Matthew Goode. We’ve all speculated that Mary and Henry may or may not divorce, but the reason behind this is because Henry’s been absent the last two times we’ve seen him, but that’s because Matthew was busy filming other things at the time. As far as I’ve heard, he’s not filming anything at this time, so I’m assuming
A(Most unlikely) they DID divorce, just off screen and it will simply be mentioned in passing on screen.
B(Semi-likely) They’re simply hiding Matthews involvement as a surprise, but will still have a divorce arc for them (Or they at least fight)
C(What I think is going to happen) Matthew does appear in the film, they have a big arc over the film about Henry always being absent/should they divorce, which inevitably ends with them Working things out and staying together.
D(Worst option) Matthew does the film, everything’s fine between them, the long absences and trouble they were having in there marriage is never even mentioned, they have a second kid(Boooooo)
I have no problems with Matthew Goode personally, I just hate Mary and Henry together and personally think she should have stayed single. What do you guys think? Will Mr Goode have a role in this film, or has he been written out once again?

CANCER ZODIAC TAROT READING - UNEXPECTED INCOME MAY 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ5mIkLhCyY
cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac dates
10 things about cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac traits
cancer zodiac personality
cancer zodiac symbol
cancer zodiac month
cancer zodiac tattoo
cancer zodiac characteristics
cancer zodiac facts
cancer zodiac sign
cancer zodiac animal
cancer zodiac and capricorn
cancer zodiac art
cancer zodiac aesthetic
cancer zodiac air sign
cancer zodiac astrology
cancer zodiac attributes
cancer zodiac and scorpio
cancer zodiac and aries
cancer zodiac and aquarius
about cancer zodiac sign
all about cancer zodiac
are cancer zodiac dangerous
about cancer zodiac sign girl
age of cancer zodiac
attributes of cancer zodiac sign
after cancer zodiac
animal for cancer zodiac sign
anime characters cancer zodiac
aries and cancer zodiac sign compatibility
cancer zodiac birthday
cancer zodiac bad traits
cancer zodiac birthstone
cancer zodiac best match
cancer zodiac birth dates
cancer zodiac body part
cancer zodiac background
cancer zodiac bracelet
cancer zodiac best friends
cancer zodiac baby girl
best crystals for cancer zodiac
bad things about cancer zodiac
boy cancer zodiac
best match for cancer zodiac
birthday wishes for cancer zodiac
best color for cancer zodiac
best job for cancer zodiac
best stone for cancer zodiac
birthstone for cancer zodiac
bracelet for cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac compatibility
cancer zodiac color
cancer zodiac celebrities
cancer zodiac constellation
cancer zodiac crystals
cancer zodiac color palette
cancer zodiac characteristics female
cancer zodiac compatibility chart
cancer zodiac chinese
cancer zodiac sign dates
cancer zodiac dates range
cancer zodiac description
cancer zodiac days
cancer zodiac demon
cancer zodiac drawing
cancer zodiac daily
cancer zodiac dates 2024
cancer zodiac dogs
cancer zodiac dark side
definition of cancer zodiac sign
dates for cancer zodiac sign
dark side of cancer zodiac signs
dragon cancer zodiac
different types of cancer zodiac
demon cancer zodiac
does cancer zodiac have anger issues
description of cancer zodiac sign
double cancer zodiac
diamond for cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac element
cancer zodiac emoji
cancer zodiac enemies
cancer zodiac explained
cancer zodiac earrings
cancer zodiac energy
cancer zodiac ear piercing
cancer zodiac eyes
cancer zodiac español
cancer zodiac emotionally manipulative
everything about cancer zodiac
evolved cancer zodiac
element of cancer zodiac
evil cancer zodiac
enemy of cancer zodiac
emerald for cancer zodiac
easy cancer zodiac drawing
emotional cancer zodiac
explain cancer zodiac sign
everything you need to know about cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac flower
cancer zodiac flower tattoo
cancer zodiac for today
cancer zodiac female
cancer zodiac favorite color
cancer zodiac famous people
cancer zodiac fire sign
cancer zodiac friends
cancer zodiac facts male
facts about cancer zodiac sign
facts about cancer zodiac woman
fun facts about cancer zodiac
famous cancer zodiac
flower for cancer zodiac
facts about cancer zodiac man
features of cancer zodiac sign
female cancer zodiac sign
friends of cancer zodiac
funny cancer zodiac quotes
cancer zodiac girl
cancer zodiac gemstone
cancer zodiac greek god
cancer zodiac god
cancer zodiac goddess
cancer zodiac gif
cancer zodiac gem
cancer zodiac good and bad traits
cancer zodiac good in bed
cancer zodiac gifts
good things about cancer zodiac
geek bar cancer zodiac flavor
gemstone for cancer zodiac
girl cancer zodiac
gifts for cancer zodiac man
gifts for cancer zodiac woman
gemstone for cancer zodiac sign
girly cancer zodiac tattoo
god of cancer zodiac
gem for cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac horoscope today
cancer zodiac horoscope
cancer zodiac health problems
cancer zodiac horoscope 2024
cancer zodiac history
cancer zodiac house
cancer zodiac hand tattoo
cancer zodiac hair color
cancer zodiac hoodie
cancer zodiac humor
how rare is cancer zodiac sign
happy birthday cancer zodiac
how is cancer zodiac sign
how dangerous is cancer zodiac
how to be friends with a cancer zodiac
how will cancer zodiac die
how to deal with cancer zodiac sign
healing crystals for cancer zodiac
habits of cancer zodiac
herbs for cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac in hindi
cancer zodiac in chinese
cancer zodiac images
cancer zodiac in telugu
cancer zodiac info
cancer zodiac in spanish
cancer zodiac is what month
cancer zodiac in relationships
cancer zodiac information
cancer zodiac in 2024
is cancer zodiac dangerous
interesting facts about cancer zodiac
is cancer zodiac rare
information about cancer zodiac sign
is cancer zodiac rich or poor
instagram bio for cancer zodiac
images of cancer zodiac sign
is cancer zodiac sign lucky
indian celebrities with cancer zodiac sign
is cancer zodiac a water sign
cancer zodiac jewelry
cancer zodiac jobs
cancer zodiac july
cancer zodiac june
cancer zodiac january 2024
cancer zodiac june 21
cancer zodiac japanese
cancer zodiac july 22
cancer zodiac june 27
cancer zodiac july 16
july cancer zodiac
jobs for cancer zodiac
june cancer zodiac sign
july cancer zodiac traits
jewelry for cancer zodiac
june cancer zodiac personality
june cancer zodiac traits
june vs july cancer zodiac
july birthday cancer zodiac
jade for cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac kids
cancer zodiac keywords
cancer zodiac keychain
cancer zodiac kpop idols
cancer zodiac killers
cancer zodiac karma
cancer zodiac know for
cancer zodiac keyboard symbol
cancer zodiac child
cancer zodiac knight
kpop idols cancer zodiac
kpop idols who have cancer zodiac sign
korean actors cancer zodiac
korean celebrities with cancer zodiac sign
katangian ng cancer zodiac
karaang napta cancer zodiac sign
karma cancer zodiac
what kind of person is cancer zodiac sign
things to know about cancer zodiac
everything to know about cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac lucky numbers
cancer zodiac love
cancer zodiac logo
cancer zodiac love language
cancer zodiac lucky colors
cancer zodiac love compatibility
cancer zodiac libra
cancer zodiac lips
cancer zodiac least compatibility
cancer zodiac leo
lucky stone for cancer zodiac sign
logo cancer zodiac
leo and cancer zodiac sign
lucky color for cancer zodiac
lucky wallpaper for cancer zodiac
lucky number for cancer zodiac sign
lunar eclipse effect on cancer zodiac
libra and cancer zodiac sign compatibility
last day of cancer zodiac
love life of cancer zodiac sign
cancer zodiac meaning
cancer zodiac men
cancer zodiac memes
cancer zodiac match
cancer zodiac month dates
cancer zodiac moon sign
cancer zodiac moon
cancer zodiac meaning male
cancer zodiac meaning female
meaning of cancer zodiac sign
male cancer zodiac
meaningful cancer zodiac tattoo
more about cancer zodiac sign
month of cancer zodiac sign
moonstone for cancer zodiac
month of cancer zodiac
male cancer zodiac tattoo
match for cancer zodiac
mlbb cancer zodiac skin
cancer zodiac necklace
cancer zodiac negative traits
cancer zodiac number
cancer zodiac names
cancer zodiac nails
cancer zodiac nail designs
cancer zodiac nicknames
cancer zodiac necklace gold
cancer zodiac neck tattoo
cancer zodiac necklace silver
nicknames for cancer zodiac
names for cancer zodiac girl
nature of cancer zodiac sign
names for cancer zodiac boy
negatives of cancer zodiac
nature of cancer zodiac
number for cancer zodiac
nba players cancer zodiac
names related to cancer zodiac
next to cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac outfits
cancer zodiac origin
cancer zodiac opposite
cancer zodiac opposite sign
cancer zodiac overview
cancer zodiac of the day
cancer zodiac oc
cancer zodiac origin story
cancer zodiac occupations
cancer zodiac other names
opposite of cancer zodiac
one word to describe cancer zodiac
other names for cancer zodiac
outfits for cancer zodiac sign
opal for cancer zodiac
one piece cancer zodiac
october cancer zodiac
onyx for cancer zodiac
another word for cancer zodiac
ox cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac personality traits
cancer zodiac planet
cancer zodiac personality female
cancer zodiac personality male
cancer zodiac pictures
cancer zodiac powers
cancer zodiac pros and cons
cancer zodiac pendant
cancer zodiac power color
personality of cancer zodiac sign
picture of cancer zodiac sign
pros and cons of cancer zodiac
pictures of cancer zodiac sign girl
planet for cancer zodiac
pisces and cancer zodiac sign
power of cancer zodiac sign
pearl for cancer zodiac
peacock cancer zodiac
perfect match for cancer zodiac sign
cancer zodiac quotes
cancer zodiac qualities
cancer zodiac quotes funny
cancer zodiac quiz
cancer zodiac questions
cancer zodiac quote of the day
cancer zodiac quiet
cancer zodiac quiz buzzfeed
cancer zodiac quora
cancer zodiac queen
qualities of cancer zodiac sign
qualities of a cancer zodiac
quotes about cancer zodiac
questions to ask a cancer zodiac
quotes for cancer zodiac sign
quiet cancer zodiac
questions for cancer zodiac
questions to ask a cancer zodiac sign
quiz for cancer zodiac
quora cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac reading
cancer zodiac red flags
cancer zodiac reading today
cancer zodiac ruling planet
cancer zodiac rising sign
cancer zodiac relationship
cancer zodiac reddit
cancer zodiac ring
cancer zodiac range
cancer zodiac rappers
ring for cancer zodiac
ruby for cancer zodiac
rabbit cancer zodiac
red flag cancer zodiac
rappers that are cancer zodiac sign
real cancer zodiac facts
rat cancer zodiac
ruling planet of cancer zodiac sign
random facts about cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac sign traits
cancer zodiac sign meaning
cancer zodiac sign month
cancer zodiac stone
cancer zodiac soulmate
cancer zodiac sign compatibility
cancer zodiac sign tattoo
sign of cancer zodiac
stones for cancer zodiac
symbol for cancer zodiac
stone for cancer zodiac sign
symbol of cancer zodiac sign
scary facts about cancer zodiac
serial killers with cancer zodiac sign
cancer zodiac tattoo ideas
cancer zodiac today
cancer zodiac tattoos for females
cancer zodiac traits female
cancer zodiac traits male
cancer zodiac tattoos for guys
cancer zodiac tarot card
cancer zodiac type
traits of cancer zodiac
things about cancer zodiac sign
tattoo cancer zodiac
types of cancer zodiac
tattoo ideas for cancer zodiac
the meaning of cancer zodiac sign
tattoo cancer zodiac sign
today cancer zodiac
today cancer zodiac sign
today's cancer zodiac horoscope
cancer zodiac urban dictionary
cancer zodiac usernames
cancer zodiac upset
cancer zodiac usa today
cancer zodiac usernames for instagram
cancer zodiac unlucky numbers
cancer zodiac unlucky color
cancer zodiac urdu
cancer zodiac unique facts
cancer zodiac unlucky
unique cancer zodiac tattoos
unique cancer zodiac tattoos for females
ugali ng cancer zodiac sign
understanding cancer zodiac
username for cancer zodiac
urban dictionary cancer zodiac sign
unhealthy cancer zodiac
usa today cancer zodiac
unknown facts about cancer zodiac
unlucky colour for cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac virgo
cancer zodiac vape
cancer zodiac vibes
cancer zodiac videos
cancer zodiac vs scorpio
cancer zodiac vs leo
cancer zodiac venus
cancer zodiac vector
cancer zodiac vs gemini
cancer zodiac vindictive
virgo and cancer zodiac sign
vans cancer zodiac
virgo and cancer zodiac
villains cancer zodiac
vintage cancer zodiac
vintage cancer zodiac charm
venus in cancer zodiac
van cleef zodiac pendant cancer
cancer zodiac in vietnamese
cancer zodiac water sign
cancer zodiac weakness
cancer zodiac woman
cancer zodiac wallpaper
cancer zodiac what month
cancer zodiac water or fire
cancer zodiac worst match
cancer zodiac worst traits
cancer zodiac when mad
cancer zodiac wallpaper aesthetic
what is a cancer zodiac
what month is cancer zodiac sign
what month is cancer zodiac
what color is cancer zodiac
weakness of cancer zodiac
what are the traits of a cancer zodiac sign
what is the meaning of cancer zodiac sign
woman cancer zodiac
what is a cancer zodiac animal
what is good about cancer zodiac sign
cancer x zodiac
zodiac cancer x gemini
astrology cancer x capricorn
cancer zodiac letters
cancer x
cancer x cancer zodiac compatibility
cancer x cancer zodiac
zodiak taurus x cancer
what sign are cancer
x cancer
cancer zodiac year 2024
cancer zodiac yin yang
cancer zodiac year
cancer zodiac yin or yang
cancer zodiac yesterday
cancer zodiac year of dragon
what are cancer zodiac signs
year 2024 for cancer zodiac
yin yang cancer zodiac
year of the dragon for cancer zodiac sign
year of cancer zodiac
youtubers with cancer zodiac
year 2023 for cancer zodiac sign
year of the dragon for cancer zodiac
what year is cancer zodiac sign
what does it mean if you are a cancer zodiac
how to know if your a cancer zodiac sign
cancer astrology zone
cancer zodiac pisces zodiac
why are zodiac cancers so dangerous
cancer about zodiac
cancer zodiac in chinese zodiac
cancer zodiac zodiac
cancer sheep zodiac
zodiac cancer characteristics
zodiac cancer celebrities
zodiac cancer child
zodiac cancer chart
cancer horoscope 0800
cancer zodiac july 07
horoscope cancer 09 juin 2023
are cancers good for cancers
are cancers lucky
cancer sun 0 degrees
cancer 0 degrees
what are cancers sign
why are cancers called cancer
why is cancer called cancer zodiac
what represents cancer zodiac
0 degree cancer astrology
0 degree cancer
0 cancer
cancer zodiac 15 year cycle
cancer zodiac 10 things
cancer zodiac 10
cancer zodiac 18k
cancer zodiac 15th birthday
cancer 101 zodiac
zodiac cancer 16
cancer horoscope 19 march 2024
cancer horoscope 13 december 2023
cancer horoscope 11 march 2024
10 bad things about cancer zodiac
10 things about cancer zodiac male
10 things about cancer zodiac female
100 facts about cancer zodiac
10 facts about cancer zodiac
10 good things about cancer zodiac
10 interesting facts about cancer zodiac
10 facts about cancer zodiac sign
14k gold cancer zodiac necklace
cancer zodiac 2024
cancer zodiac 2024 prediction
cancer zodiac 2023
cancer zodiac 2025
cancer zodiac 2024 january
cancer zodiac 2024 career
cancer zodiac 2023 predictions
cancer zodiac 2024 in hindi
cancer zodiac 2024 march
cancer zodiac 2023 horoscope
2024 for cancer zodiac
2 types of cancer zodiac
2025 for cancer zodiac
20 facts about cancer zodiac
2026 for cancer zodiac
2023 for cancer zodiac
2023 cancer zodiac predictions
2024 prediction for cancer zodiac
2024 lucky color for cancer zodiac sign
2024 color of the year for cancer zodiac sign
cancer zodiac 3 stages
cancer zodiac 3 types
cancer zodiac 3 signs
cancer 3 zodiac
cancer horoscope 31 january 2024
cancer horoscope 30 march 2024
cancer horoscope 31 july 2023
cancer horoscope 30 march 2023
cancer horoscope 30 august 2023
cancer horoscope 30 november 2023
3 types of cancer zodiac
3 stages of cancer zodiac
3 words to describe cancer zodiac
3 facts about cancer zodiac
3 different types of cancer zodiac
3d cancer zodiac sign
3 fun facts about cancer zodiac
august 31 zodiac sign compatibility with cancer
cancer june 30 zodiac sign
cancer zodiac june 30
cancer horoscope 4 march 2024
cancer horoscope 4 april 2024
cancer horoscope 4 may 2023
cancer horoscope 4 january 2024
cancer horoscope 4 october 2023
cancer horoscope 4 april 2023
cancer horoscope 4 september 2023
cancer horoscope 4th december 2023
cancer horoscope 4 july 2023
cancer horoscope 4 june 2023
4 types of cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac wallpaper 4k
cancer zodiac july 4
zodiac sign of cancer 4 letters
what do cancer zodiac sign mean
cancer zodiac rules
4 cancers
zodiac cancer types
cancer horoscope 5 march 2024
cancer horoscope 5 april 2024
cancer horoscope 5 october 2023
cancer horoscope 5 april 2023
cancer horoscope 5 june 2023
cancer horoscope 5 july 2023
cancer horoscope 5 january 2024
cancer horoscope 5 may 2023
cancer horoscope 5 february 2024
cancer horoscope 5 december 2023
5 facts about cancer zodiac
50 cent is a cancer zodiac
50 cent zodiac sign cancer
cancer 5th house zodiac
cancer zodiac sign july 5
cancer zodiac july 5
june 5 zodiac sign cancer
5 cancers
cancer zodiac 69
cancer zodiac 69 tattoo
cancer zodiac 69 meaning
cancer horoscope 6 march 2024
cancer horoscope 6 july 2023
cancer horoscope 6 april 2023
cancer horoscope 6 december 2023
cancer horoscope 6 october 2023
cancer horoscope 6 june 2023
cancer horoscope 6 september 2023
69 cancer zodiac
meaning of cancer zodiac sign 69
cancer zodiac july 6
what does the 69 mean for cancer
cancer born on july 6
cancer big 6 astrology
69 cancer sign
6 cancer causing foods
cancer horoscope 7 march 2024
cancer horoscope 7 may 2023
cancer horoscope 7 september 2023
cancer horoscope 7 july 2023
cancer horoscope 7 june 2023
cancer horoscope 7th may 2023
cancer horoscope 7 november 2023
cancer horoscope 7 august 2023
cancer horoscope 7 april 2023
cancer horoscope 7 february 2024
cancer zodiac july 7
cancer horoscope 8 march 2024
cancer horoscope 8 january 2024
cancer horoscope 8 may 2023
cancer horoscope 8 september 2023
cancer horoscope 8 june 2023
cancer horoscope 8 april 2023
cancer horoscope 8 august 2023
cancer horoscope 8 december 2023
cancer horoscope 8 november 2023
cancer horoscope 8th march 2024
july 8th cancer zodiac
cancer zodiac july 8
signo zodiacal cancer julio 8
what flower represents cancer zodiac
why cancer is dangerous zodiac
what gifts do cancers like
cancer 8h
cancer horoscope 9 june 2023
cancer horoscope 9 may 2023
cancer horoscope 9 march 2024
cancer horoscope 9 january 2024
cancer horoscope 9 april 2023
cancer horoscope 9 october 2023
cancer horoscope 9 september 2023
cancer horoscope 9 november 2023
cancer horoscope 9 august 2023
cancer horoscope 9th april 2023
9 cancer zodiac sign
july 9 zodiac sign cancer
cancer zodiac july 9
what do cancer look like zodiac
what does cancer hate zodiac
9 cancer symptoms
what cancer zodiac sign
what cancer zodiac sign means

Interested in hearing some opinions about a good thinkpad that could hit all those marks without being too expensive. It'll mostly be used for coding (vscode),watching videos and possibly some super light gaming (2d/2.5d pixel games).
The main thing I'm really interested in is something with a solid battery that can hold a charge for a while. So far I've found the t480 and t490 to be most suitable for my needs, though I'm having a hard time deciding between either. Leaning towards the t480 currently. Chargeable by USB-C is a must or at least ideal.
Appreciate any and all suggestions!

Hi Baristas:
Title kinda says it all. I wanted to have some facts straight before I go in and talk with my manager (who is leaving, so I want to make sure I am setting myself up for good things in the future). I want to work. I want to get the hours. When I am not able to get the full hours I'm looking for at my home store (call it SiteA), I want to be able to pick up shifts that work with what I am already scheduled. I am already a "borrowed partner" at another store (SiteB) and have been called a couple of times to cover, but I was already on the clock at SiteA. I am also on SiteC's "call list" for when they need someone. However, I've not heard a peep from them in over a month.
(1) Should I ask my SM to submit (or do it on my own) borrowed partner request for area stores (SiteC, SiteD, etc etc)?
-OR-
(2) Should I visit all those stores and ask to talk to the SMs/SSVs and let them know that, while SiteA owns me for 30 hours, I am able and willing to work outside of when I'm scheduled there?
-OR-
(3) Both 1 and 2 would be best. Plus a convo with outgoing SM about what I need/want.
Any advice/guidance would be helpful. I want to work, but I also don't want to seem greedy and/or be seen as "THAT" barista; I'm trying to make sure I'm taken care of the best way I know how--working.

I know that some producers can pull off making great sounding music in the keys of C, A minor, etc.. any tips on making the sub bass come through and just generally making songs in unfriendly keys sound good?
edit: take a saw wave bass for example (YDG, Tape B) sounds like it could have a lot more depth on the A key, is it just my lack of production skills or a fundamental thing that people usually just avoid? im doing a flip of a song in A minor and i dont want to change the OG vocal pitch

I went to my GYN to show her my Juno Bio results and she completely dismissed me. I explained to her that it seems like I had a high amount of strep in my sample and she just said that she had never heard of it and just continued to test me using a swab for standard BV…even after I tried telling her that my tests kept coming up negative every single time and the bacteria that showed up on the Juno Bio test were all different from the ones that the GYN office tests for. I just feel so defeated because I thought I had finally found some answers but my doctor wasn’t even willing to listen to me nor did she even seem interested in looking at the results I got. She just brushed me off and continued telling me the same generic things: “wear cotton underwear”, “wash with hypoallergenic soaps”, “take probiotics” and the list goes on. I’ve tried all of that…I’ve been doing it for months and have seen no change in my symptoms. I feel the exact same and I’m so tired of it. Maybe it was my fault for even going back to that doctor but I thought maybe she would be able to help this time. It seems that there aren’t many GYNs who are knowledgeable about AV and they don’t really seem to want to listen to their patients concerns.
Before I went back to my original GYN, I saw a telehealth doctor who I mentioned my problem to first. I explained to her my results and I also told her how I was cured the last time, but she seemed weary about giving me antibiotics since I’ve taken quite a few in the past. Instead, she mentioned using vitamin c and boric acid suppositories and trying a different kind of probiotic to see if it’ll help, but no probiotics have been working for me so far. I just wanted to see if I could try taking antibiotics one last time (the one that worked) and then follow up with a more homeopathic approach to avoid having to taking them so much in the future…no doctor will listen to me though.
Anyway, after I told her about my symptoms, surprisingly, she knew what strep was and her office even has a test for it…I think it’s for Group B Strep and other aerobic bacteria’s if I’m not mistaken. She said it’s called Swab One. I’m not sure if you all have heard of it. I see her next week, so I’m trying to be optimistic about it but I still have a lot of doubt at the moment. I just want to be fixed.

Horrible anxiety over possible rescindment
Hi guys, I’m transferring to East Carolina University in the fall. I’ve already been accepted and have enrolled already, but my grades had a bit of a dip this past semester. For context, I am a computer science student and ECU states on their site that the GPA requirements for transfer are 2.0 for the university and 2.5 for CS.
My cumulative GPA after this semester is a 3.32. The reason I am so worried is because I got a D and a C this semester, with everything else being As. I had Bs in those classes all semester, but I just didn’t do well on the finals.
I emailed my academic advisor at ECU and told her everything; she said that as long as my cumulative GPA was over the program requirement that I was all good, but I just can’t shake this horrible feeling of dread that the D I got will get me rescinded. I see people commenting on posts where someone got a C and telling them to prepare for the worst, so I feel like I’m screwed, no matter what my advisor says.

Unlock Extra Radiance: NIVEA Bright Vitamin Serum SPF50 🌞💡 320 ml / 180 ml Body Lotion 🌙 Even Tone ☀ Sun Care🧖♂
💡High-quality sun care: With 50x Vitamin C to moisturize skin and SPF50 PA to protect from the sun, this body serum provides thorough sun care and moisturization for radiant and bouncy skin.
💡Versatile sizes: Available in 320 ml and 180 ml sizes, this product caters to different customers' needs and preferences.
💡Multi-functional: In addition to body serum, NIVEA also offers a body lotion that helps to even skin tone and provide sun care. This multifunctional product can cater to various skin care needs.
Get yours today for just RM 24.85 320 ML (discounted from RM 35)
🎉 Limited time only! 🚀 https://s.lazada.com.my/s.jPt9z
#promotionmalaysia #niveasun #niveamalaysia #nivea #fypage #foryourpage❤️ #fypシ #niveacream #pictureoftheday #sunprotectioncream #sunprotection #fyp

Horrible anxiety over possible rescindment
Hi guys, I’m transferring to East Carolina University in the fall. I’ve already been accepted and have enrolled already, but my grades had a bit of a dip this past semester. For context, I am a computer science student and ECU states on their site that the GPA requirements for transfer are 2.0 for the university and 2.5 for CS.
My cumulative GPA after this semester is a 3.32. The reason I am so worried is because I got a D and a C this semester, with everything else being As. I had Bs in those classes all semester, but I just didn’t do well on the finals.
I emailed my academic advisor at ECU and told her everything; she said that as long as my cumulative GPA was over the program requirement that I was all good, but I just can’t shake this horrible feeling of dread that the D I got will get me rescinded. I see people commenting on posts where someone got a C and telling them to prepare for the worst, so I feel like I’m screwed, no matter what my advisor says.

Hi guys, I’m transferring to East Carolina University in the fall. I’ve already been accepted and have enrolled already, but my grades had a bit of a dip this past semester. For context, I am a computer science student and ECU states on their site that the GPA requirements for transfer are 2.0 for the university and 2.5 for CS.
My cumulative GPA after this semester is a 3.32. The reason I am so worried is because I got a D and a C this semester, with everything else being As. I had Bs in those classes all semester, but I just didn’t do well on the finals.
I emailed my academic advisor at ECU and told her everything; she said that as long as my cumulative GPA was over the program requirement that I was all good, but I just can’t shake this horrible feeling of dread that the D I got will get me rescinded. I see people commenting on posts where someone got a C and telling them to prepare for the worst, so I feel like I’m screwed, no matter what my advisor says.

Hi all,
I am 27 ftm, Dx BD I, BPD, C-PTSD.
The bulk of the trauma I currently am working through stems from abusive experiences with inpatient mental health care.
As a result, I struggle to discuss suicidal ideation with professionals. I am in a really good place, doing well, stable, and in maintenance with ketamine therapy. Ketamine was huge for me.
I've found that despite thinking and doing and feeling significantly better, I still have a lot of intrusive thoughts that basically boil down to:
"It's never going to be this good again, everything else has been shit, will go back to shit, end it while it's good."
I have no actual urges or desires towards suicide but good god this is getting old and I'm struggling to cope with it as much as I'm struggling to bring it up in therapy. Any advice or whatever is so so appreciated.

The Magic are young. They are on the rise. The franchise would be happy to have Lebron James (one of the greatest players in the history of the game) in their team. He will help them reach NBA finals... at least he would lead them to Eastern Conference finals before he retires. Not only that, but LeBron James can also be involved in coaching and motivating young players and owning the team (10 percent of the stock) and put Orlando Magic on the basketball map. But that is not the biggest reward for LeBron James. He will get to play with his son (Bronny James) in Florida...
Unlike Los Angeles, it is not going to be a lot of pressure in Orlando. Bronny James will get a lot of minutes and he will have a chance to grow as a player, which will give LeBron James a reason to hang around for a couple of years (three more years). Father and son will do everything in their power to reach NBA finals together and make history. The Orlando Magic have potential. They also have cap space to sign Klay Thompson and Pascal Siakam. LeBron James is not interested in money. He just wants to play with his son and reach NBA finals. The Orlando Magic can make LeBron James dream come true...
The Lakers don't have structure. They are always trying to buy championship. It might have worked in the past... but not anymore. The bubble doesn't really count. No fans, no home court advantage, a lot of players not being happy and losing focus because of Black lives matter and key players missing games through Covd-19. Now, things are changing, It has become a process: A - B - C - finals. You draft good players, you develop them, you make sure that they play together and win the conference and win the championship like The Denver Nuggets.
The Nuggets drafted Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokic and surrounded them with good role players. Even The Boston Celtics are following that format. They drafted Jaylan Brown and Jason Tatum and surrounded them with good role players. Lakers are the only team who don't go through that route. They have no patience. Maybe, it is not their fault. They are Lakers. They are excepted to compete at the highest leave from day 1. There is no room for development. That's why LeBorn should not sign with Lakers if he wants to play with his son. The media will criticize his son and put a lot of pressure on Bronny James. which would upset LeBron James and force him to retire sooner than expected.
LeBron James must avoid the Lakers at all costs if he wants to play with his son. One, it is not good for his mental health. Two, they will sign Bronny James and send him to G league. They will double cross LeBron James. Not only that, but also Lakers are not going to win championship in the next five years no matter what because they are not willing to wait. It is not in their DNA. They don't want to start from scratch, develop young players, and keep them together. We have already seen T-Wolves and Anthony Edwards and Karl-Anthony Town sweeping the Phoenix Suns and their three superstars in the first round before they defeated The Denver Nuggets (The defending champions) twice on the road. Now, the series tied 2 - 2. It does not matter. Young teams are ruling NBA... such as Oklahoma Thunders. They are the no. 1 seed in the Western Conference.
Besides, The Lakers are not deep. LeBron doesn't have to prove anybody that he is one of the greatest players of all time if not the greatest them of all. He doesn't need ring no. 5 to cement his legacy. LeBron James knows who he is. He knows that playing with his son (Bronny James) means everything to him. It is worth more than ring no. 5. In addition, it gives him more motivation to take his game to the next level and silence his critics...
It will also boast TV rating. A lot of people want to watch father and son play in NBA. It has never happened before. I think ESPN and other sport outlets should push a narrative how Father and son playing together would be great for NBA. It will increase NBA revenue. Instead of saying that Bronny James is not ready for NBA, the Media should promote it: the Greatest Of All Time entertaining basketball fans with his Son and have the time of his life. It would be something...

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 got discarded months ago, and while he broke up with me, I picked up my things, put on a happy face, and looked unbothered even though I was hurting on the inside incredibly so. I literally put on a smile, then cried in the car after. I haven't contacted him a single time since, and I'm so proud of myself for that.
I finished the hardest semester of my life- all upper division stem. It was really a challenge, and looking back, I have no clue how I did it. But, I did. I did with good grades, and I am one step closer to my academic goals despite mourning and suffering emotionally. I didn't let the hurt he caused me stop me.
I met the best therapist I've ever had. He's familiar with narcissistic abuse and has helped me regain confidence and identity. I am getting used to being by myself and enjoying my own company. I'm finding new hobbies, and finding joy being on my own. It was incredibly hard at first, but it really does get better.
I know I'll have bad days, but I'm starting to have more good ones. I really have to thank my ex. Through destroying my sense of self and the relationship, I have found confidence. I have learned that I'm SO much stronger than I thought I was. I've found new passions and have become closer to my family. I've learned that I'm resilient. I can now stand up for myself and I can recognize when people and situations are bad for me. I'm in touch with my intuition more than ever.
It does get better. Write, cry, scream, rant, ruminate, and feel your feelings. You'll overcome so much and walk out stronger than you thought possible. It is absolute pain at first, but you'll come back from it. As much as I hate to say it, time really does heal. I still deal with cPTSD, but I will say it's gotten better as I face the uncomfortable feelings. Every day is another step, and looking back at how much I've used this as a catalyst for growth makes me so much more proud and confident in myself.

Hi. I have a touch of arachnophobia, so I started doing research on how to kill all the spiders. Through my research,. I learned that they are actually helpful And I do not want to kill all of the spiders. Now , I'm focused on keeping the bugs out and killing the ones that get in. But I've been doing a lot of reading, maybe too much, because the biggest roach/wasp??/crawling thing with wings and legs just strolled into my apartment and now I'm standing in a corner after having smashed it and doused it in vinegar and soap and I'm watching it to see if it's really dead and now I'm heading to the store to buy the entire pest control aisle but I don't know what to do or what I need please send help im a fully grown adult and I'm considering getting a hotel for the night
I would take any and all advice. I have a couple questions at the end but I'll take anything you can share with me.
My problem and reason For making this post is because I found so much conflicting information that i'm just not sure anymore. Can anyone clear any of this up for me?
Candles. Attract or repel? Light attracts insects, but they don't like fire (right?) I have a beeswax candle, I heard they don't like that. What about citronella as a general stay-away -from -me- tool?
Some sites say you can make your own super killer spray with bleach and vinegar, and the next page I read would say that still just attracts them.
Ultrasonic plug in repellers- good to add to the arsenal or should I just throw my money away?
I know that there are different types of insects and bugs and all of that stuff. I might be able to grow a pair and post a picture if someone really needs it...hopefully not though.
What I have already done:
I. Sprayed the ortho home defense max inside and out, carefully following instructions II. Laid down diatomaceous earth outside III.Laid down diatomaceous earth inside in the baseboard cracks and openings and then sealed them up with caulk/putty caulk, pushing the d.e. inside to act as an insulator IV. I just moved here. So it was fairly clean to begin with. But I just re-cleaned everything on the inside just in case.
Thank you if you're still here. I might also need a therapist, (lol) but for now, it's bug murder time. If anyone can help I would appreciate it.
EDIT: i am looking at the diatomaceous Earth that I bought And I think I bought the wrong one. It's from Lowes. Is it safe for my health to use inside my home, and will it still kill bugs? 85%silicon dioxide 15% other INGREDIENTS. Thank you thank you thank you
what I bought

So, the Ripper is a weird weapon. In Duke3D its sprites were repurposed and remade from the earlier builds' plasma cannon (first person, and pickup). Both versions have two handles: one on the weapon's left side, and another, as a "tail". The tail has the trigger button. Originally I had assumed that it was a configuration similar to this, but actually, *this is how Duke holds the Ripper. This doesn't feel at all comfortable, as the weight of the weapon isn't distributed in a reasonable way. Yes, Duke is pretty strong, but strength or not, it's just not a viable configuration. Now, if the gun had a belt to distribute its weight in a more reasonable way, it would have made sense, as the second handle would then be used to stabilize the weapon, as the kickback would probably cause all sorts of swaying, affecting accuracy (does an LMG even need to worry about accuracy?).
Now, apparently the guys at Gearbox realized this, and tried to alleviate the issue by redesigning the weapon. As we can see, the gun still has two handles, but the "tail" is now a (seemingly extendable) stock, and instead there's a pistol-handle on the "belly" of the gun. This is how it is held. Now one would think that it's a good resign, except that it still doesn't explain why it needs the second handle on the side, since the trigger is still on the second handle, and holding it by the second handle does nothing to distribute the weapon's weight. Again, there's no belt to alleviate the weight distribution, and the stock, at least as shown in the screenshot (and factually in-game), doesn't even feel necessary. We can assume that in-universe it's actually extended to accommodate for the kickback and stabilize the weapon, but in-game, nobody actually uses it, so it's purely cosmetic. Now, while the handle underneath the gun makes it a bit more stable, it still makes the gun feel too heavy for most people to carry and use (Duke is a roided-up maniac, what's the EDF dudes' excuse?): Your arm would just get tired way too quickly, since all of the gun's weight effectively rests upon it. The second handle, as mentioned, does nothing for weight distribution. Best case scenario, it just "kinda" stabilizes the gun during shooting, but it still feels like a very odd design. Having a handle on the top of the weapon (something more like this), or even a second handle on the bottom (like so) would have made much more sense for both weight distribution and shooting stability.
*Art by Cybopath at DeviantArt.

Bini has been slaying and releasing bops ever since their debut.
Ngayon dahil sa Pantropiko naging key yun para marecognize ng general audience yung buong discography (portfolio kung baga ng group). Kita naman sa pagtaas ng monthly listeners nila na pinapakinggan talaga at curious yung mga listeners sa kung anong kind of music meron ang Bini.
If new ka at nagdeep dive sa music ng Bini, mafefeel mo parang isang bagsakan yung comeback nila with bop releases at MVs, pero in reality inabot sila ng years talaga to be recognized.
I think ngayon inaani lang nila yung mga itinanim na full of bops nila. Organic talaga yung result. Thanks din sa likod ng producers/composers/team nila full of talented people.
Hindi magiging sucessful yung isang kanta if hindi maganda yung formula. Song + choreo + artist
*Song/producers/composers - may maganda songs with meaningful lyrics, need mapunta sa artist na kayang bigyan ng justice in terms of vocals and delivery.
Buti at napunta sa Bini kasi hindi babagayan yung Pantropiko ng mga matinis o pabebe voice na common sa mga pinoy girl pop songs. Lalo na kung sa rap. Like Donnalyn o Nadine na boses (no hate, hindi lang maganda pakinggan kapag longterm listen). Akala ko nung una mga ganyan yung lahat ng kanta ng Bini. Buti lahat sila buo yung boses hindi ka cringe.
Yung Pantropiko at Lagi, kayang kaya kantahin ng mga other singers. Di ba c-in-over sa Asap at AOS, iba atake ng ibang artists kaya masa-say mo buti sa Bini napunta. Kasi sobrang versatile ng Bini as a group kaya nila bigyan ng justice. Yung kahit icover ng Bini yung ibang kanta kaya nila ipalabas na naangkin nila base sa atake nila sa songs.
Example eh, yung Cruel Summer ba ma eenjoy nyo kung hindi si Taylor yung kumanta? yung ganitong example, gets nyo ba ko huhuuu.
*artists - talented, good vocals and delivery, hardworking, their personalities, knows how to connect with audience, etc. Nakatulong din kasi branding ng Bini to deliver the song. Kasi mapapatanong ka what if hindi Bini kumanta nyan, papatok kaya? Pwede rin kasi for Sarah G yung Pantropiko pero kung sa kabataan days niya bagay. Lalo na yung Karera, for me naiimagine ko na pwedeng song for Sarah, pero dahil talaga sa branding ng Bini at sa vocals nila, para sa kanila talaga.
*choreo - pwedeng for other artists yung kanta nila. Yung Pantropiko if ibinigay for other artist without Sheena's choreo, for sure normal OPM song lang yan nothing special. Yung Salamin, salamin without Bini ang normal lang.
Saka imagine nyo yung Lagi, Karera, Nanana, Feel Good, Golden Arrow, at iba pa nilang kanta without their choreo dancing to it, vocals at branding nila. Wala magiging atake 😭 Thankful talaga at ibinigay sa Bini.
Importante talaga magtanim ng magagandang materials (songs) pero yung kayang bigyan ng justice ng group na pagbibigyan ng kanta.

Hello again everybody!
Before we get started on today's post the current voting for Carbink currently has Abstaining votes with a bit of a lead over the next highest amount of votes (which is C tier). There is still time to vote however, if you haven't voted on that one yet you can find a link to the post in the comments on the post linked below or by sorting the SubReddit by the Tiering/Voting tag!
Unless something changes however it looks like Carbink will likely go back on to the radar list for a future vote. Like with all previous votes I'll continue to check the numbers and if anything changes I'll update it on tomorrow's post.
(Please note that this voting/tiering is centered around Classic mode as after a certain point in Endless only about 5 Pokemon and 2 abilities are truly viable.)
So current tiers are:
S tier - Garganacl, Cloyster, Skeledirge, Gholdengo, Tinkaton
A tier - Gyarados/Mega, VenusauMega/Dyna, Aegislash, Corviknight/Dyna, Excadrill, GardevoiMega, Toxapex
B tier - Kanto-Persian/Dynamax Kanto-Meowth, Weavile, Starmie, Rhyperior, Quagsire, Mamoswine
C tier - Linoone
F tier - Dustox
With that being said let's get to today's vote!
Today is day 27 of tier voting and today we'll be talking about the funky rock 'n' roll lizard from Generation 8 that was the signature Pokemon of the gym leader who was part of a band and said no words during his solo lol. Toxtricity is fairly popular and well-known for its signature ability which synergizes very well with its moveset. Toxtricity has an interesting and unique typing that only it and its pre-evolution have claim to. While it does have a 4x weakness to Ground both of its types are strong types offensively and give it immunity to 2 status conditions which means it certainly can find ways to fit onto a team. It has a pretty solid stat spread in its base form and it also has the benefit of most of its strongest moves being spread moves making it a strong choice for double battles. This game gives it several gifts including a very good passive to go along with one of its strongest moves, as well as some really good egg moves that synergize with its signature ability even further and a super good stat spread for its Dynamax form.
(Please note that Pokemon with Mega/Dynamax evolutions will be tiered as one Pokemon and not tiered separately for their Mega/Dynamax form. Different variants such as Alolan Persian vs. Kanto Persian will be tiered separately however.)
(Also here is the post with rules for voting/tiering posts and a little more explanation about them in general: https://www.reddit.com/pokerogue/s/0LNZhPPzR9 Links to past votes can all be found here as well in comments added to the OP with each new vote)
And here is a quick reminder of what each tier generally means:
S tier: Top tier, can make or break your entire run, essentially the cream of the crop
A tier: really strong but not quite top tier, maybe slightly outclassed or has a slight weakness holding it back
B tier: solid choices that can make it to your endgame team, might be reliant on team composition to truly function well or might just be outclassed as well
C tier: usually early-mid game Mons, ones you don't really want to take to end game if you can avoid it, usually pretty decently glaring weakness but something redeeming enough to keep from F tier
F tier: no reason to use in end game unless you're doing it for a meme/joke
Abstain/No Opinion: this will be a voting option mostly just in case someone accidentally votes and then can't remove their vote (I've noticed that happens on Reddit sometimes) or for Pokemon people haven't unlocked/used to their full potential yet. If Abstaining votes outvote each individual tier then the Pokemon will be tabled for the time being and another vote will open up for it later (can mostly see this happening with Legendaries).
(Data in parentheses is for the Dynamax form)
[Also worth noting Toxtricity base form has 2 different forms it evolves into based on its nature. The only difference between these forms is its secondary ability and one of the moves it learns by level-up though, so I will put these brackets around the 2 moves and abilities. Both forms have the same Dynamax form]
*
Toxtricity (Dynamax)
Type: Electric/Poison
Mega: No
Dynamax: Yes
Starter cost {Toxel}: 3
Possible Egg moves: Nasty Plot, Baneful Bunker, Sparkling Aria, Torch Song
Abilities: Punk Rock or [Plus or Minus]
Hidden Ability: Technician
Passive Ability: Galvanize - Turns this Pokemon's Normal-type attacks into Electric-type attacks and boosts the power of Electric type attacks by 20%
Evolution: Toxel evolves into either Amped form or Low-Key form Toxtricity at level 30 depending on its nature. Toxtricity can Dynamax with Dynamax bracelet and Max Mushrooms
Base stats:
HP - 75 (95)
Attack - 98 (118)
Defense - 70 (80)
Sp. Attack - 114 (144)
Sp. Defense - 70 (80)
Speed - 75 (85)
Learnset by level up: Acid, Acid Spray, Belch, Flail, Growl, Leer, Noble Roar, Nuzzle, Tearful Look, Thunder Shock, Charge, Shock Wave, Scary Face, Taunt, Screech, Swagger, Discharge, Poison Jab, Overdrive, Boomburst, Spark, [Shift Gear or Magnetic Flux]
Notable TMs: Protect, Metal Sound, Thief, Trailblaze, Charge Beam, Facade, Swift, Hex, Snarl, Stored Power, Venoshock, Volt Switch, Sunny Day, Rain Dance, Brick Break, Fire Punch, Thunder Punch, Rest, Sleep Talk, Drain Punch, Thunder Wave, Toxic Spikes, Eerie Impulse, Gunk Shot, Hyper Voice, Thunderbolt, Wild Charge, Sludge Bomb, Thunder, Power-Up Punch, Screech, Sludge Wave, Throat Chop
*
Tomorrow's vote: GengaMega GengaDynamax Gengar!
Pokemon on the radar for voting very soon: Aggron/Mega, Comfey, Crobat, Ferrothorn, Gliscor, Delphox, Roserade, Vileplume, Minior, Hitmonchan, Bibarel, Whimsicott, Chandelure, Archaludon/Dynamax Duraludon, Alakazam/Mega, Infernape, Flamigo, Volcarona, Alolan-Decidueye, Barbaracle, Butterfree/Dyna, Beedrill/Mega, Mawile/Mega, Drednaw/Dyna, Annihilape, Cramorant, Aerodactyl/Mega, Glimmora, Heatran, Tapu Koko, Dialga/Primal, Galarian-Zapdos, Regieleki, Regidrago, Zacian, Zamazenta, Rayquaza/Mega, Latias/Mega, Latios/Mega, Ho-Oh, Volcanion, Cinccino, Snorlax/Dyna, Wishiwashi
(Other requests will be added to this list and this list is not necessarily in order)
Happy voting!
View Poll

Bini has been slaying and releasing bops ever since their debut.
Ngayon dahil sa Pantropiko naging key yun para marecognize ng general audience yung buong discography (portfolio kung baga ng group). Kita naman sa pagtaas ng monthly listeners nila na pinapakinggan talaga at curious yung mga listeners sa kung anong kind of music meron ang Bini.
If new ka at nagdeep dive sa music ng Bini, mafefeel mo parang isang bagsakan yung comeback nila with bop releases at MVs, pero in reality inabot sila ng years talaga to be recognized.
I think ngayon inaani lang nila yung mga itinanim na full of bops nila. Organic talaga yung result. Thanks din sa likod ng producers/composers/team nila full of talented people.
Hindi magiging sucessful yung isang kanta if hindi maganda yung formula. Song + choreo + artist
*Song/producers/composers - may maganda songs with meaningful lyrics, need mapunta sa artist na kayang bigyan ng justice in terms of vocals and delivery.
Buti at napunta sa Bini kasi hindi babagayan yung Pantropiko ng mga matinis o pabebe voice na common sa mga pinoy girl pop songs. Lalo na kung sa rap. Like Donnalyn o Nadine na boses (no hate, hindi lang maganda pakinggan kapag longterm listen). Akala ko nung una mga ganyan yung lahat ng kanta ng Bini. Buti lahat sila buo yung boses hindi ka cringe.
Yung Pantropiko at Lagi, kayang kaya kantahin ng mga other singers. Di ba c-in-over sa Asap at AOS, iba atake ng ibang artists kaya masa-say mo buti sa Bini napunta. Kasi sobrang versatile ng Bini as a group kaya nila bigyan ng justice. Yung kahit icover ng Bini yung ibang kanta kaya nila ipalabas na naangkin nila base sa atake nila sa songs.
Example eh, yung Cruel Summer ba ma eenjoy nyo kung hindi si Taylor yung kumanta? yung ganitong example, gets nyo ba ko huhuuu.
*artists - talented, good vocals and delivery, hardworking, their personalities, knows how to connect with audience, etc. Nakatulong din kasi branding ng Bini to deliver the song. Kasi mapapatanong ka what if hindi Bini kumanta nyan, papatok kaya? Pwede rin kasi for Sarah G yung Pantropiko pero kung sa kabataan days niya bagay. Lalo na yung Karera, for me naiimagine ko na pwedeng song for Sarah, pero dahil talaga sa branding ng Bini at sa vocals nila, para sa kanila talaga.
*choreo - pwedeng for other artists yung kanta nila. Yung Pantropiko if ibinigay for other artist without Sheena's choreo, for sure normal OPM song lang yan nothing special. Yung Salamin, salamin without Bini ang normal lang.
Saka imagine nyo yung Lagi, Karera, Nanana, Feel Good, Golden Arrow, at iba pa nilang kanta without their choreo dancing to it, vocals at branding nila. Wala magiging atake 😭 Thankful talaga at ibinigay sa Bini.
Importante talaga magtanim ng magagandang materials (songs) pero yung kayang bigyan ng justice ng group na pagbibigyan ng kanta.
Nanggaling din sa experiment ng music ang Bini at for sure for other ppop groups mahahanap din nila yung tamang formula nila. At marerecognize din. 💓