psychic reading
ryan shtuka psychic reading
random psychic reading
rose renee psychic reading
cameron robbins psychic reading
psychic reading spotify
psychic reading shirt
psychic reading shreveport
psychic reading today
psychic reading tube top
psychic reading template
turkish coffee psychic reading
ted lasso rebecca psychic reading
tarot psychic reading near me
tea leaf psychic reading
today's psychic reading
turkish coffee psychic reading nyc
true love psychic reading
tiktok psychic reading
taurus psychic reading
psychic reading ubud
tarot reading ubud
tarot reading using playing cards
tarot reading uk free
tarot reading upside down cards
tarot reading uluwatu
spiritual reading ubud
tarot reading unique
tarot reading utah
tarot reading udemy
unintentional psychic reading
online psychic reading us
psychic reader reading uk
psychic reading in urdu
virgo psychic reading
valentine psychic reading
vicki psychic reading
vivid psychic reading
vampire psychic reading
psychic reading with playing cards
what is psychic reading
xplr psychic reading hoodie
x-men psychics
x and y psychic pokemon
x psychopath reader
psychic reading yes or no
tarot reading yes or no
tarot reading youtube
tarot reading yes or no accurate
tarot reading youtube channels
tarot reading yes or no in hindi
tarot reading yes or no horoscope
tarot reading yourself
tarot reading yellow springs
yellow pages psychic reading
can you share your psychic reading
psychic reading 100
psychic reading 101
tarot reading 100 accurate
tarot reading 10 card spread
tarot reading 101
tarot reading 1 card
tarot reading 10 cards
tarot reading 111
tarot reading 10 of cups
tarot reading 1111
1.99 for 10 minutes psychic reading
10 minute psychic reading for $1
2024 psychic reading
psychic number 2 meaning
2 of pentacles psychic revelation
2 of wands psychic revelation
2 swords psychic revelation
tarot reading 3 card spread
tarot reading 3 cards
tarot reading 3 of cups
tarot reading 333
tarot reading 3 kings
tarot reading 31st
tarot reading $35
psychic number 3 meaning
flight 370 psychic reading
3 of swords psychic revelation
3 of pentacles psychic revelation
3 of wands psychic revelation
43551 psychic reading
4 psychic number
4 swords psychic revelation
4 of pentacles psychic revelation
tarot reading 5 card spread
tarot reading 5 of cups
psychic empath 5 books in 1
tarot reading 6 cards
tarot reading 6 of swords
tarot reading 6 of cups
psychic revelation 6 of wands
tarot reading 7
tarot reading 7 card spread
tarot reading 7 of cups
tarot reading 7 of swords
tarot reading 77084
psychic readings 90
tarot reading 9 card spread
tarot reading 94538

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.]

I am dealing with the shortest love story i’ve ever encountered thru LDR (never met him), but the most painful breakup we both have ever experienced.
I’ve had 2 tarot readers who were accurate with my love life and have suggested to do a cord-cutting ritual and healing past trauma ritual since I was told I needed it badly. The thing is, I am ready for the healing ritual BUT the cord cutting? Not sure yet. I’ve read some on google and it some say it’s beneficial for u since it releases the negative energy u have with the receiver. I wanna know how would the receiver feel on his end? Will he feel anything too or not? How permanent is cord-cutting ritual? Will my feelings for him fade? It’s one thing I’m afraid of since life gives you the best feeling ever which is falling in love. I’ve never had this kind of love before compared to previous men. Kindly enlighten me more about cord-cutting ritual please. Thank you 🫶🏻

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.]

Hi..i F(21) almost done with uni..my graduation ceremony is on the 4th of June..I’ve been always dreaming about this day when I walked towards my graduation certificate and take it honoring my 16 years of hard work..I live in a conservative city were almost everyone dressed modest and cover their hair..my uni announced that the graduation ceremony will be for parents not for women only..now I can’t do my hair or put makeup or even put perfume..the graduating students are about 380 and the students who asked for a parents ceremony are about 20 the remaining students objected..the other day girls were chatting on a group that included all 380+a professor who was in charge of the ceremony..we kept telling her that we don’t want the ceremony to include any men sense we are all women and we want to dress up and have fun but she wasn’t responding..we did everything we could for anyone to hear our demand but no one listened..so in the group chat a girl said that she think these 20 students asked for their fathers because maybe the don’t have moms”I know the girls that not why the asked for this” I replied that if the uni is feeling so bad for these girls they should do a second ceremony for these girls..everyone back fired at me as I cursed their mothers..it’s not fair to ruin such an important occasion because of a baby girl who need her daddy🥺🥺..then the admin of the group closed the chat and the last massage was”Believe me no one will listen to you if you talked in such a manner..shame on you”I couldn’t response or clear my point..I still believe I didn’t say anything wrong..maybe it was the way I wrote it but I know I was defending my right as I have as much right in this ceremony as everyone..and one other girls said that I must be excluded from the ceremony because of what I said(she is one of the students who asked for the parents ceremony thing)”for the record this is the first time fathers have been allowed in the graduation ceremony ever in my uni”I’m poor and I can’t afford to make a private graduation party and I have no friends this is my only chance to have fun in forever..am I wrong?

Stuck and need to let it out
Before i start i know i am very stupid for the choices i made. I (26f) got married to my husband (30m) when i was 21 we met from mutual friends and i fell in love with him and it was a feeling ill never forget. He was an amazing guy until he wasn’t he was always very charming and people instantly liked him when meeting him. There is more details but i am going to try to sum it up. I worked a little after marriage than covid hit and i got pregnant with my first born. He took care of me financially always and assured me i dont need to work anyways. I was with him when he was struggling i never complained as a newly wed who barley got to spend time with her husband because i understood i never asked him to take me out or anything i stood by him and now hes very successful (ill get back to why i mentioned that later) my pregnancy was very stressful in my 7th month he hit me and i had bruises on my neck and face i dont even remember what the fight was about after giving birth i struggled alot i was 22 years old i kept finding porn and videos being sent between friends which i have seen before but it started to make me feel bad about myself which i have always been confident before him i told him it bothered me and it never stopped so now im 23 and insecure and i alter my body and do a procedure thinking that will fix things (as i said i know im stupid) he strangled me 2 months after giving birth to the point that i passed out and woke up he almost killed me i never told anyone. He kept saying hes changing and well work things out so i forgave him. My family dosent believe in divorce and as much support i have from them i don’t want to disappoint them. We did good for a little bit we moved to a bigger place and than we moved again to another bigger place that i am in currently. In between all of that there was stuff that i kept seeing that hurt me and bothered me but anytime i say anything he says its me who keeps digging which is true because i grew up having a father who cheated on my mom and i saw it first hand im not going to lie it traumatized me but i did not project it on him until after he started doing the things he did. Hes a very jealous person himself he always tried to control everything he hates that im good looking he tells me all the time he should have married someone “ugly” i do NOT dress provocative at all i barley show any skin but somehow EVERYTHING always leads back to how i dress and all our problems are my fault because of how i dress he says that when we go out men always check me out and it angers him even tho i am not showing any damn skin. Anyways mothers day 2022 he hit me again but he says he didnt but the bruises on my arms say otherwise i have pictures of it and it was bad he tried to throw me down the stairs i begged him not to. Sadly i still wanted to be loved i forgave him moved on he is would buy me gifts and cards and because im so stupid i believed he was sorry anyways now its 2023 and i find out im pregnant i didnt know how i felt my first born was lonley so i thought at least they will have a sibling.. surprise its twins and i knew im going to go through it i had the worse pregnancy i almost died i developed pre eclampsia and my doctor missed it i gave birth early my whole pregnancy i was alone i was so lonley just me and my first born i cried everyday husband was working so i couldn’t complain without it turning to a fight even though its his company and he could afford to have been there a little for me it is not 7 months after i gave birth physically i feel good mentally i dont he is never there for me as a husband i been telling him i feel like he’s just a roomate at this point we have no dates barley any intimacy which had been going on for years i know hes insecure and i never used it against him but he always would to me he hates now that i bounced back quickly and like to dress up again because the end of my pregnancy i was very swollen i was wearing all his clothes. I kept crying telling him i have needs just like anyone else i want to feel loved i dont want to live like this but anytime i say anything he says i complain to much now last week he beat me over nothing it was 60 seconds into a petty argument and he attacked me i packed myself and my 3 kids he watched me packing calling me names i left to a hotel for a night nd than my moms house he got backlash from both our families i ended up having to come home for the kids im miserable hes not sorry mothers day he barley acknowledged me But we spent the day and today any time we try to talk about anything he blames me.
I know im stupid i dont know how i can start over again i have 3 kids i am in the works of going back to school so when the babys start school ill have my career because i am financially dependent on him which is my fault i worked since i was 14 but he convinced me not to anymore My oldest loves their father so much it hurts me to put my baby through this drama There is soooooo much more detail and stuff to add Hes not the worse person i guess i bring out the bad in him when all i ever wanted was to be in a healthy marriage and give my kids what i didn’t have growing up
I dont know what to do i know i have to finish school so i can get a stable job but that means i have to stay and suck it up
I never wanted to be divorced but this marriage is over i always thought cheating was the only reason for divorce i am not in love with him but its so hard to let it go i never was like this i was so out going the life of the party i dont even recognize myself i feel so sad and depressed and alone i have the most amazing friends but i cant get myself to open up

Hey there I am M 19 and I am trying to understand and improve my fashion sense(to even know what women find good looking on men specially teenage boy) and taste ..so I have noticed I don't have good clothes and I don't dress up nicely and also I don't even understand fashion so please share your knowledge, I have a few doubts like what to pair with what, which colour goes with this and with those, what looks good on me, what to wear when and what's over dressed ,under dressed, dressed according to occasion, is it true that their are different ways men and women look at clothing, what style will suit me a more mature look or more casual .... suggest videos, books, or websites too if you know any and educate me. Thanks for reading

I know the locker room is the place where it is acceptable to be naked while you are taking a shower or change your clothes. No one is going to question your behavior. Most would just look the other way. But, what I have witnessed is that older men seems to be so carefree with nudity. They would be naked in front of their friends carrying on a converstion without any embarrassment. Covering up is not an option.

Trying to find this old romance game I used to my on my Samsung. I know it got deleted but I saw playthroughs on YouTube a few years ago. The premise is like you the blonde haibrown skin protag gets their house broken into by a group of three men and one girl and it's like “You need to come with us” That's all the plot I remember. Before the game starts it asks for your gender and what gender you were attracted if you picked female you would romance the only woman in the group!

“Did that Human just hit my ship?” Admiral Carney of the Saigor Empire peered out of the viewport. His voice tinged with disbelief. His ship, the Gavaron, a superstar dreadnought 10 kilometres long and brimming with every weapon the galaxy had to offer, was being propelled backwards past the fourth planet of this insignificant solar system by a man dressed in a blue suit and red cape. The crew, initially stunned, began to regain their composure and halt the ship.
“Sir? What should we do?” His second-in-command looked at the screen in disbelief. “That hit destroyed the forward shield generators and the forward main cannon!”
“Ehhh? That has to be a hologram. Scan for whatever weapon they used and send in two frigates to destroy whatever that thing is.”
His order was followed, and he saw two of the frigates that had been held back speed past him, launching rockets at the target, only for the rocket to be blasted by some red laser from this human's eyes, according to the video feed.
“Are you seeing this? What in the fifth unholy hell is this thing from? Is it a droid? “
“Scans say it's biological, and there is no technology detected, and according to our files, it looks human.”
“LOOKS HUMAN?” Admiral Carney turned to the science officer. “Does that look like a normal biological being to you? Those rockets are made of Dirunium. We can launch them through a damn sun if we want to.”
He turned to see this human grabbing a frigate and slinging it towards them. The other hightailed out of there, jumping into light speed in whatever direction they were facing. Smart kids, he thought.
“Brace for impact!”
“Brace for impact, but the shields?” His first officer looked at the helmsman as he shouted out the warning. Admiral Carney sighed and looked at him. “He destroyed them, remember? Move the ship out of the trajectory, turn the ships around and get us out of here. We can't fight that thing.“
“What about the shield? We can't jump without a shield?”
“Have a support ship land on the bow, and have them extend their shields over our damaged area. Then, let's get out of here. “
“Sir! The human is approaching us.” The words made it go cold down his spine. How could that thing, man, move that fast without any tech?
“Is he attacking?” He managed to keep his voice calm but he was getting worried. Was he to die here? In what was supposed to be a simple invasion to teach the recruits how to do the job.
“No, he is just watching us.” The words calmed him down. Maybe they could survive this. It was a defence system; it had to be, so if they just left, it would leave them be.
“Then ignore him, and let's get out of here.”
When he finally had time, he went over the reports. Earth was not supposed to have such a being as its defender. He had never seen or heard anything like this. This might cost him his job, but there was no way in the five unholy hell he could ever win over that. He logged the report and got himself a drink. He looked at his own fist. The green muscular fist would never be able to do something like that. They will cut his horns and blind his third eye for this, but he would survive. He could leave the navy and find a job on a starbase far from the capital planet. Yeah, it might be for the best. He got out the pad, wrote down his resignation, and sent it to the headquarter.

Five years later

Jar Carney had been working as a bartender at the Gustun star base for five years now, a trader base that saw creatures from all over the galaxies. Here, nobody knew or cared who he was, though he had heard the stories about the admiral who quit his position after attacking Earth, and a single human beat them back. It was a very popular story among some of the travellers. The only thing Jar found funny was that they often got the species of the admiral. In fact, mostly, it was somebody else than a Cunar like him; it tended to change. Lately, it was a female admiral of the Surion empire. Carney had to smirk at how the story had changed, and then he turned to the new Surion bartender, Saris, a young woman with a serious face who always kept to herself. She was pretty for a Surion; her soft yellow and black striped fur and the short tale made her cute, and her feminine movement had already made a few brave patrons try their luck. However, she ignored them all. “Hey, I didn’t know you guys had female admirals?”
She froze as he spoke, and Jamir, the local drunk, chuckled. “Only if they are royalty, they are given a fleet and told to show what they can do. But this time, this princess went to Earth, which was such a stupid choice. I thought they had learnt by now.” He then winked five of his 15 eyes at Saris.
Both Carney and Saris turned to him and said in unison, “What?”
Jamir laughed and finished his drink. “I’m the Funasta Admiral they spoke about last year. Unlike the smart invaders, I managed to land on that cursed planet, and while that demon tore through my fleet in space, I had to face something even worse. We set up a teleport point and just started to send in our mech units. They suddenly faced a green giant behemoth of a human. The more they shoot at him, the stronger and more dangerous he became. Then, we launched our troops and drone fighters. The humans responded by sending in more of these demons. First was a man in red who ran faster than we could see. Then a man dressed in old armour and a hammer of all things came, he controlled the weather and everywhere he struck was also hit by lightning from a clear sky. The green behemoth and the hammer guy are just as strong as the demon in the sky. They just can't fly like him. Besides the red blur that will zip around and disarm your troops, the ground support of those two monsters is a few other demons. There is a man with metal claws that could heal any wounds we inflicted on him. He is aided by a woman who tore through our men like they were paper. We had managed to defend the teleporter, so we poured in our drone clones. It didn’t matter.” He took another drink as he got lost in the nightmare that would follow. It took a second before he continued.
“The worst happened when night came. They made the dead rise to fight, Led by some bloodthirsty beast who drained our officers. Then came the humans, who turned into predatory animals and were immune to anything we threw at them. At that point, we finally had enough and ran away. We teleported home since all our ships had been destroyed and destroyed our side of the gate. So, of course, I was expelled.” He smirked, showing maw of short teeth.” But I had recorded too much evidence for them to ignore it, so we sent spies to try and find a weakness in their defense, and then we found out we were not the first to face them like this.“ He held out his glass for refill, which he got.
“We discovered that they have defeated at least eight invasions this way. And” He stopped for dramatic effect. “ We discovered their weapon. Those monsters are not real—well, they are real, but they are the result of human imagination. They have this technology that allows them to pull their —what’s the word? Ahh, now I remember superheroes and monsters from their books and movies, and for as long as people needed them, they would protect them from the enemies of the Earth. You see, they vanish once the invasion is over. Then the humans plunder the battlefield for tech.” He chuckles as he looks at his clawed hand. “Yeah, so here we sit, three admirals fracked up by imaginary monsters because nobody would believe it before seeing it with their own eyes. I mean, would your rulers believe such a fracked-up story.”
As always, let me know if you post it anywhere else. I'm okay with it as long as I get credit and am notified.

I haven't really needed anything more formal in my decade'ish of onebagging than a shirt with a collar. But, for an upcoming trip - I'd like something at least blazer'ish.
But, ideally I'd like it flexible enough to wear in non-blazer times. AKA, a jacket that I could wear out to dinner with a dress shirt at a fancy restaurant, but maybe also not look out-of-place on an afternoon hike over a T-Shirt. Does such a thing exist?
Also, I tend to run hot, so lightweight would be ideal.
Options I've considered:

• In my everyday life, I have the Fjallraven Vardeg jacket, and love it, but it's way too bulky and heavy for one bagging. If "the Vardeg but lighter, less bulky and quick-drying" exists, that'd be great.
• Frequently recommended travel blazers like the Eddie Bauer are, I'm sure great, but look a little business'ey to me. Same for Uniquolo, Bluffworks, Bonobos and other more traditional travel blazers.
• Ministry of Supply Velocity Shirt Jacket - Concerned it might be a little short (I've got a long torso). The sale price is nice, but worried about ordering something on "final sale" I can't return from a brand whose sizing I'm not familiar with. Might try it out with a credit card with return protection anyway.
• Relwen Flyweight Flex Blazer - Really like the look of it - but not sure I can embrace the "wrinkle" look. Also, $300 seems like a lot for something made out of cotton.
• Faherty Reserve 4-Pocket Field Jacket - Like the cut, fabric and fit. 4 is a lot of pockets. 400 is a lot of dollars.
• Marine Layer Breeze Blazer - More on the "going to the office" side of things, but maybe also not?

Advice? What else should I be looking at?

I've relearned that I want to be alive but even though I'm living, I don't feel completely alive. I have a close friendship with someone online who calls themself my best friend but I feel distant to them because they're amab, we can't relate to each other on a deeper level solely because I'm a csa victim and they're not, and they have parents and I don't. They can't understand what pain I deal with on a daily basis and it makes me feel so lonely even though I love them very much and I love spending time with them, it just hurts that we can't be closer because of something out of my control. Nightmares, hypersexuality, isolation, and a lack of understanding makes navigating the world painful. Losing my innocence makes growing up painful. Being lonely makes existing painful. I just want to feel better and I've been trying so hard but it's just so painful. I always wonder why I'm stuck fixing the parts of myself that're broken because of my own dad and the other men who've ruined who I used to be, and not them. Even an apology especially from my dad would mean so much to me. But he never once attempted to reach out. The moment he learned he couldn't touch me anymore, he didn't even want me. It makes life very hard when I know I'll be carrying all this forever.