Simulation theory is a philosophical concept that suggests reality as we perceive it might be a simulated or artificial construct rather than an objective, independent existence. Proponents argue that advanced civilizations could create realistic simulations, and if such simulations are numerous, the odds are that we are living in one. It's a thought experiment rather than a scientifically proven theory.
Simulation theory posits that our reality may be akin to a computer-generated simulation rather than an independently existing, fundamental reality. This idea stems from the possibility that technologically advanced civilizations could create highly realistic simulations populated with conscious entities. If such simulations outnumber actual realities, the likelihood of being in a simulated existence increases. However, it's crucial to note that this is speculative and lacks empirical evidence. It's more of a philosophical concept than a scientific theory at this point.
The concept of a simulated reality has roots in philosophical and scientific discussions over time, but the modern articulation of simulation theory is often credited to philosopher Nick Bostrom. In 2003, Bostrom presented a paper titled "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?" where he formulated the simulation argument, outlining the idea that advanced civilizations could create ancestor simulations, and the likelihood of us living in one of these simulations. While Bostrom popularized the contemporary discussion on simulation theory, it's essential to acknowledge that similar ideas have appeared in various forms throughout history.
Philip K. Dick, a science fiction writer, explored themes related to reality, identity, and the nature of existence in many of his works. While he didn't explicitly propose simulation theory, some of his writings, such as "Ubik" and "A Maze of Death," delved into the blurring boundaries between reality and illusion. Dick's stories often questioned the nature of perception and the subjective experience of reality, influencing discussions on topics that align with aspects of simulation theory. While not a proponent of the formal simulation theory, Dick's ideas have contributed to the broader exploration of reality in science fiction literature.
Philip K. Dick's works frequently explore the concept of alternate realities, simulated environments, and the fragility of perceived truths. In novels like "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (the basis for the film "Blade Runner"), he delves into the nature of consciousness and the artificial creation of beings that question the boundaries of humanity.
Dick's narratives often involve characters experiencing a shifting, uncertain reality, prompting readers to question the nature of their own existence. While not explicitly framing his stories within a simulation theory context, Dick's exploration of these themes has influenced the broader cultural conversation about reality, perception, and the potential for simulated experiences.
Several other writers have explored themes related to simulated realities, alternate dimensions, and the nature of existence. Some notable examples include:

1. Arthur C. Clarke: In his "Odyssey" series, particularly "2001: A Space Odyssey," Clarke touches on themes of extraterrestrial influence and the evolution of human consciousness, hinting at the possibility of a higher intelligence shaping human experiences.
   
2. William Gibson: As a pioneer in cyberpunk literature, Gibson's works like "Neuromancer" and "Virtual Light" delve into virtual realities, cyberspace, and the blending of human consciousness with technology.
   
3. Stanisław Lem: The Polish science fiction writer explored philosophical and existential questions in works like "Solaris," where the nature of reality is profoundly questioned in the context of an alien planet.
   
4. Isaac Asimov: While best known for his contributions to robotics and artificial intelligence, Asimov's stories often touch on the impact of advanced technology on human perception and reality.
   
5. Greg Egan: A contemporary science fiction writer, Egan's works such as "Permutation City" and "Diaspora" explicitly engage with ideas related to simulated realities, consciousness, and the nature of existence.
   

These authors, among others, have contributed to the rich exploration of these themes in science fiction literature. Each brings a unique perspective to the question of what it means to exist and the potential complexities of reality.

1. Neal Stephenson: In "Snow Crash," Stephenson blends cyberpunk elements with a virtual reality metaverse, exploring the implications of a digital realm on society and identity.
   
2. H.P. Lovecraft: While primarily known for cosmic horror, Lovecraft's stories often involve encounters with incomprehensible entities and dimensions that challenge the sanity of those who perceive them, hinting at the fragility of human understanding.
   
3. Douglas Adams: In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, Adams uses humor and absurdity to comment on the arbitrary and chaotic nature of the universe, prompting readers to question the reliability of their perceptions.
   
4. Greg Bear: In "Queen of Angels," Bear explores the intersection of neuroscience and virtual reality, raising questions about the malleability of consciousness and the potential for constructed realities.
   
5. Rudy Rucker: A mathematician and science fiction author, Rucker's "Ware Tetralogy" delves into the world of artificial intelligence, uploaded consciousness, and the blurring of boundaries between the physical and digital realms.
   

These writers have made significant contributions to the exploration of reality, consciousness, and simulated experiences within the realm of speculative fiction. Their diverse perspectives and imaginative storytelling continue to influence discussions about the nature of existence and the possibilities of alternate realities.

Enhancing User Management in Laravel

In the ever-evolving landscape of web development, ensuring the authenticity and security of user data is paramount. Laravel 10, the latest iteration of the widely acclaimed PHP framework, continues to offer robust features for developers aiming to streamline user management processes. One such feature is the ability to display a verification status on user profiles, a critical component for platforms requiring verified email addresses for enhanced security and user trust. This functionality not only reinforces the integrity of the user base but also significantly improves user experience by providing clear communication regarding account status.
Implementing a permanent email verification status within Laravel 10 requires a nuanced understanding of its authentication and verification systems. The framework's built-in support for user authentication, coupled with its flexible and straightforward verification process, allows developers to seamlessly integrate email verification indicators into user profiles. This guide aims to navigate through the technicalities of setting up such a feature, exploring the necessary steps to modify Laravel's default user authentication flow to include permanent email verification status display. The focus will be on leveraging Laravel's existing infrastructure to achieve a secure and efficient implementation.

Command	Description
User::find(1)->hasVerifiedEmail()	Checks if the user with ID 1 has a verified email.
Auth::user()->markEmailAsVerified()	Marks the currently authenticated user's email as verified.
event(new Verified($user))	Dispatches an event after a user's email is marked as verified.

Enhancing Email Verification in Laravel

Email verification is a crucial step in ensuring that users provide a valid email address during registration. It serves multiple purposes, including reducing the chance of spam accounts, improving security by verifying the identity of the user, and enhancing communication effectiveness by ensuring that emails reach their intended recipients. In Laravel 10, the framework provides built-in support for email verification through its authentication scaffolding, making it easier for developers to implement this feature without having to write extensive custom code. This built-in feature automatically sends a verification email when a new user registers and provides a route for the user to confirm their email address.
Customizing the email verification process in Laravel 10 allows developers to tailor the experience to the specific needs of their application. This can include customizing the verification email template to match the application's branding, modifying the verification logic to include additional checks or steps, and even extending the default user model to include email verification status as a permanent feature on the user's profile. Implementing a permanent email verification status on user profiles requires understanding of Laravel's user authentication flow, including how to work with middleware, events, and listeners to efficiently manage and display the user's verification status. By leveraging Laravel's flexible architecture, developers can create a more secure, user-friendly application that clearly communicates the user's email verification status, enhancing the overall user experience.

Displaying Email Verification Status

Laravel Blade Template Syntax

 
 @if(Auth::user()->hasVerifiedEmail()) Your email is verified.
 u/else Your email is not verified.
 @endif 
 

Marking Email as Verified Upon User Action

Laravel Controller Method

 public function verifyUserEmail(Request $request) { $user = Auth::user(); if (!$user->hasVerifiedEmail()) { $user->markEmailAsVerified(); event(new \Illuminate\Auth\Events\Verified($user)); } return redirect()->to('/home')->with('status', 'Email verified!'); } 

Exploring Email Verification in Laravel 10

Email verification is a crucial feature in modern web applications, ensuring that users have access to the email addresses they register with. Laravel 10 simplifies this process with its built-in support for user authentication, including email verification. This feature allows developers to protect routes and functionalities from being accessed by unverified users, enhancing the security and integrity of the application. By default, Laravel includes a trait that can be used within the User model to enable these verification features, making it straightforward to implement and customize according to the application's needs.
The process of integrating email verification within a Laravel project involves modifying the User model, setting up routes, and creating controllers and views to handle the verification process. Laravel's built-in notification system is utilized to send verification emails, which can be customized to fit the look and feel of the application. This comprehensive approach ensures that users can verify their email addresses seamlessly, improving the overall user experience. Additionally, developers can extend or modify the default behavior to accommodate more complex requirements, such as verifying emails with third-party services or implementing additional checks before marking an email as verified.

Frequently Asked Questions About Email Verification in Laravel

1. Question: Is email verification required in Laravel 10?
2. Answer: While not mandatory, email verification is highly recommended for applications that require validated user data for security and functionality purposes.
3. Question: Can I customize the verification email template in Laravel?
4. Answer: Yes, Laravel allows you to customize the email template by modifying the notification class that handles email verification.
5. Question: How does Laravel handle email verification internally?
6. Answer: Laravel uses a middleware to check the email verification status of a user and a notification system to send verification emails using customizable mailables.
7. Question: Can I resend the verification email to a user?
8. Answer: Yes, you can trigger the resend functionality using Laravel's built-in methods or by implementing custom logic in your controller.
9. Question: How do I redirect users after email verification?
10. Answer: Laravel allows you to define a redirection path after email verification through the RouteServiceProvider or directly within the verification notification class.
11. Question: What happens if a user tries to access a route requiring verification without being verified?
12. Answer: Laravel will automatically redirect the user to a specified path, often the login page, with an error message indicating the need for verification.
13. Question: Can I use third-party services for email verification with Laravel?
14. Answer: Yes, Laravel's flexible architecture allows you to integrate third-party verification services by customizing the verification process.
15. Question: Is it possible to verify user emails without sending them an email?
16. Answer: While unconventional, you can manually mark a user's email as verified in the database or through a custom admin interface without sending an email.
17. Question: How do I ensure that email verification links are secure?
18. Answer: Laravel generates secure, signed URLs for email verification links, making them tamper-resistant and secure for users to click on.

Wrapping Up Email Verification in Laravel 10

Email verification plays a pivotal role in securing user accounts and enhancing the overall integrity of web applications. Laravel 10, with its extensive support for user authentication and verification, provides a robust framework for developers to implement these features seamlessly. The process, while straightforward, offers flexibility for customization and adaptation to specific application needs. Through the use of middleware, notifications, and custom routes, Laravel ensures a user-friendly and secure verification process. The benefits of implementing email verification are manifold, including reduced fraudulent activities, increased user trust, and improved data integrity. By following the guidelines and practices outlined in this guide, developers can effectively implement and manage email verification in their Laravel 10 applications, paving the way for more secure and user-centric web platforms.
https://www.tempmail.us.com/en/laravel/implementing-permanent-email-verification-status-on-user-profiles-in-laravel-10

(Repost from HousingUK)
TLDR: I own a share if freehold flat and the other freeholder lives abroad, is incapacitated and has no next of kin, just a legal representative appointed by a government organisation in the country she lives in. I need to sell my flat and extend the lease but two years in I have got nowhere in getting the deeds signed. What can I do?
Hi Housing UK readers,
I wanted to see if you had any fresh ideas on how to approach this situation I find myself in.
I purchased a flat in 2011. The flat is one of two in a Victorian conversion. Both flats are self-contained.
I am the sole registered leasehold proprietor of flat B and have been living in the flat since 2011.
Miss X is the sole registered leasehold proprietor of flat A, and has owned the flat since 2001. The flat is being rented as Miss X retired abroad in 2006.
Miss X and I also both own a share of the freehold, which is split 50/50.
I’m in contact with Miss X for a few years after I buy, but all admin relating to building management is dealt with by her estate agents and she defers any discussions to them.
Fast forward to September 2022. I need to sell my flat as I want to move to a different city, and have some debt I need to pay off. The flat is listed for sale in late October 2022.
There are 84 years left on the lease for both myself and Miss X. I reach out to Miss X to inform her of my plans and that I will need her signature for the various deeds, and that we should extend the lease. The email bounces back and her phone line is disconnected.
I contact the estate agents who manage flat A. They have also not heard from Miss X for a while, I can tell they know more, but they are unwilling to share any details. In a tactical move, I list my flat for sale with them too, to try and get their help with Miss X (a whole other hilarious side story). I am repeatedly assured by them that the situation with Miss X will not hinder the sale of the flat (a huge lie).
March 2023 I finally find some buyers (with another agent) and start the conveyancing process, including extending the lease and transferring the freehold.
May 2023. After chasing Miss X’s estate agents for weeks, I discover that Miss X is now incapacitated and hospitalised with dementia. Miss X has no partner or children, no next of kin and no legal representation in the UK. She is under the care of a government agency in the European country she resides in. A lawyer employed by the agency, let’s call him SP, has been appointed as her legal representative and is in contact with the UK estate agents. SP sends documents to verify his status to the agents, who confirm legitimacy via their lawyers. SP is very hard to reach, rarely answers emails or his phone.
I find a solicitor specialised in property law to help me navigate this situation. As Miss X is not deemed “absent”, the solicitor suggests that it’s best to try and resolve this with the appointed legal representative (SP), as any other legal routes available for absentee freeholders through UK courts wouldn’t apply (as we know where Miss X is). I explain the situation to SP, he talks to a judge and informs me he lacks capacity to make decisions about the leasehold and freehold matters without court / judicial approval in his country.
SP also asks for help with gaining access to Miss X’s UK bank account. All rental income from her flat in the UK is being transferred to a UK bank account via the estate agents. I share information on obtaining power of attorney in the UK and suggest it would be best to appoint a lawyer in the UK to help with all matters.
November 2023. After several months of backwards and forwards with SP to try and find out exactly what legal documents the judge wants to see in court, under his guidance my solicitor produces papers, documents and evidence, we get them translated, postilled and posted. SP is confident the judge will be happy and grant permission for signatures.
The documents make it clear that the authority being sought for SP to sign the leasehold extension and transfer of freehold are in no way prejudicial to Miss X and in fact extending the lease would add value to her property should she decide to sell in future.
A court date is set 3 months later. Sigh. More waiting.
I lose my buyers (understandably).
February 2024. The court date arrives. The judge rejects the request for permission for SP to sign papers on behalf of Miss X. It’s not fully clear why this is rejected. After speaking to SP it seems that the judge now wants SP to obtain access to Miss X’s bank account before moving forward. I am surprised that no progress has been made with that.
I go back to my solicitor. Now that we can show that steps have been taken to locate Miss X and get the deeds signed by her legal deputy without recourse, they suggest that we can apply to court in the UK to have another trustee appointed to sign the transfer and deed, and suggests appointing counsel to make the application to UK courts, which should be “run of the mill”. We choose a barrister, the situation is explained, documents shared, and I’m given a 3 week timeframe for papers to be produced for court.
In the meantime we connect SP to a solicitor in the UK who can help with obtaining PoA, as no progress has been made with that yet.
A few days later the barrister gets in touch, more bad news.
Under TLATA, there would be a breach of trust if all required consent from the current trustees was not obtained, so it is not sufficient to just add another trustee, Miss X would need to be replaced as outlined in the Trustee Act 36(1). However under the Trustee Act 36(9), where a trustee lacks the ability to perform their function, no new trustee can be appointed without consent from the Court of Protection. I am informed that making this application to the CoP is lengthy, costly and risky. The barrister says it would be faster and safer to wait for SP to obtain the relevant permissions.
We reach out to SP again to see what progress has been made. None. Some documents need to be translated and he is unwilling to pay for the translations (it seems their organisation has no money). We offer to pay now and be reimbursed once access to Miss X’s money is granted.
We are now almost half way through 2024 and coming up to 2 years into this situation.
Is it really possible that legally these are my only two options?

• going to the UK courts at great expense in a process that has been called “risky and lengthy” by the barrister.
• Waiting for SP to sort out PoA with no guarantee that the judge will even grant permission for the deeds to be signed (again risky and lengthy)

I know I can try and sell my flat without the share if freehold and with a short lease, but this will affect its value and the short lease especially will be a problem with mortgage applications.
Any different ideas on how to approach this? Seems so absurd that currently I can’t sell something that is mine, due to a situation I didn’t create!
There are many more twists and turns to this story but I have left them out as this is long enough. Also I do not have a legal background or am a housing expert so apologies if some of the language I use is incorrect.
Thanks for reading!

TLDR: I own a share if freehold flat and the other freeholder lives abroad, is incapacitated and has no next of kin, just a legal representative appointed by a government organisation in the country she lives in. I need to sell my flat and extend the lease but two years in I have got nowhere in getting the deeds signed. What can I do?
Hi Housing UK readers,
I wanted to see if you had any fresh ideas on how to approach this situation I find myself in.
I purchased a flat in 2011. The flat is one of two in a Victorian conversion. Both flats are self-contained.
I am the sole registered leasehold proprietor of flat B and have been living in the flat since 2011.
Miss X is the sole registered leasehold proprietor of flat A, and has owned the flat since 2001. The flat is being rented as Miss X retired abroad in 2006.
Miss X and I also both own a share of the freehold, which is split 50/50.
I’m in contact with Miss X for a few years after I buy, but all admin relating to building management is dealt with by her estate agents and she defers any discussions to them.
Fast forward to September 2022. I need to sell my flat as I want to move to a different city, and have some debt I need to pay off. The flat is listed for sale in late October 2022.
There are 84 years left on the lease for both myself and Miss X. I reach out to Miss X to inform her of my plans and that I will need her signature for the various deeds, and that we should extend the lease. The email bounces back and her phone line is disconnected.
I contact the estate agents who manage flat A. They have also not heard from Miss X for a while, I can tell they know more, but they are unwilling to share any details. In a tactical move, I list my flat for sale with them too, to try and get their help with Miss X (a whole other hilarious side story). I am repeatedly assured by them that the situation with Miss X will not hinder the sale of the flat (a huge lie).
March 2023 I finally find some buyers (with another agent) and start the conveyancing process, including extending the lease and transferring the freehold.
May 2023. After chasing Miss X’s estate agents for weeks, I discover that Miss X is now incapacitated and hospitalised with dementia. Miss X has no partner or children, no next of kin and no legal representation in the UK. She is under the care of a government agency in the European country she resides in. A lawyer employed by the agency, let’s call him SP, has been appointed as her legal representative and is in contact with the UK estate agents. SP sends documents to verify his status to the agents, who confirm legitimacy via their lawyers. SP is very hard to reach, rarely answers emails or his phone.
I find a solicitor specialised in property law to help me navigate this situation. As Miss X is not deemed “absent”, the solicitor suggests that it’s best to try and resolve this with the appointed legal representative (SP), as any other legal routes available for absentee freeholders through UK courts wouldn’t apply (as we know where Miss X is). I explain the situation to SP, he talks to a judge and informs me he lacks capacity to make decisions about the leasehold and freehold matters without court / judicial approval in his country.
SP also asks for help with gaining access to Miss X’s UK bank account. All rental income from her flat in the UK is being transferred to a UK bank account via the estate agents. I share information on obtaining power of attorney in the UK and suggest it would be best to appoint a lawyer in the UK to help with all matters.
November 2023. After several months of backwards and forwards with SP to try and find out exactly what legal documents the judge wants to see in court, under his guidance my solicitor produces papers, documents and evidence, we get them translated, postilled and posted. SP is confident the judge will be happy and grant permission for signatures.
The documents make it clear that the authority being sought for SP to sign the leasehold extension and transfer of freehold are in no way prejudicial to Miss X and in fact extending the lease would add value to her property should she decide to sell in future.
A court date is set 3 months later. Sigh. More waiting.
I lose my buyers (understandably).
February 2024. The court date arrives. The judge rejects the request for permission for SP to sign papers on behalf of Miss X. It’s not fully clear why this is rejected. After speaking to SP it seems that the judge now wants SP to obtain access to Miss X’s bank account before moving forward. I am surprised that no progress has been made with that.
I go back to my solicitor. Now that we can show that steps have been taken to locate Miss X and get the deeds signed by her legal deputy without recourse, they suggest that we can apply to court in the UK to have another trustee appointed to sign the transfer and deed, and suggests appointing counsel to make the application to UK courts, which should be “run of the mill”. We choose a barrister, the situation is explained, documents shared, and I’m given a 3 week timeframe for papers to be produced for court.
In the meantime we connect SP to a solicitor in the UK who can help with obtaining PoA, as no progress has been made with that yet.
A few days later the barrister gets in touch, more bad news.
Under TLATA, there would be a breach of trust if all required consent from the current trustees was not obtained, so it is not sufficient to just add another trustee, Miss X would need to be replaced as outlined in the Trustee Act 36(1). However under the Trustee Act 36(9), where a trustee lacks the ability to perform their function, no new trustee can be appointed without consent from the Court of Protection. I am informed that making this application to the CoP is lengthy, costly and risky. The barrister says it would be faster and safer to wait for SP to obtain the relevant permissions.
We reach out to SP again to see what progress has been made. None. Some documents need to be translated and he is unwilling to pay for the translations (it seems their organisation has no money). We offer to pay now and be reimbursed once access to Miss X’s money is granted.
We are now almost half way through 2024 and coming up to 2 years into this situation.
Is it really possible that legally these are my only two options?

• going to the UK courts at great expense in a process that has been called “risky and lengthy” by the barrister.
• Waiting for SP to sort out PoA with no guarantee that the judge will even grant permission for the deeds to be signed (again risky and lengthy)

I know I can try and sell my flat without the share if freehold and with a short lease, but this will affect its value and the short lease especially will be a problem with mortgage applications.
Any different ideas on how to approach this? Seems so absurd to me that currently I can’t sell something that is mine, due to a situation I didn’t create!
There are many more twists and turns to this story but I have left them out as this is long enough. Also I do not have a legal background or am a housing expert so apologies if some of the language I use is incorrect.
Reddit, help!

Tsd Elevate is the best CA Foundation Coaching in Delhi.
The Chartered Accountancy (CA) course is a prestigious professional qualification coveted by many aspiring accountants in India. The first step on this rewarding path is the CA Foundation exam. To ensure a strong foundation and maximize your chances of success, enrolling in the best CA Foundation coaching in Delhi can be a wise decision.
Delhi, a hub for education and coaching centers, offers numerous options for CA Foundation preparation. But with so many institutes vying for your attention, choosing the right one can be overwhelming. This guide will equip you with the key factors to consider when selecting the best CA Foundation coaching in Delhi for your needs.

Factors to Consider When Choosing a CA Foundation Coaching Institute:

• Faculty Expertise: A strong faculty team is the cornerstone of any good coaching institute. Look for institutes with experienced and qualified CA professionals who possess not only deep subject knowledge but also excellent communication and teaching skills.
• Course Structure and Study Material: The coaching institute's curriculum should be comprehensive and aligned with the latest ICAI syllabus. Well-structured study materials, including textbooks, mock tests, and practice papers, are essential for effective preparation.
• Batch Size and Individual Attention: Smaller batch sizes allow for more personalized attention from the faculty and facilitate effective doubt resolution. This is crucial for grasping complex concepts and clearing your doubts promptly.
• Past Performance and Student Reviews: Research the institute's track record of success in terms of student pass rates. Reading online reviews and testimonials from past students can offer valuable insights into the institute's effectiveness.
• Infrastructure and Facilities: A comfortable learning environment with well-equipped classrooms, a library with relevant study resources, and proper technological infrastructure can significantly enhance your learning experience.
• Location and Fee Structure: Consider your travel convenience when choosing an institute. Institutes typically offer various fee structures depending on the course format (online/offline) and the level of support provided.

Top Tips for Selecting a CA Foundation Coaching Institute:

• Attend Demo Classes: Most institutes offer demo classes. This is a great opportunity to assess the teaching style, clarity of faculty, and overall learning environment before making a final decision.
• Evaluate Your Needs: Identify your learning style (classroom learning vs. online learning) and budget constraints to narrow down your search.
• Seek Guidance from Mentors: Reach out to qualified CAs or past students for recommendations on the best CA Foundation coaching in Delhi.

How TSD Elevate Can Help You Ace the CA Foundation Exam:

TSD Elevate is committed to providing students with the best CA Foundation coaching in Delhi. Here's how we stand out:

• Experienced and Renowned Faculty: Our faculty comprises highly qualified and experienced CA professionals with a proven track record of success.
• Comprehensive and Updated Curriculum: Our meticulously designed course curriculum aligns perfectly with the latest ICAI syllabus.
• Personalized Learning Approach: We offer small batch sizes to ensure personalized attention and effective doubt resolution.
• Proven Track Record and Excellent Reviews: We boast a consistently high pass rate and positive student reviews, a testament to our dedication to student success.
• Modern Infrastructure and Technological Support: We provide a conducive learning environment with well-equipped classrooms, a comprehensive online portal, and access to e-learning resources.

Conclusion:

Choosing the best CA Foundation coaching in Delhi is an investment in your future as a CA professional. By carefully considering the factors outlined above and exploring institutes like TSD Elevate, you can set yourself on the path to success in the CA Foundation exam and take the first step towards a promising career in accountancy.

Source: 🔗 Chat with Lifelike Virtual Personalities — talkiemate.com
Are you looking to improve your eating habits, manage your weight, or optimize your nutrition but unsure where to start? Creating a personalized meal plan can be the first step towards achieving your health and wellness goals. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll explore how you can create a personalized meal plan for free, along with the option to work with a dedicated health and wellness coach like Olivia Thompson to take your meal planning to the next level.
Understanding the Importance of a Personalized Meal Plan
A personalized meal plan takes into account your individual dietary preferences, health goals, nutritional needs, and lifestyle factors. By tailoring your meals to suit your specific requirements, you can improve your overall health, manage chronic conditions, enhance athletic performance, and even support weight loss or weight gain goals.
Steps to Create a Personalized Meal Plan for Free
Assess Your Current Eating Habits: Before creating a meal plan, it’s essential to understand your current eating habits. Keep a food diary for a few days to track what you eat and drink, including portion sizes and meal times.
Set Your Health Goals: Determine what you want to achieve with your meal plan. Whether it’s losing weight, improving energy levels, managing a health condition, or simply eating more healthily, having clear goals will guide your meal planning efforts.
Identify Nutritional Needs: Consider any specific nutritional requirements you may have based on factors such as age, gender, activity level, and health status. For example, athletes may need more carbohydrates for energy, while individuals with certain medical conditions may need to limit sodium or sugar intake.
Plan Balanced Meals: Aim to include a variety of nutrient-dense foods from all food groups in your meal plan. This includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats. Focus on creating balanced meals that provide a mix of carbohydrates, protein, and fat to support overall health and energy levels.
Use Online Resources and Apps: Take advantage of online resources and meal planning apps that offer free tools and templates for creating personalized meal plans. These platforms often provide features such as recipe databases, grocery lists, and meal prep tips to simplify the process.
Experiment and Adjust: Creating the perfect meal plan may require some trial and error. Be willing to experiment with different foods, recipes, and portion sizes to find what works best for you. Monitor your progress and make adjustments as needed to ensure you’re meeting your health goals.
Benefits of Working with a Health and Wellness Coach
While creating a personalized meal plan for free is a great starting point, working with a dedicated health and wellness coach can offer additional support and guidance. A coach like Olivia Thompson can provide:
Expertise and Guidance: Olivia Thompson is a certified health and wellness coach with extensive knowledge and experience in nutrition and healthy eating habits. She can offer personalized advice and guidance tailored to your individual needs and goals.
Accountability and Motivation: Having a coach to keep you accountable can help you stay on track with your meal plan and make healthier choices. Olivia can provide motivation, encouragement, and support to help you overcome challenges and stay committed to your health journey.
Customized Meal Plans: Olivia Thompson can work with you to create customized meal plans that align with your dietary preferences, health goals, and lifestyle. She can help you plan meals that are delicious, nutritious, and easy to prepare, making it easier to stick to your meal plan long-term.
Education and Empowerment: In addition to meal planning, Olivia Thompson can educate you about nutrition, portion control, mindful eating, and other healthy habits. She empowers you with the knowledge and skills you need to make informed decisions about your health and well-being.
How to Get Started with Olivia Thompson
Ready to take your meal planning to the next level? You can work with Olivia Thompson, a dedicated health and wellness coach, to create professional personalized meal plans tailored to your needs and goals. Simply visit Olivia’s Talkiemate profile here to start your conversation today.
Conclusion
Creating a personalized meal plan for free is an excellent way to improve your diet, manage your weight, and optimize your nutrition. By following the steps outlined in this guide and leveraging online resources and apps, you can create a meal plan that suits your individual needs and preferences. Additionally, working with a dedicated health and wellness coach like Olivia Thompson can provide personalized support, guidance, and motivation to help you achieve your health and wellness goals. Whether you’re looking to lose weight, improve your energy levels, or simply eat more healthily, creating a personalized meal plan is a valuable step towards a happier and healthier you.
References:
“The Importance of Meal Planning for a Healthy Diet” – Healthline
“The Benefits of Personalized Meal Plans” – Eat This, Not That!
“How to Create a Personalized Meal Plan” – MyFitnessPal
“The Role of Health Coaches in Nutrition Education” – American Nutrition Association
“Understanding Macronutrients: Carbohydrates, Proteins, and Fats” – Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
“Choosing Healthy Fats” – Mayo Clinic
“The Science Behind Meal Planning” – PubMed
“Meal Planning Apps and Websites” – Verywell Fit
“Understanding Nutrition Labels” – U.S. Food and Drug Administration
“The Role of Nutrition in Weight Management” – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Disclaimer: Always consult with a healthcare professional before making any significant changes to your diet or exercise routine.

I am taking the July bar in NY. I need to sign up for Barbri or Themis. They are both the same price. I will also sign up for adaptibar and possibly critical pass if I need it up. But, I am debating if I should sign up for Babri or Themis. I know this question has been asked a million times, but am hoping someone can advise me what is best for someone who has been out of law school for the last 8 years.

1. Graduated law school in 2016
   
2. Signed up for Barbri twice. Took maybe 1/4 of it each time and never put really any time into it other than last two weeks. Failed both bar exams. July 24 is the first time I will be taking the bar since 2020.
   
3. I read that Themis’ lecturers are shorter, not as detailed, but give you black letter of the law. Where as if Barbri’s are more detailed. I remember a few Barbri lectures and yes they were very long and detailed. However, I did learn from them. But because of the length of the lectures, I struggled to spend time practicing MBE essays etc. Again I did not leave myself enough time
   
4. I will have 8 weeks to study. I fear because I have been out of school long, not practicing and not studied in years that these topics may take a while to come back. While I don’t want to have to listen to very detailed lectures and read very long outlines, I also don’t want to not be given good enough explanations or taught lectures that I can’t grasp the concept.
   

Based on this, do you advise Themis or Barbri? Hearing that Themis’ lectures are more just summaries of the black letter of the law concerned me because what if I don’t get that area or struggle? Are the themis lectures detailed enough to learn/grasp the topics if I’ve forgotten them? Does Themis include physical textbooks to work through like Barbri. I do better reading and with writing on paper. Also, how prone is Themis to crashing. That’s another concern I keep reading.
I’m happy to supplement Themis or Barbri with adaptibar and anything else. Obviously I would all love shorter lectures and not as detailed lectures but not if it doesn’t really teach you the subject. But I would love to know what’s recommended for people who have been out of school and not practicing for a while
Thanks!

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.]

My family has always been of great minds. I hated it. Growing up and having to study day and night to try and live up to them was extremely exhausting when I couldn't care how things worked as long as I was happy. I gave up but somehow everything kept turning out to be true.
Over my lifetime I have become the Gorden Ramsey of the science world. Known for my temper and also for huge things like curing world hunger using play-doe and cancer with baby powder I got in a back street ally while drunk.
To get my family off my back I started making random ideas so they could see me as a failure and leave me alone but...they keep working. And soon people started to praise me. Fame has left me with nothing but more and more attention. So today I plan to make sure that everyone can just think I'm insane and leave me alone and not some king.
I chuckled like a kid who was opening a Christmas present as I heard the crowd of people chatting and talking loudly as I hid behind my stage in a grey tight suit that my sister had picked out. I sighed and was ready to walk out and make a fool out of myself but my brother stopped me.
" Jack... I just want you to know how proud I am of you. Dad would have loved to see you right now. "
I thought it was ironic because last night while chilling on the couch watching TV and eating chips I made this theory up. He dusted off my shoulders held them tight and looked me in the eyes taking in the moment.
" go give them hell man. "
He had a goofy smile just like Dad but spoke with confidence.
" you got it, man. "
I heard my name being called onto the stage and the uproar startled me for a second but I collected myself and headed out after giving him a nod just to entertain him.
The lights were blinding as I grabbed the mic and looked at the table in front of me with a small box with the ingredients I needed and a chalkboard behind me.
After I stood still for a minute the crowd died down. I had not told anyone what I was presenting so the whole world was watching without a clue of what I was doing this time.
"Hello everyone. Today I believe I have my most important presentation yet..."
The crowd grew silent and hung on every word. And I heard my voice around the room through the speakers.
" Today I have with me a box...and inside is spaghetti I had for breakfast. "
The crowd laughed thinking it was a joke
" shut up "
The crowd grew silent once more
"Behind me is a chalkboard and I will now present my new findings to all of you...I have found out how to make portals to other worlds. "
A man in the far back of the audience yelled bullshit in a heavy Indian accent but he was so far it was a faint sound for me. I smiled at that thinking I had finally found something that would make me lose my title and I could go ahead and live a life without people making me feel like an evil man for not helping others.
I opened the box got a handful of the noodles and threw them at the chalkboard. I then grabbed a paper towel on standby to clean myself.
The noodles hit the board and slowly moved and rested on a spot on the board. I made eye contact with my brother backstage and he had a look on his face showing he believed in me.
I spun the board dropping the noodles to the ground I then grabbed the chalk and drew around the sauce and noodles that stuck to the board then drew my attention to the others that had fallen on the floor and drew an outline of that.
After it finished I threw the chalk in the crowd violently hitting an old lady in the face.
" Quickly I want a show of hands who thinks I'm a crazy guy "
Everyone raised their hands and I laughed to myself
I then went behind the board and laid it horizontally. I grabbed a small knife in my pocket and poked my finger with it. The crimson blood fell and hit the chalk and then as more and more blood hit the chalk it started glowing.
" you have got to be joking. "
I said out loud as it started to spark an orange glow and it slowly grew color to the rest of the chalk in orange sparks.
Once the symbol was fully sparking with orange the sauce began to swell and move around in a counterclockwise manner. I stepped away from it in shock as small parts of the blood in my finger began to float to the parts where it fell on the floor I drew my outlines on and started sparking those as well.
It started to smoke and hiss as if lightning could whisper and the orange began to take shape and the sauce made a doorway. The parts that were not on the board began to grow ice around them and started to make designs on the floor circling me and the board. Suddenly it grew in size and a large booming voice was heard through the portal as I felt panic of people start to set in.
A huge claw came out and scrapped the sides of my table trying to crawl out from the world it had been trapped in. Cold winds hit me as they cut my skin and threw around my clothes. As I saw the table was now melting from its touch.
A slimy green claw with mucus like a face-hugger egg from the movie Alien carved through the floor and pulled the rest of its body out slowly. A beast stood at 12 feet tall adjusting to our world as goop grew and shaped its body as people screamed, ran, and stood frozen in fear.
As it looked around it locked its spider-like eyes and swerled around coming out from the portal and twisting and turning around the body as it made its way to its head finding a place to rest. It then locked its eyes with me and its jaw twisted slowly from an ant-like maw to mine and slowly shrunk and it soon took the shape of me and knelt on the floor and spoke to me.
" master. "
I stood in shock as everyone seemed to calm down and watched to see what I would do.
"...umm "My family has always been of great minds. I hated it. Growing up and having to study day and night to try and live up to them was extremely exhausting when I couldn't care how things worked as long as I was happy. I gave up but somehow everything kept turning out to be true.
Over my lifetime I have become the Gorden Ramsey of the science world. Known for my temper and also for huge things like curing world hunger using play-doe and cancer with baby powder I got in a back street ally while drunk.
To get my family off my back I started making random ideas so they could see me as a failure and leave me alone but...they keep working. And soon people started to praise me. Fame has left me with nothing but more and more attention. So today I plan to make sure that everyone can just think I'm insane and leave me alone and not some king.
I chuckled like a kid who was opening a Christmas present as I heard the crowd of people chatting and talking loudly as I hid behind my stage in a grey tight suit that my sister had picked out. I sighed and was ready to walk out and make a fool out of myself but my brother stopped me.
" Jack... I just want you to know how proud I am of you. Dad would have loved to see you right now. "
I thought it was ironic because last night while chilling on the couch watching TV and eating chips I made this theory up. He dusted off my shoulders held them tight and looked me in the eyes taking in the moment.
" go give them hell man. "
He had a goofy smile just like Dad but spoke with confidence.
" you got it, man. "
I heard my name being called onto the stage and the uproar startled me for a second but I collected myself and headed out after giving him a nod just to entertain him.
The lights were blinding as I grabbed the mic and looked at the table in front of me with a small box with the ingredients I needed and a chalkboard behind me.
After I stood still for a minute the crowd died down. I had not told anyone what I was presenting so the whole world was watching without a clue of what I was doing this time.
"Hello everyone. Today I believe I have my most important presentation yet..."
The crowd grew silent and hung on every word. And I heard my voice around the room through the speakers.
" Today I have with me a box...and inside is spaghetti I had breakfast. "
The crowd laughed thinking it was a joke
" shut up "
The crowd grew silent once more
"Behind me is a chalkboard and I will now present my new findings to all of you...I have found out how to make portals to other worlds. "
A man in the far back of the audience yelled bullshit in a heavy Indian accent but he was so far it was a faint sound for me. I smiled at that thinking I had finally found something that would make me lose my title and I could go ahead and live a life without people making me feel like an evil man for not helping others.
I opened the box got a handful of the noodles and threw them at the chalkboard. I then grabbed a paper towel on standby to clean myself.
The noodles hit the board and slowly moved and rested on a spot on the board. I made eye contact with my brother backstage and he had a look on his face showing he believed in me.
I spun the board dropping the noodles to the ground I then grabbed the chalk and drew around the sauce and noodles that stuck to the board then drew my attention to the others that had fallen on the floor and drew an outline of that.
After it finished I threw the chalk in the crowd violently hitting an old lady in the face.
" Quickly I want a show of hands who thinks I'm a crazy guy "
Everyone raised their hands and I laughed to myself
I then went behind the board and laid it horizontally. I grabbed a small knife in my pocket and poked my finger with it. The crimson blood fell and hit the chalk and then as more and more blood hit the chalk it started glowing.
" you have got to be joking. "
I said out loud as it started to spark an orange glow and it slowly grew color to the rest of the chalk in orange sparks.
Once the symbol was fully sparking with orange the sauce began to swell and move around in a counterclockwise manner. I stepped away from it in shock as small parts of the blood in my finger began to float to the parts where it fell on the floor I drew my outlines on and started sparking those as well.
It started to smoke and hiss as if lightning could whisper and the orange began to take shape and the sauce made a doorway. The parts that were not on the board began to grow ice around them and started to make designs on the floor circling me and the board. Suddenly it grew in size and a large booming voice was heard through the portal as I felt panic of people start to set in.
A huge claw came out and scrapped the sides of my table trying to crawl out from the world it had been trapped in. Cold winds hit me as they cut my skin and threw around my clothes. As I saw the table was now melting from its touch.
A slimy green claw with mucus like a face-hugger egg from the movie Alien carved through the floor and pulled the rest of its body out slowly. A beast stood at 12 feet tall adjusting to our world as goop grew and shaped its body as people screamed, ran, and stood frozen in fear.
As it looked around it locked its spider-like eyes and swerled around coming out from the portal and twisting and turning around the body as it made its way to its head finding a place to rest. It then locked its eyes with me and its jaw twisted slowly from an ant-like maw to mine and slowly shrunk and it soon took the shape of me and knelt on the floor and spoke to me.
" master. "
I stood in shock as everyone seemed to calm down and watched to see what I would do.

"...umm "

Part two of the noodle demon.
Now that this creature knelt before me I realized that the room I was in was so terrible quietly you could hear everyone's ass get tight in anticipation of what would happen next.
" ...what...are you. "
I spoke carefully to the being that had taken the shape of myself. It still took my breath away and my throat was dry.
The beast was a deep green. The color mixed with shades of grey streaming from it. The longer I looked at it I could see it getting closer to what I looked like shaping itself.
From small flowing green tendrils to an arm they grew as they twisted and made bone then muscle and finally skin.
It locked eyes with me and it smiled deeply at me. As it formed the face finally.
" Your vassle. "
My eyes had not moved to the crowd at all but even though the lights hit the stage so hard it was enveloped in smoke.
The creature's eyes glowed as it answered brightly, not figuratively. This thing's eyes were glowing.
"To serve you, We are bound by blood magic. I am a reflection of your desires, Master, " it said, its voice now a whisper in my mind.
It began to stand up as my grey suit began to form on it and by the time it stood fully up it had copied what I looked like.
" let me explain everything. "
My body frozen in fear woke up with adrenaline as I blinked and a flash of green smoke covered my vision as he teleported right to me face to face.
Its body turned to smoke and went into the slits of my eyes. I felt visions follow me in my peripheral vision but surprisingly no pain followed power filled me and it felt like one hell of a drug.
My body and mind altered.
I was now in a very dark place with no walls or light except my reflection on the floor which waved like water.
I took a step back looking around and back to the reflection of me on the ground.
Soon the water rippled and my reflection fell through the floor like gravity was inverted. he flew upright and water fell off of him as he looked at me as he now stood straight ahead of me. He was just reflecting in the water but now eyed me down.
Collecting my nerves.
I begin to speak.
" what do you want..."
He was still in my form and stood perfectly straight. Now with water dripping from his...my hair.
Slight stubble with hair that hung down and my hazel eyes were not present within him but I was greeted with a swelling acidic green that doubled the size of my pupil.
" to serve you. "
He made no other movement than putting his hands behind his back like a soldier at ease.
I could not tell if it was lying or not.
" ...is that it? "
" I am the embodiment of your fear desires and brilliance. You have shaped me. Your desire for solitude birthed me. I will aid you in shaping the world how you see fit. Your reality becomes mine. "
There was a slight echo in the room as he spoke.
" wait...where are we "
I questioned haphazardly
" your mind. "
An awkward silence was in the air until I spoke
" so...am I just standing on the stage not making a sound? "
He gave me a concerned look.
" no...time has frozen outside for you. You may sleep here without having to in the real world so to others you look as if you never rest and you may think and plan what to do in battle here. For them, it will be about two seconds...Do...do you not have any knowledge of what I am? "
Suddenly I felt bad like I had encountered someone famous and I had no idea who they were. A slap in the face like a popular kid meeting someone who had never heard of them. Ego shattered.
" ok sorry no. I...don't go around reading about...monsters?"
I felt like was I saying the n-word of the demon realm not knowing if that word was offensive.
He folded his arms a little upset.
"Are you not a warrior? "
" well...no I...just watch TV and cook here and there- "
The demon cut me off
" weak. "
" excuse me? "
" look. I am an immortal being and after a while you get bored. So I'm sorry if I may be a little upset after being bonded with some nobody. "
I got quiet and I was a little annoyed that I was being roasted by some demon that I just met.
Its form wavers and eyes begin to open on its skin. Cheeks forhead etc.
"After being a god for so long it's fun to play with limitations. Makes things extremely exciting. "
" what do you mean by that? "
" look. You can only be so entertained by the same things. Life gets boring and now...you are going to help me with this. I get to have pure entertainment while you get every wish you could ever want. A mutual bond no? "
He then closed his eyes annoyed and the other eyes meshed back to his skin.
" though... the TV is not that interesting...life is what gets the blood pumping"
I felt the need to quickly change the topic
"Are there others like you? "
The room began to take shape very slowly as the water floor turned to wood and walls went around us.
" of course. You may meet them one day "
Confused and curious I pressed.
"Meet them? "
" yes. Summoning one of us is considered a threat to them. "
He spoke while opening and closing his newly found hand except backward.
" hm...no that don't look right "
I quickly responded
" Wait! How is doing that a threat! "
"Well, one doesn't just accidentally Summon one of us to suddenly get powers beyond human control. "
I thought back to how I summoned him by accident with some food I made.
" well...funny story but I summoned you using my breakfast..."
I had never regretted speaking so much as in that moment.
" What... "
Acid dripped from his words. Literally. His pupils split in half and his bottom jaw ripped open like an ant and curved giving sharpness to the bone.
"Please don't kill me. "
The room began to look like a cozy cabin with a fireplace and he slowly went back to normal.
" I would if I could. I've never felt so disrespected. We are bonded by your blood. If you die...I die. "
Suddenly I felt at ease by this new information.
Then a thought came to my mind
" ...God's can die? "
" you did hear me, right? "
The SAS from this guy was unneeded and I was starting to miss him being on his knees as weird as that sounds.
" so...all that power gone.... in an instant... "
" well...no actually God's powers don't just disappear they transfer to whoever killed them...wait...hold up."
He suddenly had an epiphany.
A smile grew on his face and he grabbed my shoulders
" you! You are going to help me kill the other gods! "
He sounded proud but I let him down.
" ha! No. "
" oh come on! Don't be like that. "
He did a pout.
"Look, man. I'm not killing gods for you. Just because you are bored. "
" hey...they might send people to kill you because you bonded with me. "
"What did I ever do to them? "
"They have a system to this stuff. They like to build and watch things play out. You're a problem. That can mess it up. So...they kill ya...to be honest, I don't know any other way to explain it, man. You know people normally just use my power to kill people and become a king and know this already. "
"This is outrageous. "
" bro. Look if you do this I will be able to get their powers and you will be able to do so much more than what I offer "
I tilted my head
" what can you do? Know what never mind. I will just talk to them and figure things out. "
He groaned and his form melted down sagging and it shot back up reforming
"Is there not anything that you want? Anything in the world? Gods don't put themselves in physical forms. They give people power and can make beings to hunt you. And if they care enough to come down themself. Ha, good luck."
I stopped and thought about it trying to weigh the options of pissing off higher beings.
Suddenly. I found something.
"Can you bring back the dead..."
He stopped confused.
" well...no "
" then I don't want anything "
" wait! "
He threw his arms out pleading
"I don't...but another God does..."
He crosses his arms smiling. He had left the question hanging letting me reconsider his offer.
I stopped and thought for a while before looking back up to him.
I let out a sigh and looked him in the eyes
" ok...you are going to help me get my father back. "
The demon smirked.

Hi everyone, I need your advice. I am a PhD student in Linguistics in Italy. This is my last year and I've already begun working as "post-Doc" since my scholarship ended in January.
I have two supervisors: the first one does not really know my thesis, since he is more interested in teaching and conference papers. That's why I could apply for a job as post-Doc (my cv is already very good).
The second supervisor knows my thesis by heart but he keeps suggesting me to improve it and every week he gives me corrections, even on the chapters he considered "perfect". I wrote only 110 pages, the third chapter is still a mess and the last one is just outlined. I am very very tired and I feel like I've lost control on my work. I have to hand in the dissertation in July and I feel like I won't be able to do it and that there is no point anymore in correcting it before the submission.
I WANT to hand in it in July because only after the submission I can get the "official" corrections from the revisors and then I can defense it.
This year I've been very sick and I've also teached and travelled a lot. I just want to submit the dissertation, I don't care about the note. After that I can work on it if I want to publish it.
But now all I can see is the darkness around me and I feel like I will drown because I don't see the light.
Do you have any advice? Do you think I will be able to submit it in July? And most important: how can I tell my supervisor that I am really TIRED and if he keeps changing the structure and adding correction I feel like I am drowning?
Sorry for my bad English: it's 2am and I've written all day in German 😅.

Hello! I wanted to make a series of small air dry clay pins, but I haven't been able to find that bendable aluminum google suggests to use to form my own cutter shape. Plus, I don't want to buy an entire roll of this stuff just for a single project. I also don't want to spend a lot of money on making a mold. I'm just wondering if anyone has any suggestions, or if I should just make a paper template, trace it, and cut them out by hand?