I write this post because i feel kind of lost in where to go next. I mean not to brag or show of or anything, i guess i just want other peoples perspective on where to go next:)
I (25M) have grown up in an environment where saving money always have been a focus since i was a child. When i graduated high school the plan was to go to university, however i got the opportunity to work in the military. The plan was still to eventually go to university, therefore i still saved as much as i possibly could with the intention of using it as funds to live off through the university. Therefore I’ve been reluctant to invest due to the fact “i may be needing the money soon and wont risk to tie the money in wrong place”. Although really enjoy where i am right now, i will still work for a few more years before eventually going to university.
To this day, i have by a combination of salary, deployments, a bonus and a small inheritance saved around 300 000 usd. In addition, depending on an insurance claim i might (hopefully) end up with between 3 - 400 000usd. In hindsight i should probably have either invested i real estate or stock marked, but hindsight is a bitch isnt it?
Well i never imagined actually getting to this point this fast, so now i have started to question what to actually do with it. Having it stashed in a savings account is pointless due to inflation. So i have recently realised that instead of spending the money, it could rather be start of an investing journey where i may partly live off investments rather that tapping off all the actual funds, especially with studying in mind when I no longer have my now salary. And maybe thereafter the funds can be a great foundation to built financial independence. My family really insists on putting it in real estate and buy a house. I may rent it out for now and later live in it during university. They argue i could buy with little loan due to my funds, in addition that real estate in my area will probably (according to experts) increase up to 30% next 2-4 years due to supply and demand. So the argument to buy in sooner rather than later sound solid, however i fear tying up all funds in property will end up buying me a liability an expensive responsibilities that can be hard to survive on especially during university when i loose my main income.
I personally feel more attracted to the stock market. Buy in stocks now to hold long term that may compound into a strong financial foundation later, and maybe also pay out regularly dividends. In theory, the return on realestate may beat the stock market (i know we cant predict the future), but it also comes with a lot more exspenses such as maintenance, while stocks i more”passive”. The easiest route may be to just rent for the time and stick to the stocks. Or maybe i can combine the options? Either buy a house with as little down payments as possible and hope the returns in the stock market and the potential increase in real estate outpaces the higher loan? I feel kind of lost in trying to figure out where to go next. Do you have any experience or thoughts that might help out? Or other ideas?
My goal isnt to be rich, or live a fancy lifestyle. I simply want to be financial stable in the future and have time as my greatest asset. I guess I’m not asking for financial advice, i understand that i myself need to assess the risks and take responsibility for myself. But if anyone have any thoughts, perspectives, ideas or anything that will help me see things for other angles it would be much appreciated:) Thanks

Hi there, thinking about dipping my toe in the water and getting a mini 3 for my first drone.
At the moment I can see the reduced prices available from DJI themselves, Argos and coolshop.co.uk though I’ve never heard of them before.
If I buy with Argos I get 12 months interest free which definetly helps but they don’t have the rc-n1 controller so price starts at £459 not £339.
If I buy with DJI then I can get the rc-n1 controller so the price is £339 but I only get 4 months of Interst free credit with clear pay. DJI are also offering £62 of free accessories being a as card case, lanyard strap, landing pad and 3 months of public liability insurance.
As much as I’d love to splash the cash I can’t prioritise a drone over a new couch , which my wife really wants, so I’m trying to keep monthly costs down much as I’d love to get a 3or 4 pro.
So some questions:

1. Is the controller with the screen worth the extra £120 cash for a beginner who will use it occasionally.
   
2. Can you get the fly more package separately as I can’t find anyone selling a 3 rc-n1 with the fly more pack.
   
3. If I buy a drone from another third party, say Argos , can I still purchase the care package from DJI and would they support it the same way or refer me back to Argos for any faults. Or put simply are you better going to DJI so they handle all customer service requests.
   

So stupid question perhaps but what would you advise me to buy or are you aware of other suppliers who may give me other choices.

Alright, so you’re earning an X amount of money every month and you want to know if you can afford that dream house of yours? Well, calculating affordability only based on income is a job half done, hence here’s a piece on how to accurately calculate the affordability of a house.
But, since we’re here, let’s dance!

Total Income

Okay, first things first. You need to calculate how much is your total family income. Include all income sources here like taking weekend classes, any kind of freelance jobs, or income from second jobs as well. If your spouse is earning or a parent as well, then include that. Basically, all the people who are going to be invested in the new house.

Total Expenses

Now, minus the total expenditure. This should include any existing EMIs, insurance premiums, SIPs (that you can’t stop), grocery expenses, education expenditure, et al. All of those things that take money away from you, should be included here. Another aspect that you need to consider is your Future Expenses. Maybe your kid wants to go to Stanford or you feel like you should own an MG Hector because your colleague thinks that a new house deserves a new car. Does a parent need to undergo major surgery, or is one of your kids getting married within the next 2 years? What if there’s damage due to natural disaster, vehicle damage, job loss and God knows what can happen. What if a deadly virus breaks out, locks down an entire country, and crashes the economy! Would you be able to sustain yourself given that you would have an additional liability of monthly EMIs? Therefore, remember to have a Safety Net where you park money for your emergencies and unavoidable expenses. A general rule of thumb says to have at least 6 months of total expenses as a safety net amount. Apart from this, also have about 1% of the gross house price for emergency house repairs, maintenance, and enhancements.

Let’s suppose the following

Net family income – Rs. 50,000
Total Monthly Expenses – Rs. Rs. 20,000
Net cash in hand – Rs. 30,000
Now, you’re ready and you know how much EMI you can afford to pay.
Suppose you can afford to pay Rs.26,000 (approx.) EMI per month @ 8.5%. How much money can you afford to borrow? Rs.30,00,000!
Okay, let’s say you’re going to be borrowing 80% of the total house cost. So, 30,00,000 is 80% of which number? Rs.37,50,000 (Borrowed amount ÷ 80%). That’s the maximum value of the house that you can afford. And hey, don’t be flattered by my math skills here. I’ll be honest. I used this nifty EMI calculator to get all the answers. Just one disclaimer here – I’ve assumed loan tenure to be of 20 years because that’s the usual tenure that most people go for. But you can change that as well.

I'm a freelance writer in England and have recently done a small (maybe 15 hours) job for a very famous high end company (also in England). I got the job through word of mouth and dealt solely with one of the marketing guys. He asked me to send my invoice through, and I did.
I am technically an employee of my husband's company so I charged through that and gave VAT details etc. Then I got an email from the finance department saying they needed to set me up on their payroll as a vendor and raise a PO, and gave me a list of demands.
I'm fine with the T&Cs and the NDA etc but they want things like a Public Liability Insurance certificate even though the contract (that they didn't ask me to fill in until AFTER I'd done the work) says that I only need to provide evidence of Insurance Certificates that are relevant to the work stated. How is Public Liability relevant to copywriting?
My husband is away with work at the moment and as company director, he has all the interaction with our accountants etc so I'm struggling to find the relevant documents. This back and forth has been going on for two months now. Every time I send them what they've asked for, they ask for something else. We've gone through Incorporation Certificate, VAT Certificate, Bank Details on Letter Headed Paper (wtf?), general Insurance documents etc. Is it just that they're hoping I'm going to say, "You know what, it was only £400 - forget it."

Hi guys. As we know, Amazon wants us to have third party product liability insurance with a few strict conditions.
Due to scarcity of choice of providers in my home country, the price of such premiums is quite high. I sucked it up past years and paid the hefty premium but this year they offered me to use a pretty high deductible which could slash the premium in half.
Does Amazon mind if our insurance premium has a deductible?
I can't see communication around that specifically but I want to avoid getting the insurance and then being turned down.

Owning a bike comes with a sense of freedom and convenience, but it also comes with responsibilities, one of which is ensuring its protection through bike insurance. Bike insurance plans offer various levels of coverage, providing financial security in the event of accidents, theft, or other unforeseen circumstances. In this blog, we’ll delve into the coverage offered under bike insurance plans, along with keywords like “bike insurance near me,” “motorbike quote,” “compare bike insurance policy,” “insurance bike compare,” “which bike insurance is best,” and “bike insurance comparison.”

Understanding Bike Insurance Coverage

1. Third-Party Liability Coverage: Every bike insurance plan includes mandatory third-party liability coverage as per the Motor Vehicles Act. This covers any damages or injuries caused to third parties or their property by your bike.
2. Own Damage Coverage: Own damage coverage is optional but highly recommended. It provides protection against damages to your bike due to accidents, natural calamities like floods or earthquakes, or man-made disasters like vandalism.
3. Personal Accident Cover: Many bike insurance plans offer personal accident cover for the owner-driver, providing financial compensation in case of accidental death or disability while riding the insured bike.
4. Comprehensive Coverage: Comprehensive bike insurance plans offer the most extensive coverage, combining third-party liability, own damage, and personal accident cover. This provides all-round protection for your bike and your financial interests.

Key Features of Bike Insurance Plans

1. Add-On Covers: Bike insurance plans often come with add-on covers that can be customized to suit your specific needs. These may include zero depreciation cover, roadside assistance, engine protection, and more.
2. No Claim Bonus (NCB): Insurers offer a no claim bonus for every claim-free year, reducing your premium amount at the time of policy renewal. This encourages safe riding and responsible behavior.
3. Cashless Claim Settlement: Many bike insurance providers offer cashless claim settlement at network garages, making the claim process hassle-free and convenient for policyholders.
4. Online Policy Renewal: With the advent of digitalization, renewing your bike insurance policy has become quick and easy. Most insurers offer online renewal facilities, allowing you to renew your policy with just a few clicks.

How to Choose the Best Bike Insurance Plan

1. Evaluate Coverage Needs: Assess your coverage requirements based on factors like the type of bike you own, your riding habits, and the level of protection you desire.
2. Compare Policies: Use online comparison tools to compare bike insurance policies from different insurers. Compare premiums, coverage features, add-on options, and claim settlement ratios before making a decision.
3. Read Policy Terms: Carefully read the policy terms and conditions, including exclusions and limitations, to ensure you understand what is covered and what is not.
4. Check Insurer Reputation: Choose a reputable insurance provider with a good track record of claim settlement and customer service. Read reviews and testimonials to gauge customer satisfaction levels.

Conclusion

Bike insurance plans offer essential financial protection for bike owners, covering them against various risks and uncertainties on the road. From mandatory third-party liability coverage to comprehensive policies with extensive benefits, there are options to suit every rider’s needs. By understanding the coverage options, comparing policies, and choosing a reliable insurer, you can ensure your bike and your financial interests are well-protected, providing you with peace of mind every time you hit the road. Remember to conduct thorough research and select the bike insurance plan that best meets your requirements and budget.

Hi guys. As we know, Amazon wants us to have third party product liability insurance with a few strict conditions.
Due to scarcity of choice of providers in my home country, the price of such premiums is quite high. I sucked it up past years and paid the hefty premium but this year they offered me to use a pretty high deductible which could slash the premium in half.
Does Amazon mind if our insurance premium has a deductible?
I can't see communication around that specifically but I want to avoid getting the insurance and then being turned down.
Thank you!

My dad was deemed at fault for a vehicle accident back in early February 2024.
We filed an insurance claim with our and paid the excess, as our insurance company took care of the whole situation.
We've just received a letter in the mail for court filings regarding being sued for damages and liability by the other party involved. The damages includes: repairs, car hire, towing and solicitor fees.
This was 3 months ago now, so we thought everything was all good until we received the letter today.
What are the steps required to deal with this?

Hello,my vehicle is currently upside down by $6k but I have full coverage on the insurance, I got hit by another vehicle because they didn’t use their blinkers they even admitted this to the police and that party has no insurance. I was wondering when the insurance sees the little value of my car, will they choose to not give me anything on fixing my damages. I live in TEXAS by the way

My parents live in Los Angeles and I currently live in rural Texas. I want to get my DUI and dont know any Salvis in the area that I live in. I am going to be meeting up with my parents on a trip to the motherland (my first in 21 years) and was wondering if I can just get my DUI in El Salvador. I am already going to be taking my birth certificate (to not pay for the entry) and was thinking I can also take my marriage certificate (since I’m married and my name changed from my birth certificate). Has anyone else gotten their DUI in El Salvador instead of state side? What do people do if they don’t have their parents documents and don’t have two people that will vouch for them at the consulate? Both my birth and marriage certificates state that my parents were both born in El Salvador, would that help since I doubt I’ll find two individuals to vouch for me.

Hey all, I'm currently a few weeks from settlement and our lender has requested a certificate of currency or proof of building insurance. I have forwarded the insurance from our solicitor that contains the details to our broker, but our broker is saying the banks won't accept the insurance policy as the "Situation Address" is listing the wrong address.
I went back to the solicitor who's gone to the conveyancing manager and the latter is saying its all correct and the contract is not incomplete. I've advised we just need the address updated to the correct one, but its been weeks since the conveyancing manager has replied to our solicitor. I then spoke with my Real Estate Agent regarding the issue so he called the conveyancer and he was saying that it's correct, its the address of the body corporate, the solicitor and banks should know this.
I spoke with my broker and he says that the banks will want it in writing that the property address I am purchasing is indeed covered. So either I go follow it up with the conveyancer or get a new building insurance to finalize the settlement.
It's been a massive headache trying to sort this out. Ideally if the house is indeed covered by the body corporate insurance I don't want to pay for two separate insurances if I get a new insurance just to finalize the settlement deal. (I can remove it later, but I won't know if it is legally covered)
The home is in Victoria, and it's a house in a neighborhood with about 70 other homes under the corp.
Any help would be appreciated, to give me advice on what to do. I mostly want to know whether the listed address being the body corporate one is indeed correct, even if the home I'm purchasing isn't technically listed the property address. And if it is correct as the way it is, should the banks know this - and can approve it?

The Lease is hereby amended by adding the following provisions thereto (such provisions being incorporated into the Lease as if fully set forth therein):

1. Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, shall at all times during the term of the Lease maintain general liability coverage for the acts and omissions of Lessee in the minimum amount of $100,000 (on a per occurrence basis) that substantially meets the following requirements:

• $100,000 General Liability
  
• Landlord must be listed on the policy as an “Additional Insured”
  
• Landlord must be able to file claims on the policy
  
• Following perils must be covered:
  

o Damage caused by tenant negligence under the following perils- Pet Damage, Water, Smoke/Fire, Explosion, and bed bugs
What I'm specifically unsure about is how to ensure that if I select a different insurance than the one they're partnered with, I get the whole "additional insured" and "landlord must be able to file claims on the policy" part.
Currently, they've given me a link to "ePremium by Inhabit", which is offered through Millennial Specialty Insurance.
Here's what I get:
Contents Coverage$35,000 Liability Coverage$300,000 Identity Fraud Expense Coverage$5,000 (endorsement included with policy) Water Backup of Sewers or Drains$5,000 Refrigerated Property Coverage (endorsement included with policy)$500 Pet Damage Liability Coverage (endorsement included with policy)$500 Bed Bug Remediation Coverage (endorsement included with policy)$750
1st Payment (down payment due today): $70.84
Subsequent Monthly Payments: $25.42
The total annual policy premium (cost) is $325.00.
A fee of $4.00 per installment will be added in addition to the subsequent payment total. Save money and avoid installment fees by electing annual payment terms.
I'm in the actual St. Louis City, not St louis County.
Is this good? is it normal? If I do shop around, what specific terms am I looking for in other company's policies to ensure I meet the requirement that: Landlord must be listed on the policy as an “Additional Insured” & Landlord must be able to file claims on the policy? Or is this a good enough price and company, as far as you can tell, and I should probably just go with it? If someone can get me the same benefits for $100 cheaper, I'm interested. $50? Maybe.

Because I see many, many posts on paralegal about how to manage "calendaring" aka "critical dates management" in a law firm, I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the "old school" approach. Some might find it beneficial.
The usual context for the poster (OP) is there is no case management system implemented in their firm (which is not surprising given poor adoption rates for case management software) and the OP is trying to manage critical dates solely via their Outlook or Gmail Calendar.
This link below is from an insurance company that provides "E&O" insurance aka lawyer malpractice liability insurance to law firms. it is a solid description of the "old school tickler system" approach.
https://www.lawyersmutualnc.com/hifi/files/risk-management-resources/risk-management-handouts/calendar-and-docket-control/Calendar_and_Docket.pdf
Do you have to adopt the entirety of this formal process? No. Do the old school color coded index cards map well to reminders in Outlook Calendar or Gmail calendar? No.
The Outlook/Gmail reminders lack the set aside and review later "permanence/visibility" of the index cards. Therein lies the crux of the problem. Case Management can be overkill because of it's heavy up front data entry workflow design, but Outlook and Gmail were not designed to be critical dates management tools for either an individual or a team. They have to be supplemented with spreadsheets or manual processes.
Can you get a discount from your E&O carrier if you adopt a formal critical dates process? Yes.
Hope this helps.

So I (f 23) keep telling my b f (m 24) that he needs a career job. My b f and I have been together for 2 years and during those 2 years I’ve been in college (finished my bachelors and I am now pursuing my masters) my b f isn’t in college and he’s just been working part time jobs but the thing is he keeps losing these jobs and takes months to find new ones and goes broke every time and now it’s to the point where he’s homeless and living with a friend now. I’ve always told him that I don’t care if he doesn’t go to college but he should at least do trade school or something so that he can get certifications so that he can get salary pay so that he can make more money/ save more money for emergencies (like losing a job) and if/when he loses a job he can easily find another job to fall back on in that same field. I’ve told him this, my parents have told him this, his brothers have told him this, his family has told him this, his friends have told him this etc. but every time somebody tells him this he gets defensive and thinks we’re trying to bash him but we’re not. We’re just tired of seeing the same thing always happening to him (losing a job and asking everyone for money), every time we tell him this he thinks we’re saying he needs to go to college/university but we literally tell him word for word “that’s no what we’re saying.” I love him but it gets to a point where I’m tired of the same pattern, also I’m a broke college student so every time he loses a job and runs out of money I’m the only one that supports him financially (buying him food, toiletries, just little things because again I am a broke college student). He’s also extremely bad at managing his money when he loses a job, for example he has PlayStation + which is a $10 or $15 subscription for those who don’t know which allows you to play certain parts of games like online with friends, etc. so his aunt sent him $20 for food and instead of spending it on food he wanted to spend it on his PlayStation + subscription, and then when I told him he should use it on food instead he got annoyed and said I was telling him what to do, which I didn’t, I just made a suggestion. Also another reason I want this for him is so that he can have insurance because the amount of time I’ve known him he’s never had it and I want him to be able to take care of his health.
So aita for telling my b f he should get a career job so that he make more money and can save more money, as well as have insurance?
Sorry if this is all over the place, I just started rambling at one point so please let me know if you have any questions/ need clarification.
Edit: more clarification on things. He’s played football his whole life and is stuck on wanting to play football. He has football in his so called “5 year plan” or really just life plan in general, but I and many others have told him that he needs to focus more on a career at this point than football because football most likely isn’t going to happen, mainly because at his age colleges are looking at grad students that have already been football players (also he’s not out on the field everyday practicing, which I feel like if he was serious about football he would be doing that but he goes out on the field twice a month, sometimes not even that). Also money isn’t such a big deal with the trade school thing because my dad even offered to help him out a bit
Edit 2: thank you all for all of your opinions. I’ve decided that from now on I won’t financially support him anymore, and if his mindset/actions don’t change then it’s just time for me to leave
Edit 3: he wants a career (he mainly wants to go into finance) but with that you kinda do need school which he knows but he can’t afford college at the moment which is understandable, so I’m not sure why he gets offended when we tell him that he needs to do something for a job whether it be school or not school (also I’m totally okay with him not getting a degree because a degree isn’t for everybody and plenty of people make millions without a degree)

I am brand new to Turo. A "traditional" car rental company will cost me about $1,600-$2,000 for a car rental for a week long trip. Turo could lower costs down to about $600 for that same duration.
But I'm very skeptical because I see that if there's any damage to the car during my booking, I am liable regardless of fault. I also see that my car insurance would kick in before the Turo insurance, which means I am potentially risking increased monthly premiums in case of any damage to car regardless of fault.
For renters out there, do you recommend Turo for an out of state week long trip? The cost savings up front looks great but it looks too good to be true and the fine print tells me that it's probably cheap because I'm paying in liability.

I live in California. I paid cash for a 2021 Nissan Versa on December 8, 2022. My car was stolen on June 6, 2023. I was devastated. My insurance company tried to lowball me. I refused offers until they told me ,"This claim has gone on for too long, we are closing it out" This happened on July 8, 2023. I agreed to take $1948,000 on a vehicle I had paid $23,000 with only 12 thousand miles on it. They demanded my Certificate of Title and my Fob Keys, which I mailed, overnite. No money was ever received because within 3 hours after I mailed keys and Pink Slip (Certificate of Title), the police called me to tell me car recovered, looks fine, come pick it up. I was so happy. I did not want the money. I had put so much money into my car in 4 months, and I owned it outright, and had worked 2 jobs for years. So I called insurance company, so happy, let them know My car had been recovered. It took two weeks before they mailed the keys back, but car was in mint condition, had been driven only 9 miles (joyride?) parked in a huge, Walmart, parking lot. I asked for the title to please be mailed back as well. They kept ignoring me. I went to register my car this past December. Only to be denied due to DMV looking at me like a criminal and telling me I had already been paid $19000.00 and vehicle is now owned by my insurance company . I tried explaining , asked for help...they told me Esurance must fix this, you cannot do anything as they legally own the vehicle. I call my claims adjustor, hysterical, and asked him why is my vehicle registered to my insurance company and why does the DMV believe I have been paid $19000,00. He literally told me, "Oh now your just making this up." I tried to ask him to investigate please, he told me, "since you have raised your voice I am hanging up now.' Im downplaying just how rude he was. He basically called me a liar and hung up on me. I was crying but I was not mean, I was almost pleading. He refused to answer my calls and no one else at the office would speak to me, they just forwarded my calls to him. I was in perfect health up until this point. But as each day passed, I begaan to shake from stress, burst into tears, became incredibly depressed, became unable to sleep, spent all my non working hours trying to find a solution. I was unable to concentrate at work. This finally went from beginning to have panic attacks but ended with me waking up after being in a coma, on a ventilator, for 14 days/ I had no idea where I was, was unable to remember how I got to the hosptal or why. I had two Myocardial infarctions, the Doctor explained that I went into full cardiac arrest and a co-worker gave me CPR for 16 minutes until the ambulance arrived. i had a second Cardiac arrest The Doctor told me, shortly after they had settled my into ICU. That one, He told me, they almost were unable to bring me back from. Thank God for The Doctors refusal to stop working on me, my wonderful coworker and The inventor of the Defribulator! Before my release, The Cardiologist told me they could find absolutely no reason for my Heart attack, i have low blood pressure, have no heart or health problems, no family history. They were dumbfounded. i gave him a brief synopsis of my car insurance situation, He told me, ;Stress, it was the stress" "That stress will kill you, you must work on your stress". They referred me to a social worker and a psychologist. When I finally began to regain stress and began to try and demand that my insurance company fix this because they were literally killing me, I felt. I sent a letter, pointing out every single thing that happened, all correspondence, how rudely I was being treated and I sent over my final Diagnosis from the hospital. They never acknowledged my letter. It is now May 13, 2024. have seen attorneys I cannot afford. I was told by DMV Investigations that I definitely need an attorney. Ive been put on Temporary Disability and since I am unable to register my car, I cannot drive it. I am unable to survive on what disability pays. I am losing all hope. I will probably lose my apartment, and may have to live in my car, but my greatest fear now is that my kitty and myself will be on the street, because if they take my car (its illegal to even park an unregistered car on a public street ( is what I was told by the Van Nuys supervisor of the DMV. ) Yet I have asked the Dmv to tell me if there is anyway we can resolve this. I just want them to know i was paid nothing and was finally sent a letter admitting that I wasnt paid anything and it was not my insurance company who made the mistake, it was Copart, and I should take it up with Copart. Okay, this is so beyond absurd. Copart who? Why do I pay full coverage insurance/ when I should pay almost nothing, as this is totally "Do it yourself-Figure it out yourself" insurance. The Claims adjuster told me last week, that they were not going to help me due to my 'Refusal to Communicate with us in January". I got so angry and told him, "So now , You say that I refused to communicate with you?" He said, "Yes, we do." I said," I know for a fact, you never made a single attempt to contact me, while I was in the hospital , after having a heart attack, because phones and emails keep records, and you know, there is no record of anything coming from you or my insurance company . The records I am looking forward to hearing will be all the calls between you and myself. my insurance company claims that every phone call will be taped, and I look forward to the day your employers listen to just how unprofessional, rude and outright sadistic you have treated me. Because you forgot who you work for, sir, and if you did not have policyholders, you would not have a job. You seemed to really enjoy mocking my illness, calling me a liar, hanging up on me. in fact I think we will hear that you threatened to hang up, not look into my claim, and said you were done with my problems and would no longer take my calls.. I have never been treated so cruelly, so rudely, and all I wanted was for my vehicle, which your company never paid a cent to me for, would be transferred back into my name, because I did not make this mistake and I cannot fix this mistake. All I ever wanted from you to fix the mistake that was made by your company You lost nothing in this claim, I only ask that you right a wrong. I have a car that cannot be registered or driven. I oay for your company to ;make me whole' but i would have been better off if i had no insurance at all. My car was found, my car would still be in my name and I could have registered it. Obviously, your never going to help me or make things right' he said, 'i have done all I needed to do, i mailed you the Certificate of Title, so your claim is Closed.' So I have an unsigned Certificate of Title in the name of my insurance company . Which does nothing to help me. Any ideas? So far beyond hopeless, i have lost faith, have lost all joy, no longer leave my apartment. I will do anything, but i just have no clue and no hope. Thank you so much.

I live in California. I paid cash for a 2021 Nissan Versa on December 8, 2022. My car was stolen on June 6, 2023. I was devastated. My insurance company tried to lowball me. I refused offers until they told me ,"This claim has gone on for too long, we are closing it out" This happened on July 8, 2023. I agreed to take $1948,000 on a vehicle I had paid $23,000 with only 12 thousand miles on it. They demanded my Certificate of Title and my Fob Keys, which I mailed, overnite. No money was ever received because within 3 hours after I mailed keys and Pink Slip (Certificate of Title), the police called me to tell me car recovered, looks fine, come pick it up. I was so happy. I did not want the money. I had put so much money into my car in 4 months, and I owned it outright, and had worked 2 jobs for years. So I called insurance company, so happy, let them know My car had been recovered. It took two weeks before they mailed the keys back, but car was in mint condition, had been driven only 9 miles (joyride?) parked in a huge, Walmart, parking lot. I asked for the title to please be mailed back as well. They kept ignoring me. I went to register my car this past December. Only to be denied due to DMV looking at me like a criminal and telling me I had already been paid $19000.00 and vehicle is now owned by my insurance company . I tried explaining , asked for help...they told me Esurance must fix this, you cannot do anything as they legally own the vehicle. I call my claims adjustor, hysterical, and asked him why is my vehicle registered to my insurance company and why does the DMV believe I have been paid $19000,00. He literally told me, "Oh now your just making this up." I tried to ask him to investigate please, he told me, "since you have raised your voice I am hanging up now.' Im downplaying just how rude he was. He basically called me a liar and hung up on me. I was crying but I was not mean, I was almost pleading. He refused to answer my calls and no one else at the office would speak to me, they just forwarded my calls to him. I was in perfect health up until this point. But as each day passed, I begaan to shake from stress, burst into tears, became incredibly depressed, became unable to sleep, spent all my non working hours trying to find a solution. I was unable to concentrate at work. This finally went from beginning to have panic attacks but ended with me waking up after being in a coma, on a ventilator, for 14 days/ I had no idea where I was, was unable to remember how I got to the hosptal or why. I had two Myocardial infarctions, the Doctor explained that I went into full cardiac arrest and a co-worker gave me CPR for 16 minutes until the ambulance arrived. i had a second Cardiac arrest The Doctor told me, shortly after they had settled my into ICU. That one, He told me, they almost were unable to bring me back from. Thank God for The Doctors refusal to stop working on me, my wonderful coworker and The inventor of the Defribulator! Before my release, The Cardiologist told me they could find absolutely no reason for my Heart attack, i have low blood pressure, have no heart or health problems, no family history. They were dumbfounded. i gave him a brief synopsis of my car insurance situation, He told me, ;Stress, it was the stress" "That stress will kill you, you must work on your stress". They referred me to a social worker and a psychologist. When I finally began to regain stress and began to try and demand that my insurance company fix this because they were literally killing me, I felt. I sent a letter, pointing out every single thing that happened, all correspondence, how rudely I was being treated and I sent over my final Diagnosis from the hospital. They never acknowledged my letter. It is now May 13, 2024. have seen attorneys I cannot afford. I was told by DMV Investigations that I definitely need an attorney. Ive been put on Temporary Disability and since I am unable to register my car, I cannot drive it. I am unable to survive on what disability pays. I am losing all hope. I will probably lose my apartment, and may have to live in my car, but my greatest fear now is that my kitty and myself will be on the street, because if they take my car (its illegal to even park an unregistered car on a public street ( is what I was told by the Van Nuys supervisor of the DMV. ) Yet I have asked the Dmv to tell me if there is anyway we can resolve this. I just want them to know i was paid nothing and was finally sent a letter admitting that I wasnt paid anything and it was not my insurance company who made the mistake, it was Copart, and I should take it up with Copart. Okay, this is so beyond absurd. Copart who? Why do I pay full coverage insurance/ when I should pay almost nothing, as this is totally "Do it yourself-Figure it out yourself" insurance. The Claims adjuster told me last week, that they were not going to help me due to my 'Refusal to Communicate with us in January". I got so angry and told him, "So now , You say that I refused to communicate with you?" He said, "Yes, we do." I said," I know for a fact, you never made a single attempt to contact me, while I was in the hospital , after having a heart attack, because phones and emails keep records, and you know, there is no record of anything coming from you or my insurance company . The records I am looking forward to hearing will be all the calls between you and myself. my insurance company claims that every phone call will be taped, and I look forward to the day your employers listen to just how unprofessional, rude and outright sadistic you have treated me. Because you forgot who you work for, sir, and if you did not have policyholders, you would not have a job. You seemed to really enjoy mocking my illness, calling me a liar, hanging up on me. in fact I think we will hear that you threatened to hang up, not look into my claim, and said you were done with my problems and would no longer take my calls.. I have never been treated so cruelly, so rudely, and all I wanted was for my vehicle, which your company never paid a cent to me for, would be transferred back into my name, because I did not make this mistake and I cannot fix this mistake. All I ever wanted from you to fix the mistake that was made by your company You lost nothing in this claim, I only ask that you right a wrong. I have a car that cannot be registered or driven. I oay for your company to ;make me whole' but i would have been better off if i had no insurance at all. My car was found, my car would still be in my name and I could have registered it. Obviously, your never going to help me or make things right' he said, 'i have done all I needed to do, i mailed you the Certificate of Title, so your claim is Closed.' So I have an unsigned Certificate of Title in the name of my insurance company . Which does nothing to help me. Any ideas? So far beyond hopeless, i have lost faith, have lost all joy, no longer leave my apartment. I will do anything, but i just have no clue and no hope. Thank you so much.

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.]