Trying not to feel guilty but I do ! I saved for this holiday for 2 years, but have already gone over budget and feel very bad which probably isn’t helping.
In my day-to-day life I have a big oversleeping problem/ delayed chronotype. I have travelled to a country with a big time difference, and at first I was so happy because I was waking at a ‘normal’ time for this country because of that!
The first few days were great, but I got over tired last week trying to keep up with a friend, and since then my delayed sleep pattern has caught up with me and transferred to the here and now. Today, yesterday and the day before I slept into the afternoon. I haven’t done any activities or exploring at all really in 4-5 days. I’m here for another two weeks.
Classic scenario of guilt compounding my problems - since I woke I haven’t been able to leave the place I’m staying. I’m lying to my friends and family about being active on this trip because I feel ashamed.
I’ve had this oversleeping, guilt stasis issue for 10 years now - in 2014 I was working abroad and regularly came up against this problem. I find it so depressing that a decade later I am still struggling with it. It affects my work and also my free time - I get very little done because there are so few hours left in the day once I’m awake.
Just looking for reassurance, advice and solidarity.

In the intricate world of investing, mastering seasonal analysis can provide a crucial advantage, unlocking hidden patterns and opportunities within financial markets. While the perception often points to October as a weak month, historical data reveals September's historical status as the market's weakest link. Developing the acumen to discern such trends not only offers insights into market dynamics but also equips investors with the skills to position themselves advantageously in a landscape fraught with volatility. Seasonality, coupled with statistical analysis, emerges as a cornerstone for constructing resilient and profitable portfolios.
Seasonal analysis delves into the cyclical nature of market behavior, scrutinizing recurring patterns over defined timeframes. By unraveling these trends, investors gain a deeper understanding of market dynamics, enabling them to anticipate shifts and adjust their strategies accordingly. September's historical weakness, for instance, may stem from a confluence of factors such as reduced trading activity post-summer, profit-taking ahead of fiscal year-end, and heightened uncertainty surrounding geopolitical events.
However, seasonal analysis isn't solely about identifying downturns; it also unveils periods of strength that savvy investors can capitalize on. Take, for instance, the fabled "Santa Claus rally" observed in December, where markets often experience an uptick in performance. Armed with knowledge of these seasonal phenomena, investors can fine-tune their strategies, optimizing portfolio allocations and risk management strategies to exploit favorable conditions.
Yet, seasonal analysis is just one facet of a multifaceted approach to investment decision-making. Integrating statistical analysis and fundamental research enriches investors' understanding of market trends, facilitating more informed and strategic decisions. A holistic approach enables investors to navigate the complexities of financial markets with greater confidence and precision.
Constructing a successful portfolio requires agility and foresight, traits that are nurtured through a deep understanding of seasonal patterns. While seasonal analysis provides valuable insights, it's essential to recognize its limitations. Market dynamics are influenced by a myriad of factors, from macroeconomic indicators to geopolitical developments, necessitating adaptability and vigilance on the part of investors.
In conclusion, seasonal analysis offers a powerful lens through which investors can decipher market trends and unlock hidden opportunities. By mastering this analytical tool, investors can gain a competitive edge in navigating the ebbs and flows of financial markets, positioning themselves for long-term success. However, it's crucial to complement seasonal analysis with other analytical techniques and remain responsive to evolving market conditions. With a strategic and disciplined approach, investors can navigate the complexities of investing with confidence and resilience.

In the fast-paced world of finance, brokerage firms face numerous challenges, one of the most critical being the accurate and timely reconciliation of brokerage payouts. The process of matching payouts to their respective transactions can be cumbersome, error-prone, and time-consuming when done manually. However, with the advent of advanced technologies, the landscape is changing. More and more firms are now turning to technological solutions to streamline their payout reconciliation processes, thereby enhancing accuracy, efficiency, and client satisfaction.

Understanding Brokerage Payout Reconciliation

Brokerage payout reconciliation involves verifying that the payments made to brokers for their services align with the agreed-upon transactions and commissions. This process ensures that there are no discrepancies between what is owed and what is paid, safeguarding against financial loss and maintaining transparency, which is crucial for building trust with clients and maintaining regulatory compliance.

The Technological Advantage

Technology plays a pivotal role in modernizing the payout reconciliation process. By automating the reconciliation tasks, technology helps reduce human error and significantly speeds up the process. Key technological advancements that have transformed payout reconciliation include:

Automated Matching Systems

These systems automatically compare broker payouts against transaction records, quickly identifying mismatches and discrepancies. This not only speeds up the reconciliation process but also reduces the likelihood of errors.

Real-Time Data Processing

Modern systems process data in real time, providing immediate feedback and allowing for quick corrections. This is crucial in a dynamic environment where transaction volumes are high, and speed is of the essence.

Advanced Analytics

Technology enables firms to use analytics to gain insights into payout patterns, identify potential issues before they become problematic, and optimize payout structures based on empirical data.

Cloud-Based Solutions

With cloud technology, brokerage firms can ensure that their payout reconciliation processes are scalable and accessible from anywhere, providing flexibility and the ability to quickly adapt to changing market conditions.

Winsoft's SmartPayout: A Case in Point

A prime example of technological innovation in this area is Winsoft's SmartPayout. This automated Brokerage Payout Reconciliation Solution is designed specifically for Asset Management Companies. It ensures accurate reconciliation at the transaction level for distributors, handling brokerage payouts across different broker categories and commission types.
By automating the reconciliation process, SmartPayout not only minimizes errors but also frees up valuable resources, allowing firms to focus more on strategic activities rather than routine operational tasks.

The Broader Impact of Technology on Financial Operations

The integration of technology in financial processes like brokerage payout reconciliation represents a broader trend toward digital transformation in the banking and financial sectors. Winsoft, with its suite of solutions, including SmartPayout, is at the forefront of this transformation. The company offers a range of banking and financial solutions designed to meet the diverse needs of modern financial institutions. Whether it’s improving operational efficiencies, enhancing customer service, or ensuring compliance with regulations, Winsoft’s technologies pave the way for a more streamlined, efficient, and transparent financial landscape.
The role of technology in streamlining brokerage payout reconciliation cannot be overstated. As financial markets continue to evolve and grow more complex, the need for robust, scalable, and efficient technological solutions like those provided by Winsoft will only become more critical. By embracing these technologies, brokerage firms can ensure accuracy, enhance efficiency, and maintain the trust of their clients, all while staying competitive in a fast-evolving industry.
In the fast-paced world of finance, brokerage firms face numerous challenges, one of the most critical being the accurate and timely reconciliation of brokerage payouts. The process of matching payouts to their respective transactions can be cumbersome, error-prone, and time-consuming when done manually. However, with the advent of advanced technologies, the landscape is changing. More and more firms are now turning to technological solutions to streamline their payout reconciliation processes, thereby enhancing accuracy, efficiency, and client satisfaction.

Understanding Brokerage Payout Reconciliation

Not my text, resposting:
https://www.reddit.com/UFOs/comments/1crmb60/that_ww2_ufo_footage_is_possibly_narrated_by/
Props to for pointing this out!
And for this post.
Listen to the audio starting from :20 seconds up until :50 seconds on that clip that has been making the rounds. Grusch has a very particular inflection and pauses with “ahhh”, during that timeframe he does that about 3 times. He has a particular speech pattern that would be hard to disguise even with modulation.
Now listen to his opening statements here at the start from :10 to :35 he does the exact same type of inflections as in the distorted audio! Listen to them back to back, once you recognize the vocal patterns in his voice, the modulation does not hide that it is him. Why/how would RegicideAnon have a video that Grusch narrated???
Edit: this is the WW2 Archive Footage I am referring to
Edit2: pointed out his T’s also sound the same. In the opening statements at 1:08 you can hear how he ends “Current” and it ends very similarly to how he ends “It” and “Compensate” at :35 in the archived footage.
Edit3: Do Up/Downvotes affect post visibility? I only ask since from when I posted this almost an hour ago it has sat at 0, which is kinda strange that it’s being downvoted so heavily?
EDIT4: Okay so this one is a little weird, and very tinfoil-y I admit, but I feel I should point this out: Here is David Grusch’s resume
Note that during the timeframe this video was released, and around the time that MH370 occurred, David was:
July 2014 – December 2016, Adjunct Professor, School of Security and Global Studies, American Public University System (APUS)
• Undergraduate school professor developing technical coursework and program plans. Expertly instructed courses in the Intelligence Studies track, to include open source/social media analysis, signals and imagery analysis, and research methods.
December 2013 – March 2016, Chief, Intelligence Integration Division, Space Security and Defense Program (SSDP), Reston, VA (USAF Active Duty)
• Lead military intelligence officer for the SSDP Director, a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) advising the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF), Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI), and National Security Council (NSC). Coordinated sensitive Multi-INT collection activities and modeling/simulation to support national space security objectives and advanced NSG programs. SSDP intelligence lead for the standup of the National Space Defense Center (NSDC).
It’s possible that during his time at the university he was analyzing and restoring WW2 archival footage? In order to verify this we’d have to find someone that knew him around that time frame to confirm or deny that he spoke of this previously.
The second thing that stood out to me was “Coordinated sensitive Multi-INT collection activities and modeling/simulation to support national space security objectives and advanced NSG programs.” I know with the recent MH370 video going around people are saying that if it WAS a hoax it would need to be created with someone with military access and very very expensive and sophisticated equipment. Possible the same equipment used to model and simulate space security objectives and NSG programs? Maybe this was a recreation of an event that the government didn’t see but was told was a possibility?
Edit5: I know many are asking how we know the voiceover wasn’t added recently, unfortunately the link to the video on RegicideAnon’s page on web archive doesn’t work, however another link to the same video was found that was posted to Facebook on September of 2015, that includes the voiceover:
https://www.facebook.com/ufovni/videos/ww2-archive-footage-of-flying-sauce510648672443495/
Thanks to for translating the description on the video:
“The following video was confiscated from the Kodiak Historical Military Museum on September 7th 1993 (the voiceover in the video actually said November 7th 1993). Originally a collection of gradings were donated with no date record or source of recording. In the video a UFO can be seen flying low on an island, alongside the planes as it approaches the runway. The location and date of filming are unknown.”
Interestingly the info about the museum and the collections is not mentioned in the clip at all, suggesting this is either a clip of a longer video or that the poster “Paranormal” somehow got more info with the clip.
Final Edit: I know that some people are in the process of actually examining the audio with professional programs so hopefully soon we’ll have concrete evidence if the voices match, however I want to leave you all and anyone else that stumbles upon the thread with this last bit; check out the following two sections and judge for yourself if this “but” sound exactly the same.
:42-:46 of the WW2 Archive Footage
27:44-27:46 of the NewsNation Interview
Please keep up the fantastic discussion and as always don’t forget to keep reaching out to your state congress representatives to keep the pressure on disclosure! We all deserve the truth, for the betterment of humanity.

Not my text, resposting:
https://www.reddit.com/UFOs/comments/1crmb60/that_ww2_ufo_footage_is_possibly_narrated_by/
Props to for pointing this out!
And u/diamondmachina for this post.
Listen to the audio starting from :20 seconds up until :50 seconds on that clip that has been making the rounds. Grusch has a very particular inflection and pauses with “ahhh”, during that timeframe he does that about 3 times. He has a particular speech pattern that would be hard to disguise even with modulation.
Now listen to his opening statements here at the start from :10 to :35 he does the exact same type of inflections as in the distorted audio! Listen to them back to back, once you recognize the vocal patterns in his voice, the modulation does not hide that it is him. Why/how would RegicideAnon have a video that Grusch narrated???
Edit: this is the WW2 Archive Footage I am referring to
Edit2: pointed out his T’s also sound the same. In the opening statements at 1:08 you can hear how he ends “Current” and it ends very similarly to how he ends “It” and “Compensate” at :35 in the archived footage.
Edit3: Do Up/Downvotes affect post visibility? I only ask since from when I posted this almost an hour ago it has sat at 0, which is kinda strange that it’s being downvoted so heavily?
EDIT4: Okay so this one is a little weird, and very tinfoil-y I admit, but I feel I should point this out: Here is David Grusch’s resume
Note that during the timeframe this video was released, and around the time that MH370 occurred, David was:
July 2014 – December 2016, Adjunct Professor, School of Security and Global Studies, American Public University System (APUS)
• Undergraduate school professor developing technical coursework and program plans. Expertly instructed courses in the Intelligence Studies track, to include open source/social media analysis, signals and imagery analysis, and research methods.
December 2013 – March 2016, Chief, Intelligence Integration Division, Space Security and Defense Program (SSDP), Reston, VA (USAF Active Duty)
• Lead military intelligence officer for the SSDP Director, a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES) advising the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DEPSECDEF), Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence (PDDNI), and National Security Council (NSC). Coordinated sensitive Multi-INT collection activities and modeling/simulation to support national space security objectives and advanced NSG programs. SSDP intelligence lead for the standup of the National Space Defense Center (NSDC).
It’s possible that during his time at the university he was analyzing and restoring WW2 archival footage? In order to verify this we’d have to find someone that knew him around that time frame to confirm or deny that he spoke of this previously.
The second thing that stood out to me was “Coordinated sensitive Multi-INT collection activities and modeling/simulation to support national space security objectives and advanced NSG programs.” I know with the recent MH370 video going around people are saying that if it WAS a hoax it would need to be created with someone with military access and very very expensive and sophisticated equipment. Possible the same equipment used to model and simulate space security objectives and NSG programs? Maybe this was a recreation of an event that the government didn’t see but was told was a possibility?
Edit5: I know many are asking how we know the voiceover wasn’t added recently, unfortunately the link to the video on RegicideAnon’s page on web archive doesn’t work, however another link to the same video was found that was posted to Facebook on September of 2015, that includes the voiceover:
https://www.facebook.com/ufovni/videos/ww2-archive-footage-of-flying-sauce510648672443495/
Thanks to for translating the description on the video:
“The following video was confiscated from the Kodiak Historical Military Museum on September 7th 1993 (the voiceover in the video actually said November 7th 1993). Originally a collection of gradings were donated with no date record or source of recording. In the video a UFO can be seen flying low on an island, alongside the planes as it approaches the runway. The location and date of filming are unknown.”
Interestingly the info about the museum and the collections is not mentioned in the clip at all, suggesting this is either a clip of a longer video or that the poster “Paranormal” somehow got more info with the clip.
Final Edit: I know that some people are in the process of actually examining the audio with professional programs so hopefully soon we’ll have concrete evidence if the voices match, however I want to leave you all and anyone else that stumbles upon the thread with this last bit; check out the following two sections and judge for yourself if this “but” sound exactly the same.
:42-:46 of the WW2 Archive Footage
27:44-27:46 of the NewsNation Interview
Please keep up the fantastic discussion and as always don’t forget to keep reaching out to your state congress representatives to keep the pressure on disclosure! We all deserve the truth, for the betterment of humanity.

Online Nclex Coaching in Haryana
Mantram Nursing Academy offers premier online NCLEX coaching in Haryana, delivering a flexible and comprehensive learning experience for aspiring nurses. This program is designed to provide students with the highest quality education from the comfort of their homes, ensuring they are thoroughly prepared for the NCLEX exam.
The faculty at Mantram comprises experienced and knowledgeable instructors who excel in nursing education. They utilize innovative teaching methods and advanced technology to deliver engaging and interactive online sessions. The curriculum is meticulously structured to cover all critical areas of the NCLEX exam, incorporating the latest updates to keep students well-informed about current exam patterns and content.
Mantram's online NCLEX coaching includes live interactive classes, detailed video lectures, and extensive practice tests that simulate the real exam environment. This rigorous preparation helps students build confidence and enhance their analytical and problem-solving skills. Personalized mentoring and regular feedback sessions ensure that each student receives the individual attention needed to address their specific learning needs and overcome any challenges.
The user-friendly online platform provided by Mantram makes it easy for students across Haryana to access high-quality education. The supportive and collaborative learning environment encourages active participation and peer interaction, fostering a sense of community among students.

Preamble

This is going to be a bit of a lengthy post so bear with me. I am going to get into boons, arcana cards, vows, and weapon/equipment choice in this post and how I eventually was able to clear the underworld at 32 fear. All of this is in context of the build I am going for and the weapon I am using. Different vows, cards, etc. may be better for different weapons and playstyles. This is not a definitive guide and I have only beaten it once so far and by sticking to one weapon during my attempts. I enjoy writing about stuff like this and hope that this can possibly help y'all.
I finished the surface on my 23rd run and then the underworld on the next for reference. I just now cleared the underworld at 32 fear on my 143rd run. Of those between were me completing testaments, trying out weapons/aspects, and chaos trials. I attempted 32 fear a total of 36 times before I finally got it. Total in game time according to steam is 74 hours lol (I had a four day weekend and my gf is out of town so this is pretty much all I did).
Proof of run

Weapon/Aspect: Momus Staff

Firstly you want to get enough resources to unlock and fully upgrade the aspect, I think 10 total nightmare? Giving your special +30 power. I wouldn't bother 32 fear until you can get it all the way up.
For a few runs while I was using the skull with Melinoe/Persephone aspect, as I was trying to complete the 20 fear testament simultaneously. Stopped since I decided I wasn't really comfortable with the skull and switched to Melinoe's staff. Did that for a while and then saw this video and decided to give the Momus staff a shot, where i then won in 7 runs after switching. It also probably helped that I changed around some vows around this time, more on that later.
Watch the video for a breakdown but essentially you want Poseidon special + legendary boon, and ideally the double moonshot hammer that gives your special 2 more projectiles that seek. He switches his binds for left and right click but I did not, up to you.
Took a minute to get used to but essentially I just spammed speciall the entire time in fights, kiting enemies when necessary. I used my cast defensively to root enemies and create space mostly until I got a 3 specific boons, more later. Did not really use omegas at all, as I turned off the magick regen card and turned on the vow that removes your magick at the start of each encounter. If I did gain some magick, I would only use it for the omega special to regain some health when it was safe in fights (5 healing if you are near it when it explodes).

Arcana Cards

This is what I used but some may find other ones more to their liking. I will explain my choices below. Be sure to upgrade these to their max potential. The descriptions that I give are referencing their maxed out bonus. I almost exclusively used my charon cards (obol points) to order 8 moon dust in the camp to upgrade faster. Also having 30 grasp is required so be sure to get that maxed out too. Just playing the game should get you there. Gathering bones and completing minor prophecies are helpful in getting more moondust and nightmare faster to upgrade your cards and aspects. I have starred the one's that I think are almost absolutely necessary.
Arcana card choices
I. The Sorceress: Not using omega moves with this build for the most part, mainly chosen to just fill out the top row to awaken the divinity card.
II. The Wayward Son: +2 health (with 50% healing reduction from a vow) is definitely helpful, some much needed passive healing.
* III. The Huntress: +50% attack and special damage when you have less than 100 magick is probably a must have. Especially in my vows set up where I pretty much never have any magick.
IV. Death: Also to just fill out the row for divinity, not really using omega moves.
* V. The Messenger: +10% dodge chance is a lifesaver.
VII. The Titan: More health (and magick) is helpful for the early game before you get any centaur hearts.
* X. The Lovers: 0 damage from bosses for 3 hits is absolutely nuts, this was a whole keepsake in the last game. Attacks that miss you from dodge or daze from Apollo don't count towards a hit as well.
XI. The Swift Runner: Just generally helpful for kiting and running around, especially with increased enemy movement from a vow.
* XII. Eternity: 3 death defiances are absolutely essential probably in any playthrough unless you are a god at not getting hit ever.
* XVIII. Origination: Enemies with 2 curses take +50% damage is fantastic and helps to absolutely shred through them
* XXII. The Champions: 3 chances to reroll boon choices among other things is pretty much a must for run consistency. I would mainly use it on my first Poseidon boon to get the special. Would also use again to try and get slip or blast damage one or legendary from him, also on Hestia to get her cast or the one that allows you to aim the cast (both possible prerequisites for their duo boon, more later).
XXIII. The Artificer: I slept on this one big time at first until I saw someone using it in a 32 heat run on youtube. Change a minor reward into a major one 3 times is fantastic and really helps in the early game. I would use all 3 in the first region for a chance to get a pom, heart, gold, boon, or hammer. I would almost put this one as a must but you do you.
XXIV. Divinity: 20% extra chance to get an epic boon. Activated by the full top row, its just nice to have to possibly get some more benefits out of boons.
Alternatives: Like I mentioned before I only activate I and IV mainly to activate divinity. You could lose them and go for IX Night (automatic charging for your hex) or XVI The Fates (+3 rolls to change location rewards). I feel like hexes are not all that impactiful personally (except for a couple). Also changing location rewards is a toss up, meh. You could also lose XI extra sprint speed to to open up 5 grasp and go for XV Stength (take and deal more damage at low hp), XVII The Boatman (get more gold at the start of the run), or XIX Excellence (higher % for rare boons offered), which all have valid arguments. In hindsight I think giving up those 3 for Stregnth or Excellence might be worth it, might try in future runs.

Oath of the Unseen Vows

Throughout my runs I experimented a lot with the various choices and found that the ones I chose are best for how I play. It is really up to you, this is just how I did it. I mostly messed around with damage taken, enemy spawns, and health, the rest pretty much stayed constant. I originally was using the 9 minute time limit per region for a majority of my runs until I switched aspects (and the 7 minute several times). I eventually decided that I was playing too aggresively to beat the clock and would lose most of, if not all my death defiances by Tartarus/Chronos, or earlier. I did still have decent amount of time to beat Chronos if I got there with the time limit, just the health and death defiance loss was too much. Here is what I went with and explanations for each, I starred the ones I think should be kept on and are relatively easy to deal with.
Vows Used
Vow of Blood (+3): Just don't get hit duh. No but seriously +60% damage to you hurts, a lot. I really wish I did not have to use this, but the alternatives I think are worse. As you play more you'll get better and learn attack patterns and how to kite effectively.
Vow of Dominance (+3): Enemies now have +30% health which is rough, but with no time limit, just take your time in killing enemies off safely.
Vow of Rebuke (+2): Enemies have 2 barriers before they can take damage, not too bad. Makes clearing enemies a bit harder, but with the poseidon boon, you apply two instances of damage with each hit. So only one special shot with the boon will clear the barrier, also the wave the shoots out of them helps to clear barriers of the other enemies.
Vow of Fury (+3): Enemies are 20% faster (and their projectiles too?! I'm pretty sure this is the case, I haven't played without it in a while so I'm not exactly sure). This one took some getting used to, not much I can say except just keep trying. Another +3 makes them 40% faster which I do not recommend. The screaming shades, wolves and their heads, thorny spinny guys in Oceanus, rats, and Chronos are all insane with 40% extra speed.
Vow of Suffering (+2): +100% for the first hit you take in each encounter. Same as Vow of Blood, its rough, wish I could go without it as well.
Vow of Commotion (+3): 60% more foes in encounters (does not affect the boss summons). Had this one a tier or two lower, or not at all, when I was experimenting with the time limit. The AOE from Poseidon definely helps here, just take your time to clear out enemies. It can get pretty bad in tartarus with the bags and skulls everywhere though so just be careful.
Vow of Haunting (+2): Enemies have 50% of spawning a revenant when killed which if left alone long enough will respawn them. These are annoying as hell but not terrible once you get used to it. On death a flaming green skull thing launches out of them and travels a bit of a distance, just run ovecollect them and they are negated, don't need to damage or whatever. Can sometimes be hard to spot if behind a wall or obstacle. Overall not that bad, its not the end of the world if you let them respawn. Definitely though go for the ones that would respawn an enemy that are hard/annoying to deal with ASAP e.g. rat spawning satyrs, wolves, any projectile shooting enemy. Sometimes I feel like rats almost always spawn a revenant which is annoying. I honestly think they should also rework this so that if an enemy respawns it can't have another revenant spawn.
* Vow of Wandering (+3): 25% chance for enemies to be from the next region. Really not that bad at all, just have to deal with some more annoying enemies with larger health pools.
Vow of Scars (+2): Healing is only 50% effective is not that bad. You only get +2 healing passively from the card now and a lot less from fountains and such, goes hand in hand with blood and suffering, you'll get better at not getting hit.
* Vow of Destitution (+2): Charon's shop (and wells) are 80% more expensive. You'll miss out some boons, healing, poms, hearts, etc. but its not awful, you will still gain a good amount of gold to usually buy a boon or something at the end of each region except Oceanus I found. Also with Poseidon in your god pool, he has some boons that can help with getting more gold like minor find doubling up, increased value of minor finds, and sunken treasure.
* Vow of Panic (+1): No more magick at the start of each encounter. In this build you don't really need it anyways so this is a freebie point of fear pretty much. Also if you decide to have the card that regens magick on it pretty much negates it after a little while.
** Vow of Forsaking (+2): This one might actually be beneficial. The two boon options you don't pick will not longer show up in your run. This is why I have the boon rerolls on, so I can guarantee to get Poseidon special on my first boon. Otherwise this helps to increase your chances of getting legendary or duo boons (if you have the prerequisites) since the boon choice pool is lowered after each pick. It is unfortunate though if both prereqs for poseidons legendary are in the given choices and you are out of rolls though.
* Vow of Arrogance (+4): Prime 10 magick for each level of rarity above common that you pick. Again, not using magick hardly in this build so doesn't really matter. Also in lower fear runs I have used this, it does not really matter all that much even when you are using omega moves.
Unused:

• Vow of Bitterness: Replace the first boon reward of each region with an onion (does not affect shop boons or trial of the gods rooms if they are the first ones you encounter). I tried this many times but it really just worsened run consistency. Also w a keepsake equipped after Erebus to guarantee a certain god's boon, that would become an onion if it was the first one I found, and then would not encounter that god again in that region.
• Vow of Desperation: Time limits for regions: 9, 7, then 5 minutes with increased fear for each increase in tier. Like I said, I stopped playing with this so I could play more carefully.
• Vow of Abandon: Negate all your arcana cards. Insane. Tried it once, it is just too much, the arcana cards are absolutely necessary I feel to clear 32 fear.

Boons/Hammers/Keepsakes/Familiar

Poseidon: Equip his keepsake at start, reroll for wave flourish (special) if needed and rarify. Afterwards look for slippery slope then crashing wave ideally. This primes you to get his legendary which gives +150% damage from splash effects to bosses. Other great ones are double up which is nuts that it can possibly double your hearts, gold, and poms you pick up. Ocean's bounty is nice to increase gold. Water fitness is pretty good if you can get 4 water elements to give you +100 health. Flood control is also nice for damage reduction.
Hestia: Equip her keepsake after Erebus if you did not already get her in your god pool (you get up to 4 gods like in Hades I). Ideally you want her both cast and glowing coal, which lets you aim your cast. Either of which in combination with slippery slope gets you access to Poseidon/Hestia duo boon scalding vapor whcih does insane damage over time. I'm not sure if you should prioritize glowing coal over her cast honestly, both have their upsides alone, but you do want both hopefully. With glowing coal so you can aim your cast since you will be fighting from a distance mostly (not always but in how I played this build I did for the most part), which can activate the steam cloud on foes with slip. Hestia cast is less safe and you need to be closer to enemies to get the steam cloud to activate, but it does more damage, continously applying steam on the enemy. Other boons like soot sprint are nice, almost like Athena's dash in the first game. Slow cooker infusion is alright but you may not get many fire elements to increase your base damage power. Flammable coating is great and helps to melt through armored enemies. Burnt offering is pretty nice to increase you health (and magick) pool if you happen to get offered to sacrifice a useless boon.
Other helpful god boons: Pretty much anything that can help apply another curse to enemies. Demeter and Aphrodite are probably the best since theirs are easy to apply without much effort like frigid sprint, gale force, glamour gain, and passion dash. The other gods require secondary boons to get a curse or your attack/special needs to give the curse, you won't really ever be using your attack and your special is reserved for Poseidon.
Hammers: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like I remember in Hades I if you chose a specific hammer you would be locked out of other hammer choices that affect the benefitting move. If the same applies to this game avoid picking a hammer that affects your special for your first hammer if it is not double moonshot, and hope for it on your second hammer. The DPS from Momus staff is still great with spamming special without it (I won my run without it). You could also go ahead and pick up rapid moonfire or shimmering moonshot on your first one because they are pretty powerful too, and I also may be wrong about the hammer exclusion thing.
Keepsakes: So of course Poseidon first, always. Hestia second if you don't get her in your god pool Erebus. Up to you and what you like for Oceanus, maybe choose Demeter or Aphrodite. If I got Hestia I would generally use any one of the following:

• Engraved pin
• Gold Purse
• White Antler
• Crystal Figurine
• Silken Sash
• Aromatic Phial (be sure to pick it up before using the fountain)
• Experimental Hammer
• Transcendent Embryo

Once in the mourning fields I would typically go with the Lion Fang, or possibly one of the above maybe. Lastly in Tartarus I would either use Knuckle Bones (if I felt comfortable with my health and death defiances), Luckier Tooth, or Evil Eye (if Chronos killed me last).
Sidenote: Is Echo bugged? Or is my game just messed up? I was never given the chance to give her a gift so I've never gotten her keepsake :(
Familiar Toula: Sorry Frinos, but Toula is just superior. She gives you an extra death defiance which when upgraded fully gives you 40 health on death. Also upgrading her attack lets her attack more times before she takes a little catnap (cute). She does 99 damage with each strike which is not insignificant. You don't need to go out of your way to sprint over her whenever she is resting to activate her, if she happens to be where you are running it is just some nice extra little bit of DPS. She has actually killed a few bosses for me in my runs lol.

The Winning Run

So all of this information is from finally beating 32 fear. I followed this strategy in my head for the most part. I ended up not getting double moonshot, but did get rapid moonfire. Poseidon offered me both prereqs for his legendary in the same choice without any rerolls left unfortunately, chose slip of course. I did get the duo boon and both of Hestia's cast boons which was nuts. Also I got rare crop right after I got Poseidon's special so it became heroic by the end. I also got offered to sacrifice rare crop after it became heroic by hestia to get more health, and I was then offered it again at epic rarity which increased 3 other of my boons which happened to hit Hestia's cast boons. I did not get any other way to apply another curse other than slip unfortunately as well. Started Tartarus with 2 or 3 death defiances + luckier tooth and beat Chronos on my last life. Overall though, not a perfect run but it still worked. Would have been even more nuts if I got the right hammer, legendary, and another curse effect

TL;DR

Momus Staff good. More special projectiles hammer + Poseidon special + legendary + Poseidon/Hestia duo = nuts DPS. Arcana cards important, vows are tough.

Top Online Nclex Coaching in Punjab
Mantram Nursing Academy offers top online NCLEX coaching in Punjab, distinguished by its commitment to delivering high-quality education and comprehensive support to nursing aspirants. This premier coaching program is designed to provide students with the flexibility of online learning without compromising on the depth and rigor of the preparation.
Led by a team of highly experienced instructors, Mantram's online NCLEX coaching leverages innovative teaching methods and advanced technology to ensure effective learning. The curriculum is carefully crafted to cover all essential aspects of the NCLEX exam, incorporating the latest updates to keep students well-informed about current exam patterns and content.
The online coaching program includes live interactive sessions, detailed video lectures, and extensive practice tests that closely mimic the actual exam environment. These elements work together to build students' confidence and enhance their problem-solving abilities. Personalized mentoring and regular feedback sessions are integral parts of the program, ensuring that each student receives the individual attention they need to address their specific learning challenges.
Mantram's user-friendly online platform makes it easy for students across Punjab to access high-quality education from the comfort of their homes. The supportive and collaborative learning environment encourages active participation and peer interaction, creating a vibrant community of learners.
In conclusion, Mantram Study Group's top online NCLEX coaching in Punjab offers nursing aspirants a perfect blend of flexibility, comprehensive preparation, and personalized support, equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed to excel in their exams and advance their nursing careers.

Best Online Nclex Coaching in India
Mantram Nursing Academy offers the best online NCLEX coaching in India, providing an unparalleled educational experience for aspiring nurses. With a team of highly experienced instructors, Mantram ensures that students receive personalized guidance and support tailored to their individual learning needs. The online platform is designed to be user-friendly, making it accessible for students from all corners of the country.
The comprehensive NCLEX coaching program at Mantram includes detailed lectures, interactive live sessions, and a plethora of practice tests that mimic the actual exam environment. This rigorous training helps students build confidence and master the content required to excel in the NCLEX examination. Additionally, the curriculum is constantly updated to reflect the latest changes in the NCLEX exam pattern, ensuring that students are well-prepared for any new challenges.
Mantram Study Group's emphasis on a holistic learning approach sets it apart from other coaching institutes. Students benefit from individualized feedback, performance tracking, and one-on-one mentoring sessions that address their specific concerns and areas for improvement. The supportive community at Mantram fosters a collaborative learning environment, encouraging students to engage actively and learn from each other's experiences.

Hello again! For those of you unfamiliar, I am the Director of a private hypnotherapy practice and it work with sleep issues, insomnia chief among them.
I want to give you a tip today. An exercise, something you can practice. You see, in order to get to sleep you need to first enter into trance. The problem with this is that we either sustain a level of awareness when we can't sleep or worse, go into full fight or flight.
There is a common misconception with trance and the hypnotic states. It is assumed that they are all relaxed, detached states; that could not be further from true. Some are, yes... But some are very aware and active, usually referred to as flow states.
So here's the tip. When you decide you want to go to sleep, simply go find a comfortable spot and don't try. That's right. All I want you to do is focus on your breathing in a specific pattern.
3 seconds in.
Hold for 3 seconds.
3 seconds out.
Hold for 3 seconds.
Just focus on doing that for a moment and when you're ready, imagine something however you can. It doesn't matter if you can't visualize... Imagine, pretend or whatever you can do. I want you to imagine a staircase, remembered or created, with 20 steps down. Simply imagine walking down the stairs slowly, paced with your breathing and count the steps down in your head. When you get to the bottom, just allow yourself to go wherever you feel is right.
Let me know your experience with this if you try it out, I always love to hear from people. Remember: practice... Life and all its things are skills to be learned. Have a wonderful day.

Desire is no problem. Craving -- i.e., when desire becomes grasping -- is a problem.
And according to the guiding precepts, there is no proscription against sexual activity in itself (except for monastics). It's misuse of sex that is seen as unwholesome.

You need to understand that the entire Path of Buddhism is predicated on waking up from dream-like delusion of self, and selves, and subject (I, my, me) versus object (the presumed external world which the self is presumably 'missing' and needing, or at the mercy of). The point of mental discipline is to stop making an illusory world out of illusory concepts -- our relation to which causes all suffering -- and instead to rest in reality.
This is the basis of all Buddhist ethics. There is no ethical decree given from above by an authority figure; it is all functional, all in service of waking up and dispelling suffering.

So the tainted mental activity that produces the illusion of a 'me' and an external world inevitably leads to craving, grasping, and suffering, like a wheel that turns around and around endlessly.
Craving that persists with regard to a particular object or theme is known as lust. There are many remedies for lust.
First off all, just following the Path in a good course of training will settle the mind and even the energy. Much of our personal suffering and many of our dysfunctional tendencies arise because our energy (in ancient terms named 'inner winds') is inflamed and irregular. A balanced lifestyle and good training in meditation, ethical behavior, and wisdom smooth out the practitioner's energy and establish calmness and stability. The upshot is that one doesn't crave the things one craved before, and turns instead toward noble aims and aspirations, the causes of happiness.
Śamatha (acquiescence/calmness/concentration) meditation is especially regarded as a cure for all kinds of sensual attachment. This is because it diminishes the mental activity that creates the illusion of subject-object separation and its accompanying habitual patterns of attachment. When the mind settles, there is less 'going out' toward supposed external objects.
There are also specific remedies for sexual attachment, including contemplating the constituent parts of a body and/or the many unpleasant aspects of a body -- blood, pus, oil, urine, feces, odor, shedding skin, and so on. Related contemplations consider aging and decay.
These practices are effective because typically the lustful person is fixating on a very limited and idealized version of the supposedly desirable person: they see only momentary physical beauty or preferentially selected qualities, not the whole reality. The contemplations establish what a body really is (which is far from gloriously pleasant). And one can imagine that seeing the entire life span of the object of desire -- seeing hehim as germ cells, a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child, and adolescent, an adult, an elderly person, a withered aged dying person, a heap of dust and bones -- can dispel the illusion of perfect desirability that characterizes lust.
[Additional note: there's a text in which the Buddha helps Ananda overcome fixation on a woman by bestowing such a vision upon him, of the woman in time-lapse, quickly moving through all stages of her life. Perhaps our scriptural experts will provide a citation here.]
Some of the most important and influential means of bringing the mind under control (not rigid control, but stability and functionality) have to do with lifestyle. There are many teachings that don't appear in books, and which you get through human contact and actually living the lifestyle along with others.
Regulating diet, sleep, physical movement and rest account for possibly half or more of the spiritual accomplishments and personal transformations sought by practitioners. If you just eat right, your efforts are already tremendously supported.
Avoiding overly dulling or stimulating foods (like too much meat & dairy, and certainly sugars, oily foods, processed foods, overly spicy foods), avoiding overeating, and avoiding alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and recreational drugs go a long way to settling the fiery, eruptive energy that easily becomes sexual craving.
Certain specific foods are discouraged or, within specific practices, prohibited because they directly block the practice. Some of these are strongly aphrodisiac foods, others are known to block the energy flow being cultivated.
Sleeping the right amount at the right time evens, calms, and uplifts the energy. Best is to be asleep at least an hour before midnight (by the sun, not by the clock which can change with daylight savings time), and to wake and rise before the first light of dawn. No surprise: this follows the schedule of temples and practice centers. And having too little sleep, though not ideal, is better for the subtle energy than too much sleep. Having too little sleep harms the body, but having too much sleep harms the energy and spirit.
Physical movement is also extremely important for health at all levels, and for spiritual practice. Physical practice is another aspect of authentic Buddhism that is not (and perhaps cannot be) conveyed in books, blogs, and videos; but it's incredibly effective in bringing forth a natural, rooted stability of mind. Prostrations practice, vigorous physical work, and whole-body-and-breath physical activities and exercise are effective upon sexual craving on a number of fronts (grounding, energy flow, outlet, contentment), but they also greatly support meditation and mental training.
And finally (but far from the last benefit available), the influence of a teacher and practice community can't be overstated. Being in the presence of those who maintain the true view helps your own wavering, wandering, attaching mind come under control and move toward the true view itself. Being with people who are clear about their values, and whose discipline arises naturally from wisdom (rather than being imposed tyrannical by an ideology), helps one learn how to become clear and disciplined.
To a great extent, cravings and addictions are cured by replacing them with wholesome and more satisfying and fulfilling aspirations and behaviors, and by replacing the triggering environment with a more healthy one.
Addiction is not always best addressed by wrestling with it directly, as that can become another trigger, causing recurrent cycles of repression and acting out. Objectification is a root problem; so be careful of making a personal issue into an object of fixation. A good course of training will help teach you where to place your attention and effort. It's like the story of the two wolves: the one that grows is the one you feed (with your attention). "You become that which you place before you."
We don't learn how to live by amassing concepts; we learn how to live by being in the presence of true humans.
And if we establish the karmic causes for being in the presence of an enlightened teacher, the influence on our life is unimaginably beneficial.

I (37M) spend most of my time working at a desk or chasing after and picking up little, wriggling children. Over time, these activities have taken a toll on my body. There’s just a baseline level of pain and discomfort to it. I try to lift weights and stay active as best I can, but it only helps so much.
So, in the interest of trading money for an improved quality of life, I’m considering finding a chiropractor to see regularly. Someone who’s an expert in functional movements and common ways those patterns get messed up. Someone who can guide me through some root cause analysis for my pain, and get me pain-free again. But, for whatever reason, these types of practitioners are, for insurance purposes, rarely in-network. So it’s going to be expensive. I hate that.
I assume the physical issues I’m having are endemic to workaholics (read: HENRYs). So my questions to this group are:

1. Who here has had a positive experience seeing a chiropractor for general, overall health and wellness (as opposed to a specific issue, like back pain)? How did it play out? How has your life improved? Hearing such experiences will probably help convince me to take to time to seek a good one out.
2. How would I know a good chiropractor from a bad one? What should I be on the lookout for? There are schools and certs and such, to be sure, but I don’t really know the good ones from the bad. And there’s a lot of variability in the field.

Specific recommendations (bay area) are great too, although not exactly what I’m here for.
**EDIT** Okay, apparently the term 'chiropractor' is quite loaded, and probably isn't exactly what I meant anyway. I'm more looking for someone who's an expert in functional movements and can help me understand what about my movement patterns is causing the pain. Doesn't need to be a chiropractor. Previously I've tried to working with physical therapists and trainers, but I haven't found them to be particularly beneficial in this regard. Most physical therapists I've found specialize in trauma/surgery recovery (which I thankfully don't need) and most trainers I've seen tend to focus on specific sports or sport-related movement types- not everyday sorts of movement patterns.
If there's some other professional field I should be investigating here, I'd appreciate a pointer.

Hi all. I am a 26 year old female, who has always had noticeable hyper extension of my elbows, my toes and my neck. With a lot of research, I’ve reached this diagnosis. My primary care provider scratched his head when I suggested this diagnosis and my symptoms, so I’m coming to Reddit. I’ve heard a lot about ehlers danlos and raynauds, and my symptoms of severely cold toes and discoloration (I’m diagnosed with ADHD and have been prescribed 30 mg vyvanse which triggers it without fail) led me to believe I have all of the above. My discoloration has occurred since I was a child, which was always triggered by cold temps and led to my legs having patchy purple patterns and pale toes. It worsened in severity when I became pregnant at 20 and felt better after giving birth. But I noticed I had multiple bruises on my legs that occurred without trauma, and would eventually heal after about 1-2 weeks. The bruising also occurred when I began working out and running, which would begin to tamper off after about a month of consistent exercise. With my doctor waving me off with a non existent worry, I’m curious if anyone with this also has bruising? They appear after physical activity and sometimes have a sore bump underneath. I consistently have cold feet, and have veins in my arms and feet that protrude with adequate blood flow. (For context my dad also has obvious symptoms of ehlers danlos, but never was diagnosed) Thank you all, sincerely from a user with health anxiety that is very confused.

There are some patterns that have become noticable:
Pattern 1: Environmental Favortism

• Cold planets are popular.
• Hot planets are not.
• Ion Storm Planets are dangerous but fun.
• Low visbility conditions are debatable, but great for stealth tactics.
• Additional conditions like Blizzards, Sandstorms, Acid Rain...are generally avoided.
• Fire Tornado Planets are by far the most unpopular and avoided.

With this pattern of "environmental-condition-popularity," we can predict with some accuracy where the majority of our playerbase is going to fight, regardless of whatever major order is active. Proof of this is that while the Hydra Sector only needs us to take Menkent to liberate the entire sector, no one 'really' wants to do it....because we hate the hot planets. The stamina drain is arguably one of the more detrimental environmental conditions in the game.
You can generally assume that 1) wherever the largest amount of players are or 2) whatever planets are apart of a specific major order, are the planets that gets liberated the fastest. When we divide, that liberating power grows weaker as it spreads out.
Pattern 2: No one touches Super Earth
A second pattern that's rather obvious is that players tend to fight the most in planets that are close to Super Earth itself. We want to keep Super Earth away from the enemy, so that's probably obvious.
Where we should strike right now:
Menkent and Choepessa IV (in that order).
Those two planets are the only planets we don't control in their respective sectors. If we take both of them, we take back 2 whole sectors and prevent their expansion towards both Super Earth and Malevelon Creek.
A surge of players are already diving on Menkent after finishing the defense on Vernen Wells.
Thanks for coming to my Super Talk, Rain like Hellfire Divers. o7

Teething in babies is a natural developmental stage where a baby's first teeth start to emerge through the gums. This process can be uncomfortable for babies and challenging for parents. Here's a detailed look at the symptoms and remedies for teething in babies:
Symptoms of Teething

1. Drooling:

• Increased saliva production, leading to more drooling.

1. Chewing and Biting:

• Babies may chew on toys, fingers, or other objects to alleviate gum discomfort.

1. Irritability and Fussiness:

• Increased crankiness due to gum pain and discomfort.

1. Swollen or Tender Gums:

• Gums may appear red, swollen, and tender to the touch.

1. **Sleep Disturbances**:

• Discomfort can lead to disrupted sleep patterns.

1. Loss of Appetite:

• Babies may eat less because of gum pain.

1. Ear Pulling and Cheek Rubbing:

• Babies might pull at their ears or rub their cheeks, as the pain from teething can radiate to these areas.

1. Mild Fever:

• Some babies may experience a slight increase in temperature, though high fever is not typical and should be checked by a doctor.

Remedies for Teething

1. Teething Toys:

• Provide safe, chewable teething rings or toys to help massage the gums.
  
• Chilling these toys in the refrigerator can provide extra soothing relief (avoid freezing as it can cause more harm than good).
  

1. Cold Washcloth:

• A clean, damp washcloth chilled in the refrigerator can be given to the baby to chew on.

1. Gum Massage:

• Gently rubbing the baby's gums with a clean finger can help alleviate discomfort.

1. Teething Biscuits:

• Hard, unsweetened teething biscuits can be offered to older babies to chew on.

1. Cold Foods:

• For babies already eating solids, cold purees, applesauce, or yogurt can be soothing.

1. Pain Relief:

• Over-the-counter pain relief medications like infant acetaminophen or ibuprofen can be used if necessary (always follow the dosing instructions and consult with a pediatrician first).

1. Distraction:

• Engaging the baby with activities, toys, or a change of scenery can sometimes help take their mind off the discomfort.

1. Teething Gels:

• Some parents use over-the-counter teething gels, but these should be used with caution and under a pediatrician's advice due to potential risks from certain ingredients.

Additional Tips

• Maintain Oral Hygiene: Even before teeth emerge, wipe the baby’s gums with a clean, damp cloth after feedings to keep the mouth clean.
  
• Monitor for Other Symptoms: Teething should not cause severe symptoms like high fever, diarrhea, or a rash. If these occur, it's essential to consult a healthcare provider as they may indicate another issue.
  
• Stay Calm and Patient: Teething can be a trying time for both babies and parents. Maintaining a calm and comforting presence can help soothe a distressed baby.
  

By understanding the symptoms and using appropriate remedies, parents can help their babies navigate the teething process more comfortably. If concerns arise, it’s always best to consult with a pediatrician for guidance.

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

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.]

I've been having this gut feeling that my GFs cheating on me for the past 1-2 months and am reaching a breaking point. I don't believe it's healthy for these feelings to be left to fester and am wondering whether I'm being crazy or reasonable, and if so how to start this conversation/resolve these feelings.
This started a few months ago when my GF made two new friends (M) and (F), unsure of their ages. They began hanging out, with one of their first being from 9 PM - 3 AM at a store that closes at 10 PM. They spent the remaining time in the parking lot of this shopping plaza and I heard from her maybe once during this time. Eventually, they began hanging out at the M friend's house (he lives with his parents), and she would be out until 4-5 AM with 1-2 text messages.
When I asked her about these hangouts there was 0 detail, no references to conversations had or activities they did. Eventually, I had a conversation with her about this asking her for more detail and she would slightly increase it, "We talked about music" or "We played a few games of so and so", but nothing more. Additionally, with other friends, she'll tell me distinct conversations and stories from them, however none with these friends.
I also asked about her few responses to my texts or FT calls when she's out. She explained that when she's out with friends she likes to focus on the people she's with and won't text frequently or respond to my FTs/calls when she's out with people.
I feel similar (if it's random friends), but if she were to text me or call me when I was out I would pick up without a thought. This explanation confused me and personally doesn't resonate but I feel as though it does make sense and we just have different feelings regarding this topic.
A week or two later she went out alone with M friend to play basketball and visit a gym together, from around 9 AM - 1 PM. Later that same week, the two of them went out to lunch again for multiple hours without a word from her. During the hanging out I noticed her location showed the parking lot of her community gym for ~30ish minutes. We talked later in the day when I asked if she had gone to the gym which she said she hadn't. Her gym has an outdoor seating area as well, which she's previously used and has mentioned to me before. This worried me, why are you in a parking lot for that long with another man?
This recently happened again, in the same parking lot, and this time ~45 minutes or so before a response, but this time she said she was with the F friend. This was at 10:30 pm after previously being at the outdoor seating area. Why would you move from your outdoor seating to a car for that long and that late at night? Was she really with her F friend? When I'm with her and we hang out as soon as whatever planned activity is finished she wants to leave. She doesn't want to hang out in either of our cars, she just wants to go. I'm confused and hurt as to why it seems different with her friends.
After feeling worried about this, I asked her if I could meet her friends and she was vehemently against it. She said that she 'barely knows them' and would feel awkward introducing me to them. This seemed incredibly suspicious to me. She's hanging out with them 1-2 times a week for 4+ hours at a time, and why would it be awkward to introduce your partner to your friends?
TLDR:

1. She spends a lot of time with friends without responses in 'suspicious' areas such as empty parking lots or M's friend's house.
2. She gives little detail about these hangout situations.
3. She is strongly against me meeting these friends.
4. She seems to be willing to hang out longer and in parking lots during 1 on 1 situation with her friends but not me.

I'm willing to accept that I could be being toxic/controlling or whatever it might be and work on that, but just letting this fester in my head is only intensifying my fears. What do you guys think? Am I being a bit crazy? If there's something there how would I go about resolving this?