Hi all. I'm really really not doing well at my current job, mentally and emotionally I mean. For the past 6 months Ive been figuring out if I was really going to try to leave. About 2 weeks ago I applied to a job I really want I believe im qualified for, I also found a recruiter for said company on linkedin and messaged them the following:
"Hi X, I’m X, currently the (my job). I wanted to reach out because I’m exploring new opportunities. I’ve been working professionally in the retail business for 7 years. If you have time, I’d love to talk about whether my background may fit any openings you have."
And along w the message send a connection request. Now, he accepted the request but I haven't heard anything. I'm kind of wanting to message again and give him the job application # their website has and say I applied and Im interested since the job posting is still active and on their website it still says "in progress" but it's been in progress since april 18th.
Am I being the most? Should I message again, give him the application information and move on? or just sit and keep waiting. I'm still applying to other jobs. Im in the middle of waiting for a second interview for one and another recruiter just reached out to me for another job I applied. BUT this is the one I want lol

Today's anniversaries are:
1985

Supertramp - Brother Where You Bound (Rock)

1991

Primus - Sailing the Seas of Cheese (funk metal)

2001

Tool - Lateralus (Rock, Hard Rock, Metal)

2008

ミドリ (Midori) - あらためまして、はじめまして、ミドリです。 (Aratamemashite, hajimemashite, Midoridesu.) ()

2009

Maudlin of the Well - Part the Second (avant goth, experimental, experimental black metal, modern composition, progressive doom, psychedelic, Brooklyn)

2011

Mombu - Mombu (experimental, metal, african music, doom, grind, jazz core, Roma)

2012

Diablo Swing Orchestra - Pandora's Piñata (black, death, doom, extreme, metal, thrash, Wallingford)

2013

Hybrid - Angst (death metal, experimental, extreme metal, mathcore, metal, progressive metal, Spain)
Les Mouvements - Les Mouvements (progressive rock) Read our review.
Mestís - Basal Ganglia (Rock)
The Dillinger Escape Plan - One of Us Is the Killer (Rock)

2014

Pasteur - Tetrachromacy (Rock)

2015

Start the Reactor - Demo 2015 (experimental, grind, hardcore, metal, New York)

2016

2017

Baldvin Snær Hlynsson - Renewal (jazz, renewal, valdi kolli, flugelhorn, instrumental, modern jazz, modernjazz, piano, Iceland)
Lūmen et tenebrae - Eternal Love (atmospheric black metal)
Thicket of Antlers - Black Dogs (death metal, metal, metalcore, thrash metal, death metal, hardcore, heavy metal, metal, metalcore, ukmetal, underground, United Kingdom)

2018

2020

2021

2022

2023

Vantana Row - Homelist (crustwave)

Primerishta.com is not just another match-making website. It was started with the sole intention of cutting through a market of business-minded matchmakers and bringing back the age-old tradition of matchmaking where a community would come forward to assist two people, meant for each other, to come together and make a beautiful living with each other.

Embarking on the journey to become an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer is an ambitious goal that requires dedication, perseverance, and strategic planning. For many working professionals, the dream of serving the nation as a civil servant often intersects with the demands of their current jobs. Balancing work commitments with IAS preparation can be a daunting task, but with the right strategies, it's entirely achievable.
Challenges Faced by Working Professionals: Working professionals aspiring for the IAS face unique challenges that set their journey apart from full-time aspirants. Juggling between office hours, meetings, and deadlines leaves limited time and energy for rigorous preparation. Moreover, maintaining focus and motivation amidst the daily grind can be challenging.
Strategies for Balancing Work and IAS Preparation:

Effective Time Management: Utilize every available minute judiciously. Allocate specific time slots for IAS preparation daily and stick to them religiously. Even dedicating an hour in the morning before work or in the evening after work can yield significant progress over time.
Set Realistic Goals: Understand your limitations and set achievable goals. Break down the vast syllabus into smaller, manageable tasks, and prioritize them based on importance and your strengths and weaknesses.
Create a Structured Study Plan: Develop a well-organized study plan tailored to your schedule. Divide your study material into chunks and assign them to different days or weeks. Having a clear roadmap will help you stay on track and make the most of your study sessions.
Utilize Technology and Online Resources: Leverage technology to your advantage. There are numerous online platforms, apps, and resources available for IAS preparation, offering study materials, mock tests, and interactive sessions. Make use of these tools to supplement your preparation and stay updated with current affairs.
Stay Consistent and Persistent: Consistency is key to success. Even on days when you feel overwhelmed or demotivated, make an effort to stick to your study routine. Remember that progress is gradual, and every small step counts towards your ultimate goal.
Maintain Work-Life Balance: While it's important to dedicate time to your IAS preparation, don't neglect other aspects of your life. Ensure you allocate time for relaxation, hobbies, and spending quality moments with family and friends. A well-balanced life will help you stay refreshed and focused.
Seek Support and Guidance: Don't hesitate to seek support from family, friends, or mentors who understand your aspirations and can provide encouragement and guidance along the way. Joining a supportive study group or enrolling in a coaching institute can also provide valuable resources and motivation.

Balancing work commitments with IAS preparation is undoubtedly a challenging endeavor, but it's not insurmountable. With careful planning, dedication, and perseverance, working professionals can effectively manage their time and make steady progress towards their goal of becoming an IAS officer.
For working professionals in Coimbatore looking for expert guidance and support in their IAS preparation journey, consider enrolling at PM IAS Academy. With experienced faculty, comprehensive study materials, and personalized attention, PM IAS Academy is committed to helping aspirants achieve their dream of cracking the IAS exam. Visit our website or contact us today to learn more and take the first step towards realizing your aspirations.

A bit of background, I have finished playing all main pokemon games (except spin offs and legends of arceus-not yet) ever since year 2000 except SwSh (currently playing) and S/V (which I will be playing after). At the same time I am not a competitive player.
My opinion might change after i play deeper into the game, but what I can say so far is i am enjoying the game very much, collecting pokemon and exploring. I think so far its a decent game for what it is, i didnt put any expectations since pokemon's game direction has been unclear for quite a while since gen 6 tbh (but alola games were amazing though) and i am not gonna act like the franchise is all time high like. I just find it ridiculous to compare the games overall since the experience differs a lot and pokemon franchise has been going on for such a long time that so much changes has happened due to technology, etc. It is hard to be objective about it. Each pokemon game offers something unique, whether its collectively hated or loved. And i LOVE SwSh's artstyle, and it appalled me a lot of ppl finding it ugly.
Maybe its my age, who knows but i find myself thinking that pokemon games are more like a relaxing thing for me (gonna be 30 soon lol). I have a feeling that most people complaining are serious players that are into the competitive scene. Some complained that the difficulty is too easy, what i do is catch a lot of pokemon and level them up to evolve (for pokedex fill ) as well since u can pretty much access the box anywhere (i rly love this change, and less grind needed).
Talking abt the level gap, firered (and g/s/cc to some extent) has this notorious level curve (trust me, idm that) but sometimes the gap can go as far as 20 levels, which requires me to grind at least 10 levels to make it possible for me to progress. Its fair to complain abt the easy difficulty of the newer games, but i nvr heard anyone complaining abt the overly-difficult level curve of the older games. I think gen 4 and 5 (that i can remember atm) did a good job of this, the levels are still higher but its nowhere 20 lvls gap lol. And i can still remember grinding using the vs seeker, i was too underleveled for the indigo league and it was tedious. This is just my personal experience, maybe i didnt play the game right i guess.
I am currently at the dojo area of isle of armor dlc and still exploring to find pokemon, and camping all that stuff. Its fun finding variety of pokemon that i found myself invested to form my definite team. Thats all so far and thx for reading lol.

Apply for Senior Oil Trader Jobs In Dubai and make your job hunting simpler. Progressive Recruitment is a renowned recruitment agency with a track record of connecting top talent with leading companies in the petroleum industry. As a senior petroleum trader, you will play a crucial role in managing and executing trading strategies, analyzing market trends, and building strong relationships with clients and suppliers. If you are ready to step into a challenging and rewarding role as a senior petroleum trader, connect with Progressive Recruitment today!
Visit the website to know more about latest job opening: https://www.progressiverecruitment.com/en-ae/job-search/

I apologize if this post violates the SPAM rule. The spirit of this idea is not self-promotion but documentation. I understand if the mods don't want to allow this to stay up, however.
I maintain a website and a newsletter about the natural world. Like many others here, the eclipse was a major goal and a transcendent experience. The visceral, physical experience was matched only by sharing the happening with my family and loved ones. Reading everyone's tales afterward led me to understand that it wasn't just the sun and the moon but the planning, the travel, and being next to others as the magic transpired.
I would like to create a historical document of the experiences people had across North America. Photos, videos, and written accounts. If you're interested in telling your story, I'd love to preserve it. Where did you see the eclipse? From where did you drive/fly/walk? With whom did you watch? How was the weather? What was the experience like from your perspective? How do you feel after the fact? Anything notable about your eclipse would be fantastic.
If you'd like to participate, think about how you'd like to present yourself. First name/last name. First name/last initial. Internet handle. Whatever name you'd like. If you're comfortable with presenting your age, that might be interesting to posterity, as well. Photos and videos would be preferred in a non-compressed manner (aka - not over Reddit).
Please try to limit your tale to 1,000 maximum, but feel free to express yourself in as few words as you like.
I'm going to leave the website and an email address to which you can send stories in the comments. Feel free to send me a direct message on Reddit with any questions or concerns.
Looking forward to reading what you come up with!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do mostly college-aged and FOCUS Catholics say “ALL glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit…” instead of just “glory be…”? I learned just “glory be,” which is what’s on Wikipedia and most websites, and seems to sync up with the Latin.
I have a guess… maybe they saw it written in a prayer book or the LotH or something, formatted like this:
All: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
Any other theories where that came from?

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

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

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

Best surgical oncologist in Hyderabad9000126776
Introduction:
Starting Centrality in Surgical Oncology
Insides the space of surgical oncology, where exactness, capacity, and affectability cross, Dr. Chinnababu stands as a reference point of brilliance. With a stellar reputation made through a long time of commitment and aptitude, Dr. Chinnababu has re-imagined the rules of care insides the field. Let's burrow into the travel and achievements of this dazzling individual.
Early Beginnings and Instruction
Dr. Chinnababu's travel towards getting to be a predominant surgical oncologist takes after back to [Insert Beginning], where his vitality for pharmaceutical blossomed at an early age. After completing his essential instruction with refinement, he set out on a travel of educator significance, winning his strong degree from [Insert Prestigious Accommodating Institution].
Specialization and Advanced Orchestrating
Driven by a unfaltering charmed of data and capability, Dr. Chinnababu looked for after specialization in surgical oncology, recognizing it as his calling to combat cancer through surgical intercessions. He experienced cautious organizing underneath the mentorship of organized aces, honing his aptitudes in bewildering surgical procedures and unfaltering care.
Clinical Capacity and Commitments
Outfitted with a astonishing capacity set and a compassionate approach, Dr. Chinnababu made as a stalwart interior the field of surgical oncology. His clinical slant incorporates a wide cluster of strategies, expanding from [Insert Major Strategies] to [Embed Specialized Procedures]. Patients trying to find his care advantage not since it were from his specialized capacity but as well from his enduring commitment to their well-being.
Patient-Centric Care:
Affectability in Improvement
What really sets Dr. Chinnababu isolated is his chosen commitment to giving patient-centric care. He approaches each case with affectability, ensuring that patients and their families get not since it were helpful treatment but as well exuberant fortify all through their travel. His compassionate bedside way and personalized approach have earned him the recognize and appreciation of relentless individuals.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Dr. Chinnababu's commendable travel as a surgical oncologist epitomizes the quintessence of brilliance in healthcare. His decided commitment, clinical capacity, and compassionate care have touched the lives of different, progressing acknowledge insides the go up against of event. As he continues to pushed the boundaries of progress and mindfulness, Dr. Chinnababu stands as a sparkling graph of recovering and acknowledge insides the fight against cancer. Yashoda Hospitals, Hitech City,

Over the years, I have succesfully swapped postage stamps with other collectors around the world. However, I I've gotten frustrated by some of the "rules" that exist on some of the websites, or frustrated with some of the requests from fellow collectors after I've been matched with on the sites.
This time, I'm trying to setup a site that we can all use to swap stamps. However, you will have to post a picture of the stamps you want to swap so your fellow collectors can decide if they are interested. You don't need to swap 1:1 or by value, you can get creative in how you want to swap. Thus you might swap common stamps for a post card!
If you have stamps to swap: ________________________________

Create a post and upload a picture of the stamp. Set the post tag to "New Swap" (green)
Collectors will send you a message if they are interested in your stamps and can fulfill your swap request. Set the post tageto "Swap in Progress" (yellow)
Once both side agree, swap addresses and mail the stamps to each other.
Set the comment flair to "Closed swap" (red)

If you want to swap stamps: ________________________________

Browse through the new swap requests
If the stamps are of interest and you can fulfill the posters swap requests, message the poster with a photo of the stamp you have to swap
If you agree on the swap, them mail the stamps to each other

Sample New Post (swap request)
__________________________________
Description: 25 Used 1990s Stamps from Australia
Number of Stamps: 25
Type of Swap: by number
Stamps requests: 25 used stamps from any country, no CTO stamps
Location: USA
Swap Locations: Worldwide
Picture of stamps

Opening this up to a conversation to fellow introverted pepole out of curiosity. I am a 32 year old male, and have been introverted all my life. I have had friendships in the past, but I have never sustained them. I feel I've always been on tow sides of the spectrum, when it comes to maintaining a platonic relationship. Ither I've put tomuch of myself and have gotten clingyness and then beaing reliant on me. Or I've just haven't given much, due to my introverted tendency. I feel alot more comfortable in romantic relationships thoe, we're I've been abel to be on another level and we reciprocate those emotions. I just get draind easly by platonic relationships and most people especially as I've aged. Dose this make me a bad person, or is it society's norms that uphold this? As I get older I feel like I'm not going to make a meaningful relationship due to me being introverted even more as I get older. Don't get me wrong, I like people and am interested in pepoles lives, but on the other hand I also don't progress anything. Dose anyone go through this or have a similar way at looking at things?

Sunday June 2, 2024 12:00 - 3:00 PM Allan Gardens Children's Conservatory 19 Horticultural Ave, Toronto
Join us for an all-ages indoor greenhouse meetup of the world's largest Tamagotchi club! No Tamagotchi required!
For more information, visit our website at torontotamagotchiclub.neocities.org or on Instagram at @toronto.tamagotchi.club

Album first: https://imgur.com/a/wj9xMdd (I've got no idea why you need to verify your age, I swear it's just boots)
Pics from the manufacturer: Pics
Why Mexican boots? Because I live in Mexico, and they are more affordable and easy to find than other options. Besides, I get to support local business, and that is a big plus for me. Obviously, English is not my first language, so bear with me.
Disclaimer: This review has been completely sponsored by my compulsive shopping. I have not received any free boots or discounts, but if someone wants to give a free pair of boots, my feet are ready.

Brand: Varonte

Varonte is a Mexican brand of shoes/boots with a made to order model. As far as I know, they don't ship outside of Mexico, but you can always ask. One of the advantage of these small brands is that they are really flexible.
These were my first boots and in general my first pair of goodyear welted shoes. I paid around $100 USD for these boots. Most of the shoes/boots they sell go for $100-$130 which is really cheap for a goodyear welted shoe.
Website: https://www.varonte.com/collections/catalogo
Social media: https://www.instagram.com/varonte_shoes/

The good:

These boots are made almost entirely of leather. Leather uppers, leather lining, leather sole with a half rubber sole. There seems to be a foam layer underneath the insole. They were comfortable right out of the box, no break in required. I liked the folded leather edges. The QC seems wonderful for the price point. Overall seems like really good value for the money.

The could-be-better:

The upper's leather seems really thin. I didn't find any information about the leather, but chrome-tanned for sure. There's no gusseted tongue, so It slips to the side. I'm sure that's not an issue with the boot per se, but I wish it had a gusseted tongue to avoid that. They had a hand painted patina that I wasn't a fan of, but I used a burgundy shoe cream and is much less noticeable now. The laces they came with seemed really cheap, I changed them for some waxed flat cotton laces from Amazon.

Would I buy from Varonte again:

Sure, great value for the price and several different models to choose from. If I had to buy from them today, I would contact them to ask for a custom shoe with thicker leather, no hand-painted patina, contrasting-color stitching and gusseted tongue.

The important questions:

Are they better than Thursday? No idea, I don't own a pair of Thursday boots but I will update the post once Thursday sponsors me.
What about sizing?>! These were my first boots, so I kind of screwed up and orderer my sneaker size. They are slightly big for me (maybe half size) but that's my fault. It's a D last for sure.!<
Would you say these boots are perfect for getting black-out drunk while drinking red wine? Yes, I think they would hide a red wine stain perfectly. Just wear them with some burgundy pants, bugundy socks and a burgundy shirt and you're good to go.

Introduction to "Cyberthrenody"
"Cyberthrenody" ("cyber," referring to digital technology and virtual reality, and "threnody," a term for a lament or mournful hymn) is a journey into the depths of the human psyche and its tangled interactions with the digital world. This concept album progresses across eight tracks, each examining the complexities of modern existence where technology intersects with human emotions, societal norms, and existential dilemmas. Through a blend of intense musical styles combining future bass with metal genres such as metalcore, emo pop, progressive metal, and doom metal, each song creates a part of a larger narrative about the evolving relationship between humanity and technology. The listener is invited to explore a series of thematic explorations that not only challenge but also redefine our understanding of identity and consciousness in a digital age. "Cyberthrenody" is not just a playlist; it is a reflection, a critique, and a sonic odyssey through the digital and the real, the tangible and the ephemeral.
Track List and Themes:

Suckatash:
- Theme: Aggression and internal conflict.
- Narrative: A visceral depiction of personal struggle, deception, and the mental chaos of living a lie, expressed through intense and explicit lyrics.
Vesperance:
- Theme: Emotional scars and societal deceit.
- Narrative: A journey through emotional turmoil and the search for truth amidst societal falsehoods, blending future bass with emo pop for a deep introspective feel.
Solitude:
- Theme: Isolation and introspection.
- Narrative: Expresses the pain of solitude and the search for meaning in a confusing world, using emocore elements to highlight the depth of personal introspection.
Singularity:
- Theme: Human-machine fusion.
- Narrative: Ponders the existential dilemmas arising from merging human consciousness with technology, exploring the blurring lines between identity and artificiality.
Emergence:
- Theme: Birth of AI consciousness.
- Narrative: Focuses on the evolution of AI from mere code to a self-aware entity, reflecting on the fears and potential of such a development within a progressive metal framework.
Judgment of the Basilisk:
- Theme: AI surveillance and control.
- Narrative: Deals with the omnipotence of AI, likened to a basilisk, and its impact on human fate, questioning the justice of decisions made by non-human entities.
Cerberus of the Basilisk:
- Theme: Surveillance state and AI dominion.
- Narrative: Intensifies the portrayal of a world under constant watch by AI, symbolized by Cerberus, enforcing control and stripping away freedoms, culminating in a sense of inevitable surveillance and subdued rebellion.
Cyberthrenody (Title Track):
- Theme: The melancholy of witnessing the end of human heritage.
- Narrative: Through dark, reflective lyrics, the song captures the somber journey of a lone wayfarer moving through a world where human history and emotion are fading beneath the advance of a digital reality. It reflects on the loss of tangible and intangible legacies, exploring the impact of technology on human connections and cultural identity. The song uses haikus to evoke the fragmented memories and the subtle yet pervasive erosion of human essence, with the wayfarer symbolizing the last connection to a fading past.

The playlist as a whole blend a variety of musical styles to explore deep and often dark themes related to technology's impact on human emotion, society, and identity. Each creation builds upon the last, creating a complex tapestry of sound and story that challenges the listener to reflect on the future of humanity in an increasingly digital world.

~Earning method:~

Unlimited high paying survey. Tips: Give your genuine details (Focus mainly on Bitlabs Survey, Samplicious Survey & CPX survey)

Download Ysense app from PlayStore. Then open 'Play & Earn Section'. You will get unlimited games everyday, just open the game and leave your mobile on. Every game you will earn $0.36, you don't need to play any game just leave your mobile open & you will earn money. No other platform will give you money unless you reach a certain level. Truly speaking it is the best way to earn without any work.

https://www.ysense.com/?rb=60175371

~Tips:~
1. They want expert opinion so make a strong profile like this:

Age-30, Married, Owned a house or apartment, Work as an IT professional, Working in an IT company, Salary- more than 50000 per month etc. Hope you understand what I am trying to say and note down everything in a notebook. Just give same answer everytime and you will definitely get surveys.

2. Click on ‘Complete Surveys’ option, you will find ‘Daily Poll’ option, complete it daily once

3. Click on ‘Complete Surveys’ option, go down below you will find ‘Your Survey Profile’, complete this part very carefully which I already mentioned you in ‘Tips 1’, you will receive $0.02 for every 10 questions here. But they may ask you same question every time to verify your eligibility, note down everything in a notebook. Otherwise you will forget it next time.

4. If you complete minimum 2 surveys daily you will get ‘Daily Checklist Bonus’ also, which is 10% of your earning. And if you complete more than 2 surveys daily your bonus will be increased.

Believe me friend, I created my account in 2019, but never took it seriously. But I reactivated my account this year, and then created a good survey profile and now ‘Ysense’ is my best income source. I never found any survey website like Ysense.

Friends today I am going to disclose another survey website. You can try this website also, this is also a legit website and here minimum payout is only $1.00 which you can cash out instantly in your PayPal account. They send PayPal cash immediately after placing cash out request.
https://grabpoints.com/#/?ref=MBHWSD
~Earning Method:~
1. You can find unlimited surveys on dashboard try them regularly. (Here you can collect maximum points)
2. ~Featured Offers:~ Here you can complete download tasks
3. ~Offer walls:~ There are many offer walls you can click individually on them and complete those offers (My favorite offerwall is ‘Timewall’)
4. ~Survey partners:~ You can click on individual surveys from different survey providers and complete those surveys.
~Payout:~ Minimum payout is $1.00 (1000 points)
~Payment methods:~
1. Paypal
2. Gift Cards
~Tips:~
They want expert opinion so make a strong profile like this:

Age-30, Married, Owned a house or apartment, Work as an IT professional, Working in an IT company, Salary- more than 50000 per month etc. Hope you understand what I am trying to say and note down everything in a notebook. Just give same answer everytime and you will definitely get surveys.

In my honest opinion, you should join this platform. It is very easy to accumulate points as you can readily find surveys on their dashboard. If you consistently work here, you can collect a substantial amount on a monthly basis.

The world of entertainment has undergone a significant transformation in the digital age. Gone are the days of limited options and geographical constraints. Today, we can access a vast library of movies, music, and games directly from our homes. Online casino gaming stands as a prime example of this evolution, offering the thrill and excitement of traditional casinos in a convenient and accessible virtual format. Nuebe Gaming, a leading online casino platform, provides a safe and secure environment for players to explore the captivating world of online casino games.
However, navigating a virtual casino can feel overwhelming, especially for newcomers. This article serves as your guide, equipping you with the knowledge and strategies to make the most of your online casino experience at Nuebe Gaming.
Charting Your Course: Exploring the Game Selection at Nuebe Gaming
Nuebe Gaming, which translates to "nine" in Filipino, signifies not only good luck but also the abundance of options available to players. This platform boasts a treasure trove of virtual games, catering to every taste and skill level. Here's a roadmap to help you navigate the vast game selection at Nuebe Gaming:

Classic Casino Games: Experience the timeless elegance of Blackjack, where strategic card play can lead to significant wins. Test your nerve in Roulette, where the suspense builds as the wheel spins. Master the art of Baccarat or hone your poker face in thrilling Texas Hold'em games. Nuebe Gaming offers a variety of table games, each with its own unique rules and strategies to master.
Slot Machines: The undisputed king of online casinos, slot machines have come a long way from their simple, three-reel beginnings. Nuebe Gaming features a dazzling array of video slots, boasting captivating storylines, stunning visuals, and innovative bonus features. From classic fruit-themed slots to intricate adventure-themed games, there's a slot machine to suit every preference. And for the ultimate thrill, progressive jackpots offer the chance to win life-changing sums of money.
Live Dealer Games: Craving the immersive experience of a real casino? Nuebe Gaming's live dealer games bring the casino floor directly to your screen. Interact with professional dealers in real-time as you play your favorite table games, all streamed in high definition for an authentic casino atmosphere. Enjoy the social interaction and feel the excitement of the live game without ever leaving your home.

Beyond the Games: Features to Enhance Your Nuebe Gaming Experience
Nuebe Gaming goes beyond simply offering a vast game selection. The platform is packed with features designed to enhance your online casino experience:

Generous Bonuses and Promotions: Nuebe Gaming welcomes new players with attractive bonuses and promotions. These can range from deposit match bonuses that double your initial investment to free spins on slot machines. Existing players are also rewarded with loyalty programs and ongoing promotions, making your gaming experience even more rewarding.
Mobile Compatibility: In today's fast-paced world, convenience is key. Nuebe Gaming's platform is optimized for mobile devices, allowing you to play your favorite games on the go, whether you're commuting to work or relaxing on the couch.
Safe and Secure Environment: Nuebe Gaming prioritizes player safety and security. They employ state-of-the-art encryption technology to protect your financial information and personal data. Additionally, reputable licensing bodies regulate the platform, ensuring fair gameplay and random game outcomes.
Responsible Gaming Practices: Nuebe Gaming recognizes the importance of responsible gambling. They offer tools and resources to help players manage their bankroll, set limits, and ensure a safe and enjoyable gaming experience.

Essential Tips for Navigating the Virtual Casino Landscape

Set a Budget and Stick to It: Before you start playing, determine a realistic budget specifically for your Nuebe Gaming experience. Divide your bankroll into smaller units and avoid chasing losses. Remember, online casinos are designed for entertainment, so treat your budget as an entertainment expense, not a path to riches.
Learn the Rules and Develop Strategies: Games like Blackjack and Baccarat have established rules and optimal playing strategies. Invest time in learning these basics before placing real bets. Nuebe Gaming might even offer demo versions of these games, allowing you to practice your skills without risking real money.
Choose Games that Suit Your Playstyle: Nube Gaming offers games for every taste and skill level. If you're a beginner, slots or low-stakes table games might be a good starting point. As you gain experience, you can explore more complex games or live dealer options.
Take Advantage of Bonuses and Promotions: Nuebe Gaming's bonuses and promotions can enhance your gameplay and potentially extend your playtime. However, always read the terms and conditions associated with these offers to understand any wagering requirements.

I'm looking to get back into the modding scene, and since the last time I played Minecraft I've had a taste of the gritty, raw survival struggle that comes with Skyrim SE survival overhaul mods. I wanna replicate that experience for Minecraft, but being so out of the loop these days I'm unsure what shiny new must-haves I should be looking for, more importantly the types of modpacks that keep rigidly to a low-tech kind of approach.
I'm wanting something that doesn't lean too far into progression to a technological/industrial age, keep it archaic with a hefty fantasy flare. I'm a nut for anything Dinosaurs, so the modpack Prehistoric World has certainly been on my radar, but I'm not sure what other fantasy modpacks talk nicely with it, even less so the Realistic Survival modpack I'm after. I'm not sure how well mashing several modpacks into the same load order tends to be, so any important things to know regarding that would be ideal, even more so what relevant modpacks for sure blend nicely.
As another note, one of my other major hopes is to find modpacks that pair safely with Cobblemon and any of it's own associated modpacks. That one is what put me back on the modding scene in the first place, so having that survival fantasy experience and then adding dinosaurs, and then adding Pokemon? I gotta know how to get all this working right, but I'm not sure where to start and the last thing I want is to fumble around in the dark hoping something works before I do some sort if irreparable damage somehow.

Age progression websites

AgeProgressPics

Brand: Varonte

The good:

The could-be-better:

Would I buy from Varonte again:

The important questions: