Magnavox dp100mw8b region free code | | /r/StudentLoans: Reddit's hub for advice, articles, and discussion about educational loans

Hello! Welcome to my thread :)
Here're JPN event codes! Feel free to ask anything to me if it was interesting for you!
♢Trade Offer Me → You
♢Code List
Physical shipment with tracking is also available for extra 15 plus fee! Any discount can't be applied to BD Pawmi/Charcadet codes.

code	price	stock	software
Birthday Pawmi	$6+fee	5	SV
Birthday Charcadet	$9+fee	5	SV
BD Pawmi & Charcadet set	$12+fee	5	SV
Birthday AR Card 2024	$15+fee	2	-
Pokeball bkpk code	$1.95 No fee	5+	SV
Greatball bkpk code	$1.5 No fee	5+	SV
Ultraball bkpk code	$1.95 No fee	5+	SV
bkpk code set	$2.95 No fee	5+	SV
Birthday AR Card 2023 2023	$10+fee	5+	-

★Note;

Flabebe Software: Scarlet/Violet OT/ID: ポケセン/221118 Color: Chosen randomly for 5 colors; red/blue/write/orange/yellow
《Exprie dates (in JST, GMT+9)》

 •BD Pawmi / Charcadet ; 1/31/2025

《Redeemable software》

 Flabebe SV (1 code per 1 purchase )

If you want something, please feel free to ask me. Question is everytime welcome! :)
My time zone GMT+9
My ref
[svirtual]

Hello guys.... just looking for any helpful advice or suggestions. This is a secondary throwaway account. I will put as much details w/o oversharing since you never know who reads these post.
So, I had received a TJO a few weeks ago. Did the required preliminary steps and was waiting hopefully for the FJO.
Today I got an email stating the offer was rescinded. This is the edited version of the email:

The offer was pending the result of pre-employment eligibility checks, including a review of your prior XXX performance and conduct. In reviewing the results of your prior XXX performance/conduct, you are found ineligible based on the (insert some legal regulation/code).

This is definitely sad news, since this agency where I wanted to start and end my career.
BACK STORY - Part 1
I had worked for this agency 10-15 years ago, not to long after I finished my Masters. It was my first government job.
I started off in Unit A and about two months in was interviewed for Unit B (which had been my 1st preference). A few weeks after, I got the position and started in Unit B soon after.
I ended my position in Unit A in good standing and my manager for that Unit was happy for me and have given the manager I was going to be assigned to in Unit B great reviews about my general work performance. These two Units were in the same POD and working in Unit A was generally a stepping stone to get into Unit B if so desired.
Now, the full training period for this agency for this Unit B is quite long and is broken up in parts over a period of time. There were several of us new employees for this Unit B Manager.

BACK STORY - Part 2
After the first training session, we were back to our POD and assigned OJI's. The first few weeks was about trying to put what we learned in the training to now real life application. For the most part, during the first 2 months we dealt mostly with the OJI's. Now, my feedback from the OJI was positive and constructive. The OJI would always tell our group that it takes a while to really learn the job and that the agency wasn't expecting us to get it even in our first few years. This echoed what was told to us repeatedly during training.
Now enter the Manager (MB) - Not long after MB starts to review our cases, one of my teammates (T1) starts to complain to me about feeling targeted and not receiving proper assistance. T1 stated that the MB seemed to be trying to create a negative paper trail with the performance reviews. Not to long after this started, T1 informed me about being given 30 days to resign or they would receive a termination letter. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. I mean, we literally hadn't even been out of training for 2 months when this happened to T1.
T1 was told he could go to the Union Rep. to talk about options, but that UR was not helpful (as I would also later find out) and basically said, probationary employees could be terminated for various reasons (similar to being At-Will in the private sector). He resigned because he didn't want any negative remarks on his records, especially for future government options.

Back Story (Part 3)
Not long after T1 left, I started getting the same treatments in terms of overly negative remarks about my work. The manager even started to tell me that the job was not for everybody. Due to what happened with T1, I kind off had an idea where this was heading so MB basically gave me a similar ultimatum of termination or resign within a set period of time, I wasn't fully surprised but still broke down in tears asking for the full training period before such a drastic determination could be made. The manager would not budge. I was offered the same option of speaking with the Union Rep. It was the same UR (worked in the same POD) and while they expressed surprised and some outrage and hinted at a PATTERN (details later) in that POD, they basically gave me the same spiel as was given to T2 and I took the option of resigning.
Back Story (Part 4)
Fast Forward about 6 years after leaving that agency. I had gone through various life events and working private sector.
T1 whom I kept in touch with occasionally, reached out and asked if I was willing to talk a friend. They explained that this person (S1) has been hired a few months before our group in the agency, Unit B. They had been under a different manager for about 5-6 years before their manager retired and S1's team was merged with MB's team.
Long story short - S1 who was a Highly Successful rated employee with a prior manager, was within less than a year placed on a performance improvement plan within a year of joining MB team.
However, since S1 had past the probationary period and was a permanent employee with a good performance record, they were able to file an EEOC complaint and after a long battle SI won the case. T1, myself and another employee (we discovered during this process) that was forced out in the same manner testified during S1 hearing.
There was much more but ......As for the Pattern, T1, myself, S1 and plus another employee were all from the same or had family background from a certain region.
Back to Present Day
S1 wants me to ask for a reconsideration and explain my situation. She feels that MB must have put something on my internal records to make me unemployable to this particular agency. I did get hired a few years back to a different agency and this issue never came up. I resigned during Covid period and went back to Private.
So... Anyone ever been in a similar situation? If so, what was the results?

Demographics: Asian male, Competitive public high school, Michigan, not needing aid
Intended Majors: CS, CS+Advertising(UIUC)
SAT: 1550(780 M, 770 RW)
GPA: 3.88 UW
Coursework: 11 APS, 3 Honors, 2 Duel enrollment, 2 Ib
Awards:

AP Scholar
MHSAA scholar athlete 3x
Quizbowl 2x regional champion, Top 5 at states, national qualifier, top 100 performer in Michigan
Consistent top finisher in several competitive coding websites
Host state qualifier, regional finalist

Extracurriculars(not ranked in a particular order):

Quizbowl: Varsity captain(11,12), JV captain(10), Novice captain(9), OfficePresident(11/12). Created a application that maximizes our studying and practicing efficiency.
Swim: Competitive swimming for 8 years. JV(9,10) Varsity(11,12)
Recreation Club: Co-foundePresident(10,11,12)
Mental Health Club: Officer
Sales associate: highest rated employee for 20 weeks in a row

CS ECS:

CS personal Projects: created websites that have been used over 100,000 times.
Created an AI that judges Advertisements and gives responses based on 200,000+ ads.
Freelance: creates websites and advertisements for companies
Social media: have a social media account where I post videos about competitive coding as well as giving tips and tricks on how to get better. 20,000 followers and 500,000+ views
Competitive Coding/ learning different coding languages: compete in a ton of coding competitions online as well as having self taught 4 coding languages at a proficient level.

Essays/LOother:

LOR from AP CSA teacher 10/10
LOR from boss at job 10/10
LOR from counselor ?/10

Essays should be pretty good, I would consider myself as an above average writer.
Schools:
EA: UIUC(CS+advertising), Northeastern, USC, Georgia tech, Umich(in-state), UW-madison, UM-collegepark, Purdue, MSU(in-state)
Other: I am personally just scared about the fact that I'm only taking AP Calc AB as a senior, which I personally believe to be a little below average for someone pursuing a stem major. But I will have taken 3 CS college courses by the time I have graduated.

As a reagent guns are Stone Adze Or Stone Axe for a real gun or Wooden Pickaxe for a Paintball weapon 1.1 Guns harvest hidden spherical cows in the vaccum by enabling their hax 1.1.1 A spherical cow in the vaccum yields the bit harvest 4 bits at 1 bit of actual processing power availible 1.1.2 (Presumed) Locally being near the processing power harvest allows for pickup of exactly one of the process the initial 1.1.3 Many of the bits harvested from the hidden spherical cow in the vaccum in the directory form an initial landscape or at least an initial island 1.1.4 If all of the spherical cow in the vaccum are harvested this meant the protective nature is better 1.1.5 A molecular guns as individual weapon provide defense from directory hazards by sending the trace packet Bullet 1.1.6 Molecular guns leave evidence for each pulse of the weapon the distance to the target that the molecular gun was fired 1.1.7 Molecular guns are part of the stock main class APV to allow for blocks to be harvested by the APV 1.1.8 Molecular guns are relatively uncommon but at least 5 agent actor have them 1.1.9 Molecular guns allow for the creation of safety from the spherical cow process then there is direct housing safety created by the aquisition of the spherical cow which is a logarithmic problem thus gives the term log to harvesting the spherical cow 1.2.0 A free directory always leads to infinite free cow when accessed by S32, which only S16 is generally accessible to the user 1.2.1 A closed directory that is hidden with no exist yields a finite number of free cow 1.2.2 An intermodal or zippy directory yields the islanded on just the contents of the zippy directory 1.2.3 A networked directory that is free from system 32 and linked throughout is the player home 1.2.4 A networked directory that is accessed by system 32 and linked throughout is the player game 1.2.5 A networked directory is formed out of harvested spherical cow in a vaccum which have the logic output of the directories content 1.2.6 A spherical cow in a vaccum yields more spherical cow in a vaccum when it is harvested 1.2.7 When the spherical cow in a vaccum is harvested it goes to quarantine from your take of the block which makes more than countable possible spherical cow in a vaccum in a system accessed by system 32 1.2.8 Systems accessed by system 32 have uncountably infinite number directory due to infinite number of potential spherical cow 1.2.9 Spherical cow in an infinite setting only occur where the people have been 1.3.0 Spherical cow in a infinite setting yield all possible information by sift when they are harvested 1.3.1 Spherical cow in a vaccum as a metaapparatus can harvest more spherical cow in a vaccum 1.3.2 A spherical cow harvests at SPRAY-2 or above which is negative (positive) TOP 1.3.3 A spherical cow ignores exactly two TOP of zed before being harvested 1.3.4 A spherical cow cannot be unharvested as a logic apparatus but can be unharvested as a quarantine apparatus 1.3.5 3 Tough Jerky can be made out of a spherical cow and 2 P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act by harvest, which this indicates the cow was living if a quarantine trace told that the cow was harvested for meat not plank distance 1.3.6 A spherical cow has no observed distance due to being infinite because it is at the plank distance so it is impossible to orient on a surface of spherical cow besides by when they were created or spawn 1.3.7 A spherical cow occurs in specific lot amounts of spherical cow 1.3.8 A spherical cow is not system 32 or its remanents in the player home and entirely distinct, and temporary and accessible by default usage 1.3.9 System32 has many backalley and sidestreet which occur in small lots 1.4.0 It is possible to get a real gun chemical or Iron Axe from the System32 1.4.1 It is possible to get a gun chemical which has permanent action (MD5 Service Pistol or Diamond Axe) thus allows for better map use and quicker reload and quicker work from Specific Unseen System32 1.4.2 The best tool for harvesting spherical cow in a vaccum is by far the Player Weapon Stone Axe or Gun Chemical crafted by PlayerName and indeed this can remove the vaccum for air space of the player home 1.4.3 A player home allocates a specific airspace, the player metric airspace, and the player has metric tons of spherical cow (metric ton = 3000 jerky lots) divided by 1000 of the air total availible as their own air to do something with, or divided by the player number if it is not 1000 including virtual players 1.4.4 Robocode puts agent actor into each harddrive directory which is being created 1.4.5 Robocode puts already existing dangerous actors into the harddrive directory 1.4.6 Robocode allows for navigation of the computer metric by a default player actor, Leslie or whoever 1.4.7 A player actor can march and shower and poop and drink or eat and rest 1.4.8 A player actor navigating the system environment can use survival motion which uses a firearms tool 1.4.9 A player actor moves in three dimensions at the 2 dimensional floor and sees three dimensions 1.5.0 A player actor attracts the local logic of the metric to observe it 1.5.1 A player actor may use a ferrari 1.5.2 A player actor may use a computer 1.5.3 A player actor eats a specific type of spherical cow in a vaccum, wheat 1.5.4 Proven foods include starches and amino and alkenes formed from wheat enablement 1.5.5 Danger level is given by the effective danger weighted by safety 1.5.6 Specific System32 and Spherical Cow Co-Components can move portions of the directory around 1.5.7 Connection exists between directory block which allows the block to block transverse motion which is continuous for the span of the block but teleportation between non side components is banned by mandate except in infinite portals modification 1.5.8 A room formed from spherical cow harvesting requires 16 at least air associated within it to every block which this is the negative logic space or formed output space 1.5.9 A playerhome may also be a level if it was formed with a total negative space harvested from spherical cow. 1.6.0 Receptors exist of system32 which recept robocode across system32 1.6.1 If a receptor is harvested by resonance or gunshot than a receptor will be able to generate also logic component 1.6.2 Various entrance to system32 created by robocode exist across the infinite so that these can be remedied to not get lost in 3D within 1.6.3 Plants grow throughout the directory which willis planted which are infinite as well but these plants do indeed serve only a primary resource value and can change the logic function of receptor logic 1.6.4 Logic Structures may fail if they are not stabilized by logic structure stabilizing process NFS 1.6.5 I have personally added dangerous regions to system32 of specific robocode combat robot 1.6.6 Doto 0 android have formed civilization throughout the top land of system32 1.6.7 System32 is always navigable by robocode 1.6.8 There are 3 cats who might talk to you, Gaylord, Lord Meth, and Lorne Nathans who are wandering around all out there, only Lord Meth has anything to sell and he is difficult to talk to and Lorne Nathans is a special angel boss for a modification 1.6.9 The doto 2 bots have a secret identity, they sell wheat, and their heirloom crafted items 1.7.0 Doto 0 bots can morph into robocode if robocode gets to them 1.7.1 A logic structure that has added safety is the reccomended structure to evacuate Doto 0 bots to 1.7.2 Warmth comes from logic structures that are actively created with System42, which the villagers have access to system 1.7.3 There is a way to create safety with logic structures the villagers have created 1.7.4 Direct current provides safety but can kill you so the villagers must have the aura of direct current from their safety structure 1.7.5 4 different personal computer are created by villager and also 10 nutrient 1.7.6 2 BDU Uniform Lower are created by villager and 1 BDU Uniform upper and 1 I <3 NYC Shirt 1.7.7 Racing skis are created by the villager 1.7.8 Keef cola is created by the villager 1.7.9 2 Paintball weapon are created by the Villager, the Tippmann and the EvoIII loader 1.8.0 A specific playerhome, Dragon Area Exists. 1.8.1 A specific player home, WoW Azgalor Azeroth Exists 1.8.2 A specific Playerhome, Starfield in Ableton Exists 1.8.3 A specific player home which is very dangerous exists, Real - (5) - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy - Copy 1.8.4 A specific playerhome which is very safe exists, Variously Backrooms Campground, Royal Army on Mars, Royal Marines on Mars 1.8.5 A specific playerhome that is the players exists South Park Elementary which is the computers version of Backrooms Campground Variously 1.8.6 Real - (5) - Copy is very dangerous and unsafe 1.8.7 My Playerhome is immaculately safe but in danger of direct current hitting the roof which usually is supressed by System 32 automatic DC storm surpression 1.8.8 My Player home uses the NFS file system so is safe from DC Storm, but it is a potential hazard in the menus option 1.8.9 Specific resource exist Dragonskin Overplate Armor (1)-(40) which are the Bells of the Village 1.9.0 Specific resource exist for every mentioned villager resource by my village 1.9.1 Specific resource for 596 Oxygen of Air exist in my Playerhome and many more Air 1.9.2 A mew lives upstairs in my playerhome 1.9.3 The mew usually isn't around and teleported away 1.9.4 I use roor to communicate with the mew 1.9.5 There are various places where pipes are found in the house where the villager has not left a direct current safety but some pipes of marijuana 1.9.6 The overall sideways span of my player home is over 2 kilometers 1.9.7 Real - (5) Copy is dwarfed by my player home 1.9.8 My player home actually harvested the spherical cow for the logic formed and it is still there none gone 1.9.9 My player home incorporated 449 Struct from a code book which was writted by Bill Ayers Wills Grandpa so was a specific kind of player home, amantadine 2.0.0 My playerhome has a playerhome, Backrooms Campground Skyblock which can be Put on the ground anywhere 2.0.1 My playerhome involved josh rodriguez to use a code injector, Badman, to add two shulker boxes to my world without triggering constraint 2.0.2 The reference code done in system 16 by my code does not substantially trigger uniquid constraint 2.0.3 The reference robocode of jeb and such of the sheep have been uploaded and lost some 18 years ago 2.0.4 The reference robocode of the Real - (5) Copy was lost some 8 Years ago 2.0.5 The robocode is retained for the Backrooms Campground (proper) Various and the South Park Elementary retains its survival heritage but is one step away from creative 2.0.6 There are various unmentioned robocode which are safe but dangerous Such as Steves Leaves the original without dupe and others which have been lost 2.0.7 The system Dragon Area, South Park Elementary, WoW Azgalor Azeroth and Starfield in Ableton are all accessible right now by my System32 or whereabouts accessible 2.0.8 Starfield in Ableton Is a subset of Dragon Area 2.0.9 The villagers bells are from Dragon Area Home Base where they were imagined 2.1.0 Beds exist which automatically rest the player at South Park Elementary and Backrooms Campground Various 2.1.1 Only One bed exists on Real - (5) Copy 2.1.2 There exists an information superhighway which connects my Doto 0 Android villages and it is safe 2.1.3 Once we had encountered a suicide bombing mutant pig on the highway, but this was just once and it was slain 2.1.4 There exists real crossbow weapon with exploding reusable bolt in the firearms area of the criminal area but these are locked away from the criminal 2.1.5 The suicide bombers explosive vest is in the firing area 2.1.6 The weapon crossbow has maybe been fired a bit or the longbow FC3 2.1.6 Asia and Luke and Payday were saved to Virtual reality with me in the Wade of the situation 2.1.7 Domestic Plants Area exist in the base 2.1.8 Domestic farms area which provide critical Water to the crop so that the potato can grow are provided 2.1.9 Plants must be watered with WailmerPail to satisfy them unlike a crop 2.2.0 I have never watered the crop so the villagers must have WailmerPail 2.2.1 The computer can send ZigzagoonMail 2.2.2 The computer can send OakMail 2.2.3 The computer can send Birch Mail. 2.2.4 The computer can store the logic to somewhere else 2.2.5 The computer has 4 receptive yellow spark components 2.2.6 A yellow spark stores a message to the mainframe of the computer somewhere else when it impinges upon the spark detector 2.2.7 Vermillion is a possible component of poor usage of yellow spark charm, cast the spark with a nvbl action addtl BLU REGARD HITIT SPARK to avoid actual mercury 2.2.8 The electric rascal blueregard is spotted sometimes near Backrooms Campground Various 2.2.9 The chemical rascal greenregard, myself, is always near the Backrooms Campground but is sometimes busy doing something else 2.3.0 Cara middleton is sometimes spotted near Starfield in Ableton or its associated Starfield 2 2.3.1 You get random message requests from the mainframe 2.3.2 You have the ability to store the text on a specific logic device made from live spherical cow and holophoner paper and user shampoo access/true escape and some notes in your head metaphorically or a pen tablet input 2.3.3 The village specific to us packages the product with a variac as we have surplus Air Oxygen.

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.]

Hello!
The code must be entered after buying the game but before paying for a subscription.
How to redeem:

Log into the Mog Station https://www.mogstation.com/
Under "Registration Codes" select "Enter Recruitment Code".
Enter the code: N8N5YRTP

Rewards obtained after buying a subscription:

Friendship Circlet: +20% exp on all jobs at or below level 25
Fist Bump emote: only obtainable from RAF
99 Aetheryte Ticket: lets you teleport for free
10 Silver Chocobo Feathers: used to buy special items

Look at for Real Truck Free Shipping 2024. When you need the newest coupons and promo codes, that page is the perfect spot to check. They also have current deals available.

Go to this page for RealTruck Free Shipping 2024. If you're looking for the newest coupons and promo codes, that page is the place to go. They always have the latest offers available.

The following short section comes from a book entitle "Microbial Inhabitants of Humans," written my Michael Wilson in 2005. I thought that some of you may find it helpful.
Contaminated small bowel syndrome:
In comparison with the large intestine, the number of microbes in the small intestine is very small. This is due to a combination of factors, including the low pH of the region, the rapid peristalsis which reduces transit time, and local host defenses. Impairment of any of these results in an increase in the microbial population, and the is known as "contaminated small bowel syndrome" or "bacterial overgrowth syndrome". The major causes include anatomical abnormalities o the gut, gut obstruction, disordered gut motility, reduced gastric acidity, and infection of the biliary duct.
The main symptoms associated with the syndrome include steatorrhoea (increased faecal fat) and vitamin B12 deficiency. The increased microbial load in the small intestine results in rapid deconjugation of bile salts, creating water-insoluble free bile acids which are not reabsorbed and recycled. This eventually depletes the levels of bile salts in the small intestine so that micelle formation does not take place. Consequently, fat is not absorbed and is excreted.
The small intestine is an important site of vitamin B12 absorption. This vitamin binds to intrinsic factor produced by the stomach, and the resulting complex is then absorbed. However, the vitamin is also needed by many bacterial species, and large numbers of bacteria will rapidly reduce its concentration, thus depriving the host of this important dietary constituent. Vitamin B12 deficiency ultimately leads to megaloblastic anaemia.
Other maifestations of the syndrome include carbohydrate malabsorption, hypoproteinaemia, and diarrhea. Treatment involves the surgical correction of any abnormalities, the administration of antibiotics, and vitamin supplementation.

Get cash 🔙 on expensive groceries, high interest on your entire balance, and tools to build your credit history. But it doesn’t end there — get it all + a reward worth up to $20 when you join KOHO today!
Download the KOHO app https://web.koho.ca/referral/WTEUI9AM or use this code on sign-up: WTEUI9AM
To get this special offer, you have to :
-verify your account -deposit at least 50$
You will get 4 months of the "everything" plan for free!

I have been fueling my used 2008 Mercury Grand Marquis FFV for the past two years of ownership almost exclusively with "high-level ethanol-gasoline blends containing 51% to 83% ethanol, depending on geography and season." (Why is it even called "E85" if it only goes as high as 83% ethanol? I may never know.)
I run flex fuel because for me it is cheaper (even factoring in slightly decreased mpg), renewable and sustainable, drives amazingly, and plenty available in my region. I understand this will not be true for most other regions, and this fuel should not be forced in those markets in my opinion. On that note, I don't understand why we even bother blending a meager 10% or 15% ethanol in gasoline. Like how much of a difference is that percentage actually making? Just give us two options -- ethanol-free gasoline and E85 (not 10, 15, 20, etc.) -- and be done with it.
Of course, before I began my E85-only journey, I read through the car manual/guide which states:

If you operate your vehicle 50% or more of the time on ethanol, you should follow a different maintenance schedule. In addition to this it is also recommended to fill the fuel tank with regular unleaded gasoline once every 3,000 miles (4,828 km).

This coincides with my oil change intervals, which makes it effortless to remember. On those particular refuels, I fill an entire tank of non-ethanol gasoline and a bottle of Chevron Techron concentrate (forgive me for brand naming). When I travel, I try planning ahead mapping out which fuel stations carry flex fuel through a biofuel finder website. If I ever travel to a place that doesn't have any availability, it will be no big deal but if I'm being honest it will annoy me because it will ruin my streak.
I will continue running E85 until production ceases or perhaps EV charging stations become most ubiquitous, at which point I may drag myself into the 22nd century by purchasing an EV.

Hey fellow devs and tech enthusiasts!
Are you tired of wrestling with clunky hosting platforms that leave you scratching your head and wasting precious time? Say hello to cPanel – your ticket to hassle-free website management and optimization!
🔑 Simplify Your Workflow: With cPanel, managing your website is as easy as pie (or should I say, as easy as writing clean code!). Say goodbye to complex server configurations and hello to an intuitive and user-friendly interface that puts you in the driver's seat.

https://discord.gg/T76m93rP
Link To Join
I'm unsure if this post is against the TOS of this channel. If so moderator I apologize please delete the post and I won't do it again. Thank you.