So here’s a breakdown for an interesting scenario I find myself in:
My business signed an agreement for a large shipping company to ship goods. This was during Covid (2021) and was for a decent amount of money (~$12k).
I paid the bill as agreed via wire transfer. A few days later, the company debited my account (I did not authorize this second debit, but they had my info on file presumably from the first). I reach out about the matter and they say it as an error via accounting on their part and they send an electronic refund a week or so later.
Fast forward 2 years to 2023. I’m contacted by the company saying I still owe the $12k bill. I send them the email thread and go back and forth multiple times as they look at the email thread history. Finally they ageee it was paid twice, but then they say they actually refunded me twice- the second time with a check that was cashed 6 months after the debt was paid (I did verify this amount was indeed cashed via a check from the company at that time, but I had assumed it was for something else- there are a lot of transactions in my business).
I say hey, first off I don’t agree that’s what happened/how do I know it’s for that invoice?Second; the money is spent and i don’t have it anymore anyways. Third: you can’t send someone money then ask for it back years later, and Fourth: if you do, you certainly can’t use that as a way to reopen a paid invoice from years ago, right? For example: Even if what they say is true and the money is legally due, it’s not due as part of an unpaid invoice, right? (ie it’s not a collections issue for a bad debt, it’s a banking error involving different laws altogether, right?).
After a few emails, the company passes this issue off to several higher ups within their company. I keep the communication open with them and always respond (I have perfect credit and value it).
It takes literally months of back and forth. Finally I get an email essentially saying they’ve passed the issue off to their internal legal team and will let me know how they proceed and if I owe anything.
More months go by. Get one more email from a new contact at the company and I forward the last thread to this new contact about how it’s been sent to legal. No response.
Few more months go by and I’m contacted by an outside collections agency for the full $12k citing an unpaid invoice.
A few questions: 1) What are my chances of avoiding this payment? 2) Is it legal for them to reopen a paid invoice and send it to collections by wrongly issuing a refund check?
FWIW im in CA, but I’d have to go back and read the contract to see what State it’s enforceable in. Original invoice was Jan 2021 and I have sent via certified mail that I do not ageee with the debt and that it was paid (along with proof of the original wire transfer and written confirmation of the receipt of funds from the accountant at the company).
Thanks for any help or insights you have!
TLDR: -Paid a bill for $12k to a company. -Company then debited me an additional 12k on accident. -company refunded me $12k a week later - months after this, the company claims they refunded me another $12k via mailing a check to me (I have not confirmed this to them, but the money is in my account) - they are now sending me to collections for the original invoice

Male, 27, BA in Foreign Languages and Cultures, BA in East Asian Studies (Double Major Chinese and Japanese, Double Minor Spanish and French), Graduate Certificate in Chinese-American Studies, 6 months professional job experience.
Hey there. The job search for me out of college has been exceptionally brutal. I won't get into the weeds about it, but I just spent 2 and a half years waiting on potentially being hired for my dream job, only to find out I have been determined unsuitable for the job. To say I'm crushed would be an understatement. I'd go on about how devastated I am, but no one needs to hear all that. As you can see from above, I'm multilingual, and was primarily looking for jobs relating to Translation. The job I'd like to have would have me working with the languages I've studied so hard to learn, and would utilize my expertise in East Asia. That has proven to not only be very difficult due to a lack of job postings, but my lack of experience seems to be hampering any ability to even be remotely considered.
I have explored the options my degree provides me with but have so far come to these realizations:
Interpreting: Depends on your level of experience, and where you live. There is no agreed upon standard of certification for interpreting, and it varies from state to state, and sometimes company to company. Generally requires some kind of certification and specialized training, which I have not yet received, along with experience demonstrating your expertise. You can land a high level job somewhere like the UN, or with a government or other company or agency, but the majority of jobs are freelance, with income highly variable.
Translation: There aren't as many job postings for this as you might think. Many are remote jobs, and those that do exist do not pay well (most are $35,000 a year), even for languages that are rare or in high demand. Many translation agencies outsource out-of-country, and thus have no desire or need for domestic translators, and usually only require the services of translation agency management jobs that do not actually require language skills whatsoever, such as being a liaison between clients, overseeing translations, etc. Some require ATA certification, which is a difficult requirement to meet, needing to pay a $500 per language fee annually, along with taking a test each year, for someone who has been unemployed for a long time now. There is the freelance route as well, but it too is highly variable, and success is not guaranteed. I would likely need to start an LLC to prevent legal issues due to lack of experience if I decided to go all-in on freelancing.
Military: This is an option I am still considering, but it has several drawbacks. It is a 5 year commitment minimum, without the freedom to say where I am to go, where I am to live, when I am to leave, no guarantees about what language I would study, or what job I would be performing, and boot-camp. The military provides absolutely no guarantees, irrespective of what a recruiter says, and I may not actually be suitable depending on a few factors (physical stature, background, etc.). If I change my mind, there would be absolutely no turning back. Lastly, the military itself is not guaranteed to accept me. However, the upside is the potential for a very high paying job out of the military when my service is complete. Some jobs pay up to $120,000 a year.
Government: 2 and half years (no, I'm not kidding), and I have nothing to show for it. I've done this route definitively, I simply do not have the energy, mental fortitude, and patience to try again.
Teaching: This is an option I am seriously considering, but it would require me to go back to school. Ideally I would like to be a Professor of Chinese, or East Asia Studies. I am $65,000 in debt, and I would be adding at least another $30,000 to that to get a PhD. I'm also unsure of where to start, and what programs to look into and apply at. Even after all of that effort and work, I may only make $40,000 a year, though I would likely enjoy the job.
Analyst: Many of my colleagues who I studied with have gone onto perform Advisory or Analyst roles, and most are doing well for themselves. This is a broad category of Risk, Financial, International, and other Analyst positions that don't directly have to do with foreign language per se, but use it as a major skill. I have attempted dozens of times to apply to various positions, but without experience, I have found I am nearly always turned down even before I get an interview.
Cryptologic Linguist: Without a Security Clearance, this is a job that is usually impossible to apply to.
These are the major options, but of course there may be many others. I'm not sure what to do or what job to apply for. There are many directions I could go in, but I'm starting to feel like I don't even know how to apply for a job anymore.
TLDR; What jobs should I look for now given my skills, experience, and degrees? Am I being too limited or unrealistic in my job search? How do I look for a job?
I'm totally devastated, and I don't know what to do anymore. Any advice at all would be appreciated.

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 have $107k in debt....credit cards, home improvement, spouse's attempted business, living expenses during the time spouse was not bringing in money, etc.
I make good money, $190k per year plus about $30k in annual bonus. But my income isn't enough to cover all the minimum payments, regular bills and astronomical daycare expenses for two babies.
My credit is reasonable, somewhere around 680 but it's dropped 100 points in the last year. I'm losing sleep, trying to figure out how to get out from under this anchor.
Freedom Debt Relief has a reasonable settlement offer. A 36 month term gets us debt free for a monthly payment of $1000 less than we are paying on minimum payments alone. Sounds good, right? But am I going to completely wreck my credit?? Importantly, I will have a mortgage, two cars and a student loan that will not be included in the settlement so I will still have several accounts that remain in good standing.
Any advice before I make this big decision? Technically, I can get by with horrible credit for a year or two...I have no need to to finance anything for a while, and obviously I have to stop that nonsense anyway.

I owe about $6000 over two years, I may be able to pay it within one. I only care to rebuild credit to find housing, which I’m struggling with right now.

I was laid off in October '23 and have severance through August. I have $13k in credit card debt and my wife has $7k. I was also hit head on in an accident at the start of April, which totaled my car. I used the settlement from that accident to make a substantial down payment on a new car and refinanced our other car to cut the payments on that in half. My biggest concern is not just our credit card debt, but also repairs needed for our house.
We're paying approx. $1200 for our mortgage and another $700 in minimums for our credit cards. I'm worried that if I can't find a job then we'll have too much to pay for, not to mention a house that is going to need some repairs. So I started looking into a personal loan to consolidate our credit card debt to get a lower rate and lower monthly payment. Despite having a good credit score, I've been denied on those because the amount of the loan exceeds my debt.
Then I was approached by another company offering a HELOC to cover the $20k of debt, plus an additional $15k for our home, with a monthly payment of $550 if we take the whole thing, If we roll the $15k back in to use for later, then the monthly payment is just over $300. My concern and my wife's concern is if we do that, I can't find a job, and we can't afford that extra payment then we wouldn't even be able to fall back on a BK because we would lose our house.
Then my mortgage company calls right after I talk to the other company about the HELOC. My mortgage company offers a refi to cover our $20k in debt, plus a $19,500 cash out, and our mortgage payment would be $1750. So essentially the same situation payment wise as the other option, but with a larger cash out for the house. The concern there is that we could pay off our debt in 5 years or less with the other option, if I find a new job soon, but with the refi option, we're stuck with this mortgage payment that's $550 more. Even with another refi should interest rates drop, our monthly payment isn't going to go down that much. The only upside is that we'd be able to replace our roof, windows, and have enough for some other repairs.
My wife is extremely concerned with both options and thinks I should lean towards a BK. With a BK though, we're going to be stuck in this house and despite all of my history here, I really don't like the house. I'm 43. I would be looking at this thing staying on my record until I'm in my 50s. That feels...awful. I really don't want to do that unless it's a last resort.
Does anyone have any input or feedback on these options? I feel so stuck.

I was laid off in October '23 and have severance through August. I have $13k in credit card debt and my wife has $7k. I was also hit head on in an accident at the start of April, which totaled my car. I used the settlement from that accident to make a substantial down payment on a new car and refinanced our other car to cut the payments on that in half. My biggest concern is not just our credit card debt, but also repairs needed for our house.
We're paying approx. $1200 for our mortgage and another $700 in minimums for our credit cards. I'm worried that if I can't find a job then we'll have too much to pay for, not to mention a house that is going to need some repairs. So I started looking into a personal loan to consolidate our credit card debt to get a lower rate and lower monthly payment. Despite having a good credit score, I've been denied on those because the amount of the loan exceeds my debt.
Then I was approached by another company offering a HELOC to cover the $20k of debt, plus an additional $15k for our home, with a monthly payment of $550 if we take the whole thing, If we roll the $15k back in to use for later, then the monthly payment is just over $300. My concern and my wife's concern is if we do that, I can't find a job, and we can't afford that extra payment then we wouldn't even be able to fall back on a BK because we would lose our house.
Then my mortgage company calls right after I talk to the other company about the HELOC. My mortgage company offers a refi to cover our $20k in debt, plus a $19,500 cash out, and our mortgage payment would be $1750. So essentially the same situation payment wise as the other option, but with a larger cash out for the house. The concern there is that we could pay off our debt in 5 years or less with the other option, if I find a new job soon, but with the refi option, we're stuck with this mortgage payment that's $550 more. Even with another refi should interest rates drop, our monthly payment isn't going to go down that much. The only upside is that we'd be able to replace our roof, windows, and have enough for some other repairs.
My wife is extremely concerned with both options and thinks I should lean towards a BK. With a BK though, we're going to be stuck in this house and despite all of my history here, I really don't like the house. I'm 43. I would be looking at this thing staying on my record until I'm in my 50s. That feels...awful. I really don't want to do that unless it's a last resort.
Does anyone have any input or feedback on these options? I feel so stuck.

“Friends make the good times better, and bad times easier”.
Happy Morning 🍀💐
Today's Headlines from :
Economic Times
📝 Edelweiss, Phoenix among ARCs vying for IOB's Rs 13,472-crore NPAs
📝 China overtakes US to become India’s top trading partner in FY24
📝 Piramal Group arm invests Rs 600 crore in microlender Annapurna Finance
📝 DLF to launch 11 million sq ft with revenue potential of Rs 36,000 crore in FY25
📝 Nayara Energy to set up two ethanol plants for ₹600 crore
📝 UPL to file DRHP shortly for raising up to $500 million
📝 Aditya Birla Capital Q4 Results: Net profit doubles to Rs 1,245 crore
📝 EPFO extends auto claim settlement facility to education, marriage and housing advance
📝 Exim posts 62% rise in profits, to raise over Rs 60,000 crore from local markets this year
📝 India's retail inflation eases marginally to 11-month low of 4.83 per cent in April
📝 Warburg Pincus brings home Shriram Housing Finance co with Rs 4,630 cr buyout
Business Standard
📝 TCS announces creation of Global AI Center of Excellence in Paris
📝 Karur Vysya Bank Q4 results: Net profit rises 35% to Rs 456 crore
📝 Zomato Q4 result: PAT Rs 175cr; fourth consecutive quarter of profit
📝 Murugappa Group to foray into e-SCV, plans to invest Rs 3,000 crore on EVs
📝 Realty firm Shapoorji group seeks more time to clear bondholder payments
📝 French BPM major Teleperformance to hire 15,000 people by end of 2025
📝 Zomato seeks approval from shareholders for creation of new ESOP pool
📝 Coromandel increases stake in drone company Dhaksha; to invest Rs 150 crore
📝 Airtel to offer cloud and Gen-AI solutions with Google Cloud in India
📝 Nearly 51 mn person years of employment created annually in last 10 years
📝 India's import from FTA partner nations up 38% in FY24 against FY19
📝 After long wait, India inks Chabahar port's 10-year deal with Iran
📝 Domestically held gold reserve rise by 40% in 5 years, shows RBI data
Financial Express
📝 Coal imports for blending by domestic power plants down 32% in FY24
📝 Cairn Oil & Gas reserves & resources grows by 19% in FY24
📝 Va Tech Wabag secures repeat order worth $49 million in Nepal
📝 Phoenix to build hotels near Mumbai, Bengaluru
📝 Amplus Solar aims at 2 GW RE capacity by December
📝 Govt may consider lifting curbs on rice exports
📝 India needs Rs 4.2 trillion investment for broadband push
Mint
📝 IMF staff, Argentina agree loan review to help unlock $800 million
📝 Vedanta looks to raise funds through issue of equity shares or FPO on May 16
📝 Melinda French Gates Exits Foundation With $12.5 Billion
📝 INOX India Q4 results: Net profit jumps 44% YoY to ₹44 crore; revenue up 17%
📝 India’s government debt at safe levels: Nirmala Sitharaman
📝 Govt to complete GIS mapping of entire highway network
📝 Japan's SoftBank swings to quarterly profit, eyes on Arm unit.

Almost two years ago I was in an at fault accident, I ended up paying out of pocket for damages through a collector called Afni. I didn’t have insurance at the time so I owed about 2100 but I they settled for 900 and I thought everything was fine and over with. Today I received a letter from afni again, almost two years later, that I owe 50k in damages??? I’m scared and confused as to how I owe that much and why I even owe at all. Her car was perfectly drivable and had only minor cosmetic damage as was mine we both drove ours away and it was never even mentioned in court. I’m not understanding why I’m being expected to pay out what seems to be a total loss two years after the incident. Lastly, I just don’t have 50k. Should I be anticipating bankruptcy? Any advice or information is helpful

I graduated from school last year. I have a delinquent account of unpaid tuition at school of $14k as I was not able to pay my tuition fee. My school has sent my account to collection agency this week. Collection agency has not contacted me yet.
I am wondering how collection agency will find my current personal information? (As I used to live in dorm).
I am thinking to settle my debt with collection agency with smaller amount
I am wondering whether I can settle with 20% which is $3k as my total debt was $14k. Or should I go for monthly installment like $50-$100? Or should I settle with some other percentage? Also, how should I approach this conversation?
I have just started a new job. My job pay me bare minimum and I am really struggling financially.
Thank you for your advice

Small debt under $150 from credit card fees assessed after the card owner had requested credit card closed via phone.
Credit card company does not have voice record anymore of the call when the card was requested closed but passed it onto collections.
No collections agencies have taken it to court yet, but debtor disputes and refuses to pay because requested it closed and request was not honored, credit card compay then started assessing fees.
Hypothetical “if” there is a summons and this goes to court, how would a judge tend to, on average, look upon such a case given there is no concrete evidence at this point other than an “honest” collections agency that claims this is owed up against an “honest” consumer claiming they were wronged and, just for argument’s sake, neither side seems to have any malice or intent to do wrong?

Hi y’all, just coming on here to say my public trust tier 2 investigation was favorably adjudicated despite ~$26k in delinquent debt (credit score maybe 400 rn). All the debt has been enrolled in a debt settlement company (national debt relief) since delinquency and the agency considered this to be mitigating with all the proof shown. It took about 2 months for the investigation, they didn’t interview anyone (as far as I know), and they informed me of the favorable adjudication via email. I’m pretty hyped I get to keep my unicorn of a remote GS-12.

Male, 27, BA in Foreign Languages and Cultures, BA in East Asian Studies (Double Major Chinese and Japanese, Double Minor Spanish and French), Graduate Certificate in Chinese-American Studies, 6 months professional job experience.
Hey there. The job search for me out of college has been exceptionally brutal. I won't get into the weeds about it, but I just spent 2 and a half years waiting on potentially being hired for my dream job, only to find out I have been determined unsuitable for the job. To say I'm crushed would be an understatement. I'd go on about how devastated I am, but no one needs to hear all that. As you can see from above, I'm multilingual, and was primarily looking for jobs relating to Translation. The job I'd like to have would have me working with the languages I've studied so hard to learn, and would utilize my expertise in East Asia. That has proven to not only be very difficult due to a lack of job postings, but my lack of experience seems to be hampering any ability to even be remotely considered.
I have explored the options my degree provides me with but have so far come to these realizations:
Interpreting: Depends on your level of experience, and where you live. There is no agreed upon standard of certification for interpreting, and it varies from state to state, and sometimes company to company. Generally requires some kind of certification and specialized training, which I have not yet received, along with experience demonstrating your expertise. You can land a high level job somewhere like the UN, or with a government or other company or agency, but the majority of jobs are freelance, with income highly variable.
Translation: There aren't as many job postings for this as you might think. Many are remote jobs, and those that do exist do not pay well (most are $35,000 a year), even for languages that are rare or in high demand. Many translation agencies outsource out-of-country, and thus have no desire or need for domestic translators, and usually only require the services of translation agency management jobs that do not actually require language skills whatsoever, such as being a liaison between clients, overseeing translations, etc. Some require ATA certification, which is a difficult requirement to meet, needing to pay a $500 per language fee annually, along with taking a test each year, for someone who has been unemployed for a long time now. There is the freelance route as well, but it too is highly variable, and success is not guaranteed. I would likely need to start an LLC to prevent legal issues due to lack of experience if I decided to go all-in on freelancing.
Military: This is an option I am still considering, but it has several drawbacks. It is a 5 year commitment minimum, without the freedom to say where I am to go, where I am to live, when I am to leave, no guarantees about what language I would study, or what job I would be performing, and boot-camp. The military provides absolutely no guarantees, irrespective of what a recruiter says, and I may not actually be suitable depending on a few factors (physical stature, background, etc.). If I change my mind, there would be absolutely no turning back. Lastly, the military itself is not guaranteed to accept me. However, the upside is the potential for a very high paying job out of the military when my service is complete. Some jobs pay up to $120,000 a year.
Government: 2 and half years (no, I'm not kidding), and I have nothing to show for it. I've done this route definitively, I simply do not have the energy, mental fortitude, and patience to try again.
Teaching: This is an option I am seriously considering, but it would require me to go back to school. Ideally I would like to be a Professor of Chinese, or East Asia Studies. I am $65,000 in debt, and I would be adding at least another $30,000 to that to get a PhD. I'm also unsure of where to start, and what programs to look into and apply at. Even after all of that effort and work, I may only make $40,000 a year, though I would likely enjoy the job.
Analyst: Many of my colleagues who I studied with have gone onto perform Advisory or Analyst roles, and most are doing well for themselves. This is a broad category of Risk, Financial, International, and other Analyst positions that don't directly have to do with foreign language per se, but use it as a major skill. I have attempted dozens of times to apply to various positions, but without experience, I have found I am nearly always turned down even before I get an interview.
Cryptologic Linguist: Without a Security Clearance, this is a job that is usually impossible to apply to.
These are the major options, but of course there may be many others. I'm not sure what to do or what job to apply for. There are many directions I could go in, but I'm starting to feel like I don't even know how to apply for a job anymore.
TLDR; What jobs should I look for now given my skills, experience, and degrees? Am I being too limited or unrealistic in my job search? How do I look for a job?
I'm totally devastated, and I don't know what to do anymore. Any advice at all would be appreciated.

Hey guys
I'm 5 months pregnant and due in September. I'm a 23 YO girl who just got out of homelessness. I am in credit card debt, my score falls more and more each day, and I suffer from a range of mental illnesses (Depression, bipolar -doctors suspect, still need tests ran to confirm -ADHD, OCD, and anxiety)
I just got back into school, and I'm getting used to "being a student" again. Surprisingly, I'm doing very well - I actually graduated with the top of my class back in high school, so academics are something that have always come easy to me. As far as employment, I work an extremely part time job as of now and barely get any hours in. Before I went back to school, I was a notorious job hopper, mostly due to personal life reasons but a few reasons being job performance and anger out bursts + rage quitting at work.
before discovering how dysfunctional and incapable of fitting into society I was - it has always been a dream of mine to be a mom. I feel like I come from a very broken and estranged family, so being able to find/create a family of my own has always been the goal.
I have calmed down and started working on myself a few months before discovering I was pregnant. I plan on getting on medication as soon as my son arrives and I am actively looking for CBT therapists to hopefully help me become functional again. My patience has gotten better and my anger issues are also improving.
When I was a homeless dancer, I was on drugs (coke, alcohol, adderall, and made some wreckless and impulsive decisions, especially concerning my sexual safety). I slept with 4 guys, but all wore condoms except 2. I would have to request a paternity test from both of them to confirm who the father is, but the guy I really suspect is a long time FWB I had long before becoming homeless. I slept with him to get coke.
That should tell you enough about the mental aptitude of me and the father. He's actually in a good place financially and could help out with co-parenting but he's made it clear he doesn't want to be a father and even told me to go get an abortion even though I'm 5 months in.
I don't want to be associated with either of those two guys after my son is born.
I can't even afford my OBGYN visits - I have to figure out how to meet the deductible for my insurance company or I have to call an adoption agency and find a family who's willing to cover my labor and OBGYN appointments. I also heard horror stories of new borns being taken from their birth mother immediately after labor and I already know myself and know I wouldn't handle a situation like that. I would like to have AT LEAST 30 minutes of holding my baby or spending a few days in the hospital with him before he's taken from me.
I've convinced myself that if I were to put my son up for adoption, he would come back in my life but that is no guarantee. I'm convinced my financial situation will improve though, and I do think my mental health will be a lot better within the next 5 years but those are no guarantee either. With or without my child, I want to improve my life and I can feel myself never going back to what I was before. My plans are to get a job working assistant admin by next year since I'll have my associates, pay my credit card debt off, and by the time I graduate with my bachelor's, I hope I can land a better paying admin job.
I already know once my son is here, and if I have to give him up for adoption, I'll live everyday with a bitter and broken heart. I was already kind of detached and cold and felt so spiteful and bitter about the world before he came, when I have to give him up, I know I'll be hurt yet again by the world, but at the same time I would love with soooo much relief knowing he's in the hands of a loving two parent home with all the resources he needs. And if something happens with the adoption/foster care system, I pray I'll be in a better financial situation by then and let him come back home.

Hello everyone. I read some posts in the thread but wanted to ask in case my situation is unique. I completed the SF85P last week and was honest about a charged off CC that was already in the middle of working out a payment plan. Well I worked out a payment plan to pay off the 15k with an open option to settle for less than at anytime in the payment plan.
I got an LOI today asking this
‘Please provide documentation of the steps you are taking to satisfy the credit card debt, as well as any/all documentation that a settlement or negotiations are in process for this debt with Navy Federal Credit Union. Also provide any evidence/documents of payments (if any) made. Personnel Security will also need the facts and circumstances that led to the negotiation/settlement of this debt.’
Please tell me if I’m misunderstanding something but from what I understand it’s asking me to submit my payment plan documentation, a copy of my payments made and/or receipts.
This part sort of confuses me a bit.
‘Personnel Security will also need the facts and circumstances that led to the negotiation/settlement of this debt.’
Are they asking what made it go unpaid in the first place or how/why I went about working out a payment plan?
I want to make sure and give them what they need because my family really needs this job.

Hi all, first time here so trying my best to post how the wiki allows. I’m hoping to turn a not great situation into a better one. Just totaled my car (not at fault, originally paid in full) and received a $24k lump sum settlement to replace my vehicle. I am young and have previously been very financially irresponsible, so I have no real savings and also extensive personal and credit card debt: ~$9k on credit cards (23% interest) and an amortized personal loan payment of $250/mo for the next 3.5 years. But I’ve been making steady progress to building better credit! The new car I want is $28k, and used cars are priced pretty poorly in my area right now. Considering financing, but I have a 665. Planning to pay off car before term loan ends regardless of how I finance. Here’s what I’m thinking:
Option A Finance the car with a down payment of up to $14k. Immediately pay off credit cards, leaving about $9k to put toward monthly payments on the car. This frees up ~$200/mo that would’ve gone toward credit card payments anyway. After that, I can dedicate an additional $150-$200 of monthly income toward any new car payment.
Option B Finance the car with a down payment of up to $14k, but immediately invest up to $5000 in index funds for a year to avoid short term gain tax and hopefully get an easy >6% return to put into the car.
What are your thoughts on these? Also is that a good down payment ratio? Any advice is appreciated on the car buying process, building good credit, etc. Thanks guys!

I want to put a little starter saying that my partner and I (both 29) have done a good bit of self research, but have no one that we know that has gone through any adoption process. tldr on background info will be before questions
My partner and I have been friends/partners for 10 years, married for 5, and TTC for all 5 years of our marriage. I have been through the ringer in 5 years in terms of fertility problems, and we have always wanted to adopt throughout our marriage at some point regardless of being able to conceive naturally. We both have wanted to be parents for a while before we got married and each year that passes we grow more and more ready to welcome a child into our lives! Other tiny tid bit, we live together with 2 cats all indoor and a skink that is in a cage closed and up on a shelf (away from our nephews reach lol).
We are of average income for Louisiana (I would say) and my husband and I make approximately 35k after taxes each. We have 3 major expenses: mortgage and 2 cars and overall less than 10k of debt in loans (personal & purchase) & credit cards. I mention this because I have NO clue about expenses in any capacity for the process. That being said, we aren't lacking in money but we are curious as to what this process could cost, because we would want to be cautious to add to our debt- in a sense- and then put ourselves in a tight pinch after the adoption process.
TLDR: 5 years TTC & very open to adoption looking for answers to questions below. Also mention of income estimates above if it helps at all.
Questions:
Has anyone personally adopted in Louisiana? If so, was it through private agency, DCFS, or a non-profit? How was the overall experience like: time wise, rough $ est (we do not need any exact numbers), &/or how you liked the place/people who you adopted through?
Has anyone experienced hardships in money after adopting? Are there loans or grants that are available for adoption? (we found one grant option online but were weary if it was a real option or just a thing that companies/agencies would use to get contact info)
Are there any other parts of the process that arent mentioned within DCFS online application list? (Register for info meeting, fingerprints and background check, Pre-Service Training classes, application, home study) We saw somewhere that we had to submit vaccine records
Any other advice for us as a couple during this process. We have considered the process may be stressful and emotional (especially for private adoptions) and we would obviously take any advice regarding navigating these things.
Thank you if you read this far and so much thanks if you are able to reply!

In the annals of gaming history, few titles command the reverence and adoration as the legendary Doom franchise. Born from the minds of John Romero, John Carmack, Adrian Carmack, and Tom Hall, Doom would go on to lay the foundations for just about every modern video game that exists. It was a true tour de force, a success story few could scarce ever imagine.
Released in 1993, Doom was an immediate smash hit, thanks in no small part to its shareware format, which allowed users to experience the first few levels of Knee Deep In the Dead, and then order the full game via the phone number included. Players could then share the floppy disk with their friends, and so on, and so on. It was a truly revolutionary system, and within a single year, Doom had sold over 2 million copies.
The history of the Doom franchise is one of innovation, ultra violence, and controversy (1999's Columbine High School Massacre), and that reputation is one that continued with 2016's DOOM. DOOM was officially revealed at Quakecon 2014, ten years after Doom 3. Players had long resigned to Doom being considered a dead franchise. A reboot had been in the works for a number of years prior, but never got released, having been quietly cancelled by id in 2010. The future was bleak, but the 30 second long teaser ignited a spark that had been burning dimmer every passing year.
Then came E3 2015.
The hype was unreal. The trailer had everything that fans could possibly want. Gore, intense violence, insane run n gun gameplay, a rip-roaring soundtrack and the MFING CHAINSAW. But fans had been let down before. Would it really hold up its promises?
Yes. Yes, it would.
PART I: Presentation
When DOOM burst onto the scene in 2016, it did so with a visual and auditory spectacle that left players awestruck. From the moment the game boots up, players are made aware that this is not your average shooter. You are greeted with a deep, commanding voice. "Rip and tear, until it is DONE."
Immediately, players are greeted with a scene of carnage and the Doom Slayer chained to a table, which, of course, he instantly breaks free from. A zombie attempts to relieve the Slayer of his life but is beaten to the punch with a prompt skull smashing. After putting the other zombies to rest, he interacts with the panel in the corner, is greeted by one Dr. Samuel Hayden, who attempts to justify the outbreak, and decides he would rather kill shit than listen to excuses and destroys the monitor.
That is the introduction to this game. It never wastes the player's time. We aren't here to listen to long droning monologues or watch MGS style cutscenes. id Software knew their audience, and knew what that audience wanted, and they deliver in spades. This introduction sets the tone for the entire experience: relentless action, unapologetic violence, and a protagonist who is as unstoppable as he is uncompromising. The Doom Slayer's disdain for exposition and his single-minded focus on annihilating demons resonate with players who crave a pure, unadulterated gaming experience.
By eschewing lengthy cutscenes and exposition-heavy dialogue in favor of fast-paced gameplay and visceral action, id Software delivers a game that respects the player's time and delivers exactly what they came for: non-stop demon-slaying action. In an era where many games are criticized for padding their runtime with unnecessary filler, DOOM stands out as a shining example of how to create a focused and engaging experience that keeps players coming back for more.
Rather than bombarding players with lengthy exposition or intrusive cutscenes, DOOM opts for a more environmental storytelling approach. Throughout the game, players can discover audio logs, read text-based terminals, and observe environmental details that provide context and background to the events unfolding around them.
The story of DOOM revolves around the Doom Slayer's mission to stop a demonic invasion unleashed by the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC) on their Martian facility. As players progress through the game, they uncover details about the UAC's experiments with Hell energy, the origins of the demonic invasion, and the Doom Slayer's own mysterious past.
While the story may not be front and center in DOOM, it nonetheless adds depth and richness to the game world, enhancing the overall experience for players who choose to engage with it. And for those who prefer to focus solely on the action, the story remains secondary, allowing them to enjoy the game on their own terms.
That's all well and good, but what about the actual gameplay? Simply put, it is exhilarating. From the moment you are given control of the Slayer, players are thrust into a frenzy of blood and violence, and it never lets up. At its core, DOOM is a first-person shooter that harkens back to the genre's roots while injecting it with a healthy dose of modern flair. The gameplay is fast-paced, frenetic, and utterly unapologetic in its brutality. You're not just a player – you're the Doom Slayer, a force of nature hell-bent on eradicating every last demon in your path.
Central to the gameplay experience is the game's combat loop, which revolves around a delicate balance of aggression and strategy. In DOOM, there's no hiding behind cover or waiting for your health to regenerate – you're constantly on the move, strafing, dodging, and leaping across the battlefield as you unleash a torrent of bullets, rockets, and plasma upon your enemies.
Weapons include the iconic shotgun, heavy assault rifle, plasma rifle, rocket launcher, and the devastating BFG 9000, among others. Each weapon offers different firing modes, such as single shot, burst fire, and continuous beam, providing players with tactical options in combat. A key aspect of combat is the Glory Kill system, which allows players to perform brutal finishing moves on staggered enemies. Glory Kills not only provide health and ammo but also contribute to the flow of combat by encouraging aggressive play. It is incredibly satisfying to watch the Slayer rip an imp in half or stomp their head into the pavement, and doing so rewards you with a large return of health.
The Chainsaw mechanic is another integral part of combat, allowing players to instantly kill most enemies and gain a large amount of ammo in return. However, Chainsaw fuel is limited and must be managed carefully. Like Glory Kills, watching the chainsaw tear demons apart is incredibly satisfying. Certain demons require more fuel but provide the player with more ammo in return. Balancing which demons you chainsaw and which ones you choose to Glory Kill is an important part of combat.
Exploration is key to progression and is rewarding to those players who choose to do. Hidden throughout the levels of the game are Argent Cells, Praetor Tokens, and Rune Trials. Each of these provide upgrades to your health/shield/ammo, suit, and passive abilities respectively. Also hidden throughout the game are levers that lead you to classic levels from Doom 1 and Doom 2, which then unlock the full level of its respective game, playable from the main menu. You can also find toy models of the Doom Slayer, which unlock various character models to view. On some of these models, the Doom Slayer will perform a unique action when picking it up, such as fist bumping the classic Doomguy. It's a nice and cute little touch added by the developers that does a little to add character to the Slayer, who is a silent protagonist.
id Software masterfully blends modern game design with a deep reverence for the classics, paying homage to the series' storied history while introducing new elements that propel the franchise forward. Central to this approach is the game's character design, which strikes a delicate balance between nostalgia and innovation. At its core is the iconic protagonist, the Doom Slayer, whose design pays homage to the original Doom Marine while incorporating modern updates that make him feel both familiar and fresh. With his battle-worn armor, imposing stature, and silent demeanor, the Doom Slayer is the embodiment of raw power and unrelenting rage.
The game's roster of enemies is a veritable who's who of classic Doom foes, reimagined for the modern era. From the lowly possessed soldiers to the hulking Cyberdemon, each enemy is lovingly crafted to capture the essence of its 1990s counterpart while introducing new mechanics and behaviors that keep players on their toes. Whether you're facing off against the agile Revenants, the relentless Hell Knights, or the grotesque Cacodemons, every encounter is a nostalgic trip down memory lane, punctuated by the satisfying sound of demon flesh being torn asunder.
But the main story is not where it ends. DOOM has an arcade mode, where players can run through the levels again, this time trying for high scores and medals while collecting 1 Ups. It's important to move fast and have accurate aim; the more kills you chain together, the bigger your score is. Getting hit reduces your score. At the end of the level, your score is tallied against others on a leaderboard. It's a great way to incentivize players to keep playing, in order to get a better and better score.
There is also multiplayer, where players compete in various game modes such as classic deathmatch, warpath and free for all. Players can become demons by collecting runes on the battlefield and this gives them a distinct advantage; demons are larger, stronger and more resilient. Players are bizarrely restricted to only two weapons and a loadout in multiplayer, which blew my mind. Loadouts. In a DOOM game. The demons are also massively unbalanced and if one team manages to get a particularly powerful demon such as a baron of hell, then it's a guaranteed win. All in all, the multiplayer just isn't great. You are better off replaying the story or arcade mode, or even SnapMap.
SnapMap is id Software's proprietary level editor, and it puts every other editor on the market to shame. SnapMap is an incredible, intuitive, easy to learn system allowing players to create their own multiplayer, co-op and single player maps. There is an extensive tutorial system that teaches users the basics, and goes up in depth, covering how to use AI triggers, switches, combinations, object layering, actions, recalls, audio cues, etc. Never have I ever seen such an in-depth interface on a console game before. While it is only surface level in the grand scheme of things, SnapMap is a great introduction to teaching users how game development works, and I urge everyone to try it out at least once.
Part II: The Music
In DOOM, the music isn't just a background accompaniment – it's a driving force that propels players forward, electrifying every moment of the gameplay experience. Composed by the incredibly talented Mick Gordon, the soundtrack of DOOM is a relentless onslaught of metal and electronica that perfectly complements the game's fast-paced action and visceral combat. From the moment you boot up the game, you're greeted by the iconic strains of the main theme, a haunting melody that sets the tone for the epic journey that lies ahead. As you traverse the game's environments, the music shifts seamlessly between atmospheric ambience and pulse-pounding metal.
But it's not just the composition of the music that makes it so memorable – it's also the way it's integrated into the gameplay itself. Mick Gordon's dynamic scoring system ensures that the music evolves in real-time based on the player's actions, ramping up in intensity during combat encounters and dialing back during quieter moments of exploration. This creates a sense of momentum and flow that enhances the overall pacing of the game
One of the standout features of the soundtrack is its use of unconventional instrumentation and sound design. Mick Gordon's signature sound combines distorted guitars, pounding drums, and industrial noise to create a sonic palette that is as brutal and unforgiving as the game itself. From the deep, guttural growls of the synth bass to the ear-shredding shrieks of the guitar solos, every element of the music is designed to evoke a sense of chaos and destruction, mirroring the relentless carnage unfolding onscreen.
Of course, no discussion of the music in DOOM would be complete without mentioning the iconic tracks that have become synonymous with the game. From the adrenaline-fueled "Rip & Tear" to the bone-crushing "BFG Division," each track is a masterpiece of composition and production, perfectly capturing the essence of the DOOM experience and elevating it to new heights. Mick Gordon's composition for the DOOM soundtrack is a tour de force in heavy metal and industrial electronica, meticulously crafted to evoke the essence of the game's frenetic gameplay.
The backbone of the soundtrack is the distorted guitar, which provides the driving force behind many of the tracks. Gordon's use of extended-range guitars and custom-tuned instruments gives the music its signature low-end punch, while his aggressive playing style adds a raw, visceral energy to the sound. In addition to guitars, Gordon incorporates a wide range of electronic and synthetic elements into his compositions, including synthesizers, drum machines, and sampled sounds. These elements are used to create atmospheric textures, rhythmic patterns, and dynamic effects.
One of the most innovative aspects of Gordon's sound design is his use of audio manipulation techniques, such as granular synthesis and spectral processing. These techniques allow him to deconstruct and manipulate audio in real-time, creating complex textures and effects.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of Mick Gordon's composition for DOOM is his dynamic scoring system, which adjusts the music in real-time based on the player's actions. This system, known as "MIDI-controlled dynamic music," allows the music to seamlessly transition between different layers and variations depending on the intensity of the gameplay. Gordon achieves this dynamic effect by dividing each track into multiple stems or layers, each representing a different element of the music (e.g., drums, guitars, synths). These stems are then triggered and mixed in real-time using MIDI data generated by the game engine, allowing the music to adapt and evolve dynamically as the player progresses through the game.
Part III: Building a Legacy
All too often in this industry, legacy franchises are either left in the dust to be forgotten, or brought back to a limp fanfare, only to be thrust back into the shadows of the past. This happens for a myriad of reasons, and I believe the biggest one is that they don't respect their legacy, and they don't respect the players who engage with them.
At its core, DOOM is a game that understands what players want: fast-paced action, engaging gameplay, and a sense of empowerment. By focusing on these core principles, id Software created an experience that resonated with players old and new, capturing the spirit of the original games while pushing the series forward. Central to this approach is the game's unwavering commitment to respecting the player. From its minimalist storytelling and streamlined level design to its intuitive controls and dynamic difficulty system, DOOM prioritizes the player's experience above all else, ensuring that every moment of the game is engaging, immersive, and satisfying.
One of the most notable ways that DOOM respects the player is through its approach to difficulty. Rather than imposing artificial barriers or punishing players for their mistakes, the game encourages experimentation and mastery through its responsive gameplay mechanics and adaptive enemy AI. Players are given the freedom to approach encounters in their own way, whether it's through brute force, cunning strategy, or a combination of both.
Another key aspect of DOOM's player-centric design is its emphasis on accessibility. From its difficulty settings and intuitive user interface to its robust accessibility features, such as colorblind modes and customizable controls, the game ensures that players of all skill levels and abilities can enjoy the experience without feeling excluded or overwhelmed.
But perhaps the most important way that DOOM respects the player is through its commitment to fun. At its core, DOOM is a game that prioritizes the player's enjoyment above all else, delivering a seamless and exhilarating experience that keeps players coming back for more. Whether you're blasting demons with a shotgun, exploring hidden secrets, or rocking out to Mick Gordon's pulse-pounding soundtrack, DOOM is a game that never stops prioritizing YOU.
DOOM's legacy is one of respect – respect for the player, respect for the franchise, and respect for the medium of video games as a whole. By prioritizing fun, accessibility, and player agency, id Software created an experience that not only honors the legacy of the original games but also sets a new standard for what a modern first-person shooter can be. And for that, we owe them a debt of gratitude.