International general accepted consensus criteria is done by the American Initiative in Mast Cell Diseases (AIM) and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology (ECMM) consensus group:
Global Classification of Mast Cell Activation Disorders: An ICD-10-CM–Adjusted Proposal of the ECNM-AIM Consortium (2022)00493-7/fulltext)
MCAS studies:
Using the Right Criteria for MCAS (2024)
AAAAI Mast Cell Disorders Committee Work Group Report: Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) diagnosis and management (2022)31116-9/fulltext)
Updated Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Mast Cell Disorders: A Consensus Proposal (2021)
Proposed Diagnostic Algorithm for Patients with Suspected Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (2019)30056-X/fulltext)
Mast Cell Activation Disorders (2010)
Critical reviews:
Dilemma of Mast Cell Activation Syndrome: Overdiagnosed or Underdiagnosed? (2024)00065-5/fulltext)
Mast Cell Diseases in Practice and Research: Issues and Perspectives Raised by Patients and Their Recommendations to the Scientific Community and Beyond (2022)00640-7/fulltext)
Selecting the Right Criteria and Proper Classification to Diagnose Mast Cell Activation Syndromes: A Critical Review (2021)00676-0/fulltext)
COVID-19 infection in patients with mast cell disorders including mastocytosis does not impact mast cell activation symptoms (2021)00203-8/fulltext)
Mast Cell Activation Syndrome – What it Is and Isn’t (2020)
Doctor, I Think I Am Suffering from MCAS: Differential Diagnosis and Separating Facts from Fiction (2019)30819-5/fulltext)
Mediator studies:
Detecting Changes in Mast Cell Numbers Versus Activation in Human Disease: A Roadblock for Current Biomarkers? (2024) 00271-X/fulltext)
Reversible Elevation of Tryptase Over the Individual's Baseline: Why is It the Best Biomarker for Severe Systemic Mast Cell Activation and MCAS? (2024)
How good are mast cell mediators? (2021) 00515-9/abstract) (Login free)
Potentially related:
Mast Cell Disorders Are Associated with Decreased Cerebral Blood Flow And Small Fiber Neuropathy (2021)

Hi everyone, I've a question I wanted to get your thoughts on and this subreddit felt like the most appropriate.
So Phil Wadler has this humourous, yet interesting quote that I've came across a few times in his writings and talks.

Like buses: you wait two thousand years for a definition of “effectively calculable”, and then three come along at once. The three were lambda calculus, published 1936 by Alonzo Church, recursive functions, proposed by Godel at lectures in Princeton in 1934 and published 1936 by Stephen Kleene, and Turing machines, published 1937 by Alan Turing.

- Phil Wadler, "Propositions as Types".
From what I understand, Moses Schönfinkel in his 1924 paper "On the Building Blocks of Mathematical Logic" described a formalism for universal computation by introducing (what's now known as) the S and K combinators.
Intuition tells me that Wadler is probably at least somewhat familiar with his work, but I don't want to make too much of an assumption about what he does or doesn't know.
My questions can probably be distilled to something like: do you think it's reasonable Schönfinkel is excluded from the quote?. Should he be included with the likes of Turing, Church and Godel for his early work on logic? And if you're feeling speculatory, why do you think Wadler didn't include him in the quote?

Today illustrated that the Democrats have become America’s cheerleaders, emphasizing how investment in the nation’s infrastructure has created jobs and rebuilt the country. This week, the Biden-Harris administration is touting its investments in rebuilding roads and bridges, making sure Americans have clean water, getting rid of pollution, expanding access to high-speed internet, and building a clean energy economy, contrasting that success with Trump’s eternal announcements of an “Infrastructure Week” that never came.
The White House today announced that it has awarded nearly $454 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including more than 56,000 projects across more than 4,500 communities across the nation. Those include fixing more than 165,000 miles of roads and more than 9,400 bridges and improving more than 450 ports and 300 airport terminals. It has funded more than 1,400 drinking water and wastewater projects and projects to replace up to 1.7 million toxic lead pipes, as well as more than 8,000 low- and zero-emission buses. It has funded 95 previously unfunded Superfund projects to clean up contaminated sites. It has improved the electrical grid and funded 12,000 miles of high-speed internet infrastructure, and exposed internet junk fees.
The White House explained that this investment is making it cheaper to install clean energy technology and lowering families’ monthly energy bills, and highlighted today the available rebates to enable people to take advantage of the new technologies.
On Wednesday, May 8, a report from the Semiconductor Industry Association and the Boston Consulting Group explored the “breathtaking speed,” as the president of the semiconductor organization put it, at which the industry is growing. In the Financial Times on May 9, John Thornhill reported that the CHIPS and Science Act, which provided a $39 billion investment in the semiconductor industry, has “primed a torrent of private sector investment.” With the influx of both federal money and an additional $447 billion of private investment in 83 projects in 25 states, the report forecasts that the U.S. will increase its share of global manufacturing capacity for leading-edge chips from today’s rate of 0% to 28% by 2032. Thornhill compared this investment to that spurred by Russia’s 1957 launch of the Sputnik satellite.
The Economist yesterday announced that the U.S. “is in the midst of an extraordinary startup boom,” and explored “[h]ow the country revived its “go-getting spirit.”
In contrast to the Democrats’ confidence in America, the Republicans are all-in on the idea that the country is an apocalyptic wasteland. At a rally in New Jersey Saturday, Trump announced: “On day one we will throw out Bidenomics and reinstate MAGAnomics.” He promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
But the gist of his speech was an angry, vitriolic picture of a failing nation full of “enemies” that are “more dangerous” than China and Russia and who are “going to destroy our country.” In his telling, the criminal case against him in Manhattan is “bullsh*t,” and President Biden has done more damage than the “ten worst presidents in the history of our country” combined: “[h]e’s a fool; he’s not a smart man…[h]e’s a bad guy…the worst president ever, of any country. The whole world is laughing at him.”
Trump lied that other countries are “emptying out their mental institutions into the United States, our beautiful country. And now the prison populations all over the world are down. They don’t want to report that the mental-institution population is down because they’re taking people from insane asylums and from mental institutions.” Then he riffed into “the late great Hannibal Lecter,” the fictional murderer and cannibal in the film The Silence of the Lambs, apparently to suggest that similar individuals are migrating to the U.S.
House Republicans this week are working to pass a nonbinding resolution to condemn Biden’s immigration policies, although it was Republicans, under orders from Trump, who killed a strong bipartisan immigration bill earlier this year.
The only way to turn back this apocalypse, Trump and his supporters insist, is to put Trump and his team back into the White House. From there, Republicans will return those they consider “real” Americans to power.
The last few days have added new information about what that means. On Thursday, May 9, Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) act. Britt—who is best known for her disastrous response to Biden’s State of the Union speech from her kitchen—said the measure would provide a federal database of resources for pregnant women and women parenting young children, but that information excludes anything that touches on abortion.
The measure is clear that it enlists the government in opposition to abortion, but more than that, it establishes that the government will create a database of the names and contact information of pregnant women, which the government can then use “to follow up with users on additional resources that would be helpful for the users to review.”
A government database of pregnant women would give the federal government unprecedented control over individuals, and it is especially chilling after the story Caroline Kitchener broke in the Washington Post on May 3, that a Texas man, Collin Davis, filed a petition to stop his ex-partner from traveling to Colorado, where abortion is legal, to obtain an abortion. Should she do so, his lawyer wrote, he would “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.” Now Davis wants to be able to depose his former partner along with others he says are “complicit” in the abortion.
Antiabortion activists are also seeking to make mifepristone and misoprostol, drugs used in many abortions, hard to obtain. In Louisiana, state lawmakers are considering classifying the drugs as “controlled dangerous substances,” which would make possessing them carry penalties of up to ten years in prison and fines of up to $75,000.
More than 240 Louisiana doctors wrote to lawmakers saying that the drugs have none of the addictive characteristics associated with dangerous controlled substances and warning that the drugs are crucial for inducing routine labor and preventing catastrophic hemorrhage after delivery, in addition to their use in abortions. “Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women,” the doctors wrote.
Louisiana lawmakers also rejected a bill that would have allowed anyone under age 17, the age of consent in Louisiana, to have an abortion if they became pregnant after rape or incest. Passionate testimony from those who suffered such attacks or who treated pregnant girls as young as 8 failed to convince the Republican lawmakers to support the measure. “That baby [in the womb] is innocent.… We have to hang on to that,” said Republican state representative Dodie Horton.
Today, at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization promoting Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander participation and representation at all levels of the political process, Vice President Kamala Harris encouraged young people to innovate and to move into spaces from which they have been traditionally excluded.
“So here’s the thing about breaking barriers,” she said. “Breaking barriers does not mean you start on one side of the barrier and you end up on the other side. There’s breaking involved. And when you break things you get cut. And you may bleed. And it is worth it every time…. We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open. Sometimes they won’t. And then you need to kick that f*cking door down.”
Harris’s advice reflects the history that happened on this date in 1862, when the enslaved mariners on board the shallow-draft C.S.S. Planter gathered up their families, fired up the ship’s boilers, and sailed out of the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor. The three white officers of the ship had gone ashore, leaving enslaved 23-year-old pilot Robert Smalls to take control. Smalls knew how to steer the ship and give the proper signals to the Confederates at Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and three other checkpoints.
Smalls piloted the Planter, the sixteen formerly enslaved people on it, and a head full of intelligence about the Confederate fortifications at Charleston to the U.S. Navy. In Confederate hands, the Planter had surveyed waterways and laid mines; now that information was in U.S. hands. Smalls went on to pilot naval vessels during the war, and in 1864 he bought the house formerly owned by the man who had enslaved him.
A natural leader, Smalls went on to become a businessman, politician, and strong advocate for education. After serving in the 1868 South Carolina Constitutional Convention that made school attendance compulsory and provided for universal male suffrage, he went on to serve in the South Carolina legislature from 1868 to 1874, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served until 1887. When President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing the nation’s first national monument concerning Reconstruction, he cited the life of Robert Smalls.
—
Notes:
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/05/12/trump-brings-2024-campaign-to-the-jersey-shore/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a60774814/trump-rally-new-jersey-weird-speech/
https://www.britt.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MOMS-Act_FINAL-Britt_Rubio_Cramer1.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/katie-britt-proposes-federal-database-to-collect-data-on-pregnant-people
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/05/03/texas-abortion-investigations/
https://lailluminator.com/2024/05/08/rape-incest/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/13/abortion-pills-louisiana-controlled-substance/
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/12/america-is-in-the-midst-of-an-extraordinary-startup-boom
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-kicks-off-infrastructure-week-by-highlighting-historic-results-spurred-by-president-bidens-investing-in-america-agenda/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-president-bidens-investing-in-america-agenda-is-helping-american-families-across-the-country-save-money/
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/icymi-the-great-american-innovation-engine-firing-again
https://www.ft.com/content/0d39e8f0-38ba-40aa-8ec8-d04e82afb690
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/politics/chips-grants-fuel-industry-growth.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/11/trump-rally-new-jersey-trial-fascists-00157482
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamations-establishment-reconstruction-era-national
https://www.nps.gov/people/robert-smalls.htm
Twitter (X):
cspan/status/1790048826440503495
Fritschnestatus/1790051154887340473
rosiewestwood/status/1788291766866567439
CecileRichards/status/1789020452855140723
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-13-2024

The American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War jointly released a report，China's Roadmap to Peaceful Reunification.
"From Coercion to Surrender, How China Can Conquer Others Without Fighting."

Mid 2024
After Lai Qingde took office, the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council severely condemned him.
Several People's Liberation Army ships passed through Taiwan's contiguous zone in an unannounced exercise.
The Rocket Force regularly conducts missile tests over and around Taiwan.
Planes of the Chinese Air Force enter the air defense identification zone every day and begin to frequently approach the Taiwan contiguous zone.
The first article on the unofficial "peace platform" was published by a Chinese scholar, trying to build on the Fujian-Taiwan economic integration plan.
End of 2024
Xi Jinping said in a speech that "the time has come to solve the Taiwan issue."
High-profile Chinese civilian and People's Liberation Army scholars have commented proposing an unofficial cross-strait "peace framework."
China has stepped up its global information operations and accused the United States of trying to provoke a military conflict over Taiwan.
Early 2025
The National People's Congress revised the 2005 Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China to establish strict but unclear penalties for individuals who engage in separatist behavior.
The People's Liberation Army has begun higher-intensity drills that coincide with regular closures of air and sea areas around Taiwan.
The Coast Guard, with the support of the Navy, began to conduct ship inspections of cargo ships heading to Taiwan
Mid 2025
Chinese customs announced a ban on specific products imported from Taiwan.
The ministries of foreign affairs and commerce met with neighboring governments in Asia to reassure them of the escalating threat across the region and to re-emphasize trade and investment ties.
End of 2025
The State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission directed key Chinese state-owned enterprises to stockpile essential goods in anticipation of potential U.S.-led containment efforts.
China has threatened to sanction U.S. companies in Taiwan that may have ties to the defense industry.
Early 2026
China has successfully normalized shipping inspections and stepped up PLA activity in the contiguous zone, with PLAAF bombers now regularly flying around Taiwan.
The People's Liberation Army regularly conducts missile flights over Taiwan's territory, including ballistic missiles that passed through Taiwan's airspace for the first time (in fact, they have already passed through it).
The ministries of foreign affairs and commerce announced trade negotiations with the United States.
Mid 2026
China imposed previously threatened sanctions on U.S. companies selling products with potential defense uses in Taiwan.
Taiwanese authorities have reported a significant increase in the frequency of DDoS and ransomware attacks on their networks.
Chinese customs have imposed broader restrictions on multinational companies doing business in Taiwan.
Taiwan's anti-China hawks and some other politicians have received death threats from Taiwanese organized criminals.
End of 2026
For the first time, Chinese elites have directly commented on the proposed unofficial "peace framework". Some prominent Taiwanese commentators have also begun to raise objections.
The Rocket Force conducts missile firing exercises in waters outside the second island chain and conducts follow-up exercises regularly.
China announced a long-term "rotational deployment" of People's Liberation Army personnel to the Solomon Islands.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the United Front Work Department led a regional propaganda campaign condemning "Japan's militarization of the Ryukyu Islands".
North Korea claims it has successfully developed technology to miniaturize nuclear warheads that can equip its longest-range missiles. Previously, seismic readings suggested it was an underground nuclear test (old news).
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued vague threats to countries around the world, warning governments to avoid alliances with Taiwan and the United States.
Early 2027
The People's Liberation Army has conducted an even more brazen air and sea blockade while targeting radar on some Taiwanese military platforms.
Coast guards sunk and occasionally boarded ships that resisted inspections.
Taiwanese authorities reported a cyber attack on an LNG terminal, and the Chinese government pressured LNG producers to cancel contracts with Taiwanese companies.
Taiwanese companies face growing regulatory hurdles and unannounced restrictions in mainland China, hampering their business.
The Ministry of Commerce announced the suspension of ECFA.
North Korea launched multiple sets of long-range missiles over Japan.
Groups affiliated with the United Front Work Department and the Ministry of National Security have used China's claims that the Ryukyu Islands are militarized to encourage local Japanese residents to protest against Japanese and U.S. troops stationed there.
The Rocket Force now joins the Navy and Air Force in coordinated joint long-range missile exercises to strike simulated targets beyond the second island chain.
Bomb threats disrupt Taipei's MRT system.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a travel warning for Japan following the anti-China violence at the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo.
The United States and China announced the signing of a major trade deal.
Taiwanese authorities reported that a chemical factory in Tainan was damaged by unknown saboteurs.
Mid 2027
Large-scale ransomware attacks have been reported across major economic sectors in Taiwan.
The People's Liberation Army Air Force forced a Taiwanese cargo plane to land in China and detained the crew.
China and its allies have vetoed a U.N. resolution condemning pressure on Taiwan.
The People's Liberation Army's electronic warfare operations often interfere with high-level Taiwan-U.S. communications.
Rumors circulated on Taiwanese social media about Taiwanese officials formulating a wartime escape plan.
Chinese-influenced Taiwanese media spread rumors that Beijing would introduce a new model of unification.
China-influenced Taiwanese media amplified a Taiwanese business leader and political commentator's proposals on how to prevent further escalation.
Intrusions by Chinese air and maritime military platforms regularly reach Taiwan's 12-nautical-mile border, while Rocket Force missiles frequently intrude into Taiwan's airspace during tests and exercises.
A joint exercise between the Chinese navy and a regional partner entered the Taiwan contiguous zone.
Swarms of drones from China frequently appear over Kinmen and Matsu.
The People's Liberation Army and Coast Guard began a close blockade of Taiping Island in the Nansha Islands and authorized the use of lethal force to implement the blockade.
End of 2027
Several North Korean stray bullets hit a South Korean navy patrol ship near the Northern Limit Line near Seoul.
China sanctions senior Japanese officials who meet directly with Taiwanese officials.
Chinese media across Asia spread rumors that Japan's prime minister had launched a program to develop nuclear weapons.
The United Front Work Department and the Ministry of National Security secretly use violence to attack Taiwanese politicians and others who use proxy organizations.
The People's Liberation Army coordinated a missile attack on Pengjia Island, killing and injuring dozens of Taiwan Coast Patrol officers.
China’s cyberattacks and sabotage on Taiwan have targeted critical infrastructure including water, electricity, sewer and food distribution networks.
Chinese affiliates in Taiwan have spread rumors that Taiwan's president is considering developing nuclear weapons.
The United States' refusal to respond forcefully to China's attack on Peng Jiayu has seriously damaged U.S.-Taiwan relations, while China has stepped up information operations targeting the American public.
A cyberattack led by the Strategic Support Force (which no longer exists) caused Taiwan’s early warning system to broadcast false missile warnings to the Taiwanese public.
China-owned Taiwanese media openly supports a "peace framework" with China.

Countermeasures proposed by think tanks against this roadmap:

1. The US does not establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but treats Taiwan as a sovereign country and safeguards all Taiwan's sovereignty.
   
2. The U.S. military wears civilian clothes, enters Taiwan as tourists, and then joins the Taiwan military to perform tasks.
   
3. The U.S. military conducts regular sea and air patrols in the Taiwan Strait and conducts joint exercises with the Taiwan military to prevent Taiwan from being blocked.
   
4. Taiwan has strengthened its network security and stockpiled disaster relief and survival supplies and equipment to prevent hacker attacks, water and power outages, network interruptions, and air traffic (road) blockades.
   
5. Taiwan has established its own Merchant Fleet to prevent foreign merchant ships from going to Taiwan for fear of mainland sanctions.
   
6. The US and Taiwan are strengthening cognitive operations globally and on the island to make the world support Taiwan independence and not dare to abandon Taiwan, and to make the island dare not surrender.
   

Read the full report.

abandon, ability, able, about, above, absence, absolute, absolutely, abstract, abundance, academy, accent, accept, access, accident, accompany, accomplish, according, account, accurate, achieve, achievement, acid, acknowledge, acquire, across, action, active, activity, actor, actual, actually, adapt, addition, additional, address, adequate, adjust, administration, admire, admission, admit, adolescent, adopt, adult, advance, advantage, adventure, advertise, advice, advise, adviser, advocate, affair, affect, afford, afraid, after, afternoon, again, against, age, agency, agenda, agent, aggressive, ago, agree, agreement, agriculture, ahead, aid, aim, air, aircraft, airline, airport, alarm, album, alcohol, alive, all, alliance, allow, ally, almost, alone, along, already, also, alter, alternative, although, always, amateur, amazing, ambition, ambulance, among, amount, analysis, analyst, analyze, ancient, and, anger, angle, angry, animal, anniversary, announce, annual, another, answer, anticipate, anxiety, any, anybody, anymore, anyone, anything, anyway, anywhere, apart, apartment, apologize, apparent, apparently, appeal, appear, appearance, apple, application, apply, appoint, appointment, appreciate, approach, appropriate, approval, approve, approximately, architect, area, argue, argument, arise, arm, armed, army, around, arrange, arrangement, arrest, arrival, arrive, art, article, artist, artistic, as, ashamed, aside, ask, asleep, aspect, assault, assert, assess, assessment, asset, assign, assignment, assist, assistance, assistant, associate, association, assume, assumption, assure, at, athlete, athletic, atmosphere, attach, attack, attempt, attend, attention, attitude, attorney, attract, attraction, attractive, attribute, audience, author, authority, auto, available, average, avoid, award, aware, awareness, away, awful, baby, back, background, bad, badly, bag, balance, ball, ban, band, bank, bar, barely, barrel, barrier, base, baseball, basic, basically, basis, basket, basketball, bath, bathroom, battery, battle, be, beach, bear, beat, beautiful, beauty, because, become, bed, bedroom, bee, beef, beer, before, begin, beginning, behavior, behind, being, belief, believe, bell, belong, below, belt, bench, bend, beneath, benefit, beside, besides, best, bet, better, between, beyond, bicycle, big, bike, bill, billion, bind, biological, bird, birth, birthday, bit, bite, black, blade, blame, blanket, blind, block, blood, blow, blue, board, boat, body, bomb, bombing, bond, bone, book, boom, boot, border, boring, born, borrow, boss, both, bother, bottle, bottom, boundary, bowl, box, boy, boyfriend, brain, branch, brand, brave, bread, break, breakfast, breast, breath, breathe, brick, bridge, brief, briefly, bright, brilliant, bring, broad, broken, brother, brown, brush, buck, budget, build, building, bullet, bunch, burden, burn, bury, bus, business, busy, but, butter, button, buy, buyer, by, cabin, cabinet, cable, cake, calculate, call, camera, camp, campaign, campus, can, Canadian, cancer, candidate, cap, capability, capable, capacity, capital, captain, capture, car, carbon, card, care, career, careful, carefully, carrier, carry, case, cash, cast, cat, catch, category, Catholic, cause, ceiling, celebrate, celebration, celebrity, cell, center, central, century, CEO, ceremony, certain, certainly, chain, chair, chairman, challenge, chamber, champion, championship, chance, change, changing, channel, chapter, character, characteristic, characterize, charge, charity, chart, chase, cheap, check, cheek, cheese, chef, chemical, chest, chicken, chief, child, childhood, Chinese, chip, chocolate, choice, cholesterol, choose, Christian, Christmas, church, cigarette, circle, circumstance, cite, citizen, city, civil, civilian, claim, class, classic, classroom, clean, clear, clearly, client, climate, climb, clinic, clinical, clock, close, closely, closer, clothes, clothing, cloud, club, clue, cluster, coach, coal, coalition, coast, coat, code, coffee, cognitive, cold, collapse, colleague, collect, collection, collective, college, colonial, color, column, combination, combine, come, comedy, comfort, comfortable, command, commander, comment, commercial, commission, commit, commitment, committee, common, communicate, communication, community, company, compare, comparison, compete, competition, competitive, competitor, complain, complaint, complete, completely, complex, complexity, compliance, complicate, complicated, component, compose, composition, comprehensive, computer, concentrate, concentration, concept, concern, concerned, concert, conclude, conclusion, concrete, condition, conduct, conference, confidence, confident, confirm, conflict, confront, confusion, Congress, congressional, connect, connection, consciousness, consensus, consequence, conservative, consider, considerable, consideration, consist, consistent, constant, constantly, constitute, constitutional, construct, construction, consultant, consume, consumer, consumption, contact, contain, container, contemporary, content, contest, context, continue, continued, contract, contrast, contribute, contribution, control, controversial, controversy, convention, conventional, conversation, convert, conviction, convince, cook, cookie, cooking, cool, cooperation, cop, cope, copy, core, corn, corner, corporate, corporation, correct, correspondent, cost, cotton, couch, could, council, count, counter, country, county, couple, courage, course, court, cousin, cover, coverage, cow, crack, craft, crash, crazy, cream, create, creation, creative, creature, credit, crew, crime, criminal, crisis, criteria, critic, critical, criticism, criticize, crop, cross, crowd, crucial, cry, cultural, culture, cup, curious, current, currently, curriculum, custom, customer, cut, cycle, dad, daily, damage, dance, danger, dangerous, dare, dark, darkness, data, database, date, daughter, day, dead, deal, dealer, dear, death, debate, debt, decade, decide, decision, deck, declare, decline, decrease, deep, deeply, deer, defeat, defend, defendant, defense, defensive, deficit, define, definitely, definition, degree, delay, deliver, delivery, demand, democracy, Democratic, Democrat, demonstrate, demonstration, deny, department, depend, dependent, depending, depict, depression, depth, deputy, derive, describe, description, desert, deserve, design, designer, desire, desk, desperate, despite, destroy, destruction, detail, detailed, detect, detection, detective, determine, develop, developing, development, device, devil, dialogue, diet, differ, difference, different, differently, difficult, difficulty, dig, digital, dimension, dining, dinner, direct, direction, directly, director, dirt, disability, disagree, disappear, disaster, discipline, disclose, discover, discovery, discrimination, discuss, discussion, disease, dish, dismiss, disorder, display, dispute, distance, distinct, distinction, distinguish, distribute, distribution, district, diverse, diversity, divide, division, divorce, DNA, do, doctor, document, dog, domestic, dominant, dominate, door, double, doubt, down, downtown, dozen, draft, drag, drama, dramatic, dramatically, draw, drawer, drawing, dream, dress, drink, drive, driver, drop, drug, dry, due, during, dust, duty, dwell, dying, dynamic, each, eager, ear, earlier, early, earn, earnings, earth, earthquake, ease, easily, east, eastern, easy, eat, economic, economy, edge, edit, edition, editor, educate, education, educational, educator, effect, effective, effectively, efficiency, efficient, effort, egg, eight, either, elderly, elect, election, electric, electrical, electricity, electronic, element, elementary, eliminate, elite, else, elsewhere, e-mail, embrace, emerge, emergency, emission, emotion, emotional, emphasis, emphasize, employ, employee, employer, employment, empty, enable, encounter, encourage, end, enemy, energy, enforcement, engage, engine, engineer, engineering, English, enhance, enjoy, enormous, enough, ensure, enter, enterprise, entertain, entertainment, entire, entirely, entrance, entry, environment, environmental, episode, equal, equally, equipment, equivalent, era, error, escape, especially, essay, essential, essentially, establish, establishment, estate, estimate, etc, ethics, ethnic, European, evaluate, evaluation, evening, event, eventually, ever, every, everybody, everyday, everyone, everything, everywhere, evidence, evolution, evolve, exact, exactly, exam, examination, examine, example, exceed, excellent, except, exception, exchange, exciting, executive, exercise, exhibit, exhibition, exist, existence, existing, expand, expansion, expect, expectation, expense, expensive, experience, experiment, expert, explain, explanation, explode, explore, explosion, expose, exposure, express, expression, extend, extension, extensive, extent, external, extra, extraordinary, extreme, extremely, eye, fabric, face, facility, fact, factor, factory, faculty, fade, fail, failure, fair, fairly, faith, fall, false, familiar, family, famous, fan, fantasy, far, farm, farmer, fashion, fast, fat, fate, father, fault, favor, favorite, fear, feature, federal, fee, feed, feel, feeling, fellow, female, fence, festival, few, fewer, fiber, fiction, field, fifteen, fifth, fifty, fight, fighter, fighting, figure, file, fill, film, final, finally, finance, financial, find, finding, fine, finger, finish, fire, firm, first, fish, fishing, fit, fitness, five, fix, flag, flame, flat, flavor, flee, flesh, flight, float, floor, flow, flower, fly, focus, folk, follow, following, food, foot, football, for, force, foreign, forest, forever, forget, form, formal, formation, former, formula, forth, fortune, forward, found, foundation, founder, four, fourth, frame, framework, free, freedom, freeze, French, frequency, frequent, frequently, fresh, friend, friendly, friendship, from, front, fruit, frustration, fuel, fulfill, full, fully, fun, function, fund, fundamental, funding, funeral, funny, furniture, furthermore, future, gain, galaxy, gallery, game, gang, gap, garage, garden, garlic, gas, gate, gather, gay, gaze, gear, gender, gene, general, generally, generate, generation, genetic, gentleman, gently, German, gesture, get, ghost, giant, gift, gifted, girl, girlfriend, give, given, glad, glance, glass, global, glove, go, goal, God, gold, golden, golf, good, govern, government, governor, grab, grace, grade, gradually, graduate, grain, grand, grandmother, grant, grass, grave, gray, great, green, grocery, ground, group, grow, growing, growth, guarantee, guard, guess, guest, guide, guideline, guilty, gun, guy, habit, habitat, hair, half, hall, hand, handful, handle, hang, happen, happy, harbor, hard, hardly, hat, hate, have, he, head, headline, headquarters, health, healthy, hear, hearing, heart, heat, heaven, heavily, heavy, heel, height, helicopter, hell, hello, help, helpful, hence, her, herb, here, heritage, hero, herself, hey, hi, hide, high, highlight, highly, highway, hill, him, himself, hip, hire, his, historic, historical, history, hit, hold, hole, holiday, holy, home, homeless, honest, honey, honor, hope, horizon, horror, horse, hospital, host, hot, hotel, hour, house, household, housing, how, however, huge, human, humor, hundred, hungry, hunter, hunting, hurt, husband, hypothesis, ice, idea, ideal, identification, identify, identity, ignore, ill, illegal, illness, illustrate, image, imagination, imagine, immediate, immediately, immigrant, immigration, impact, implement, implication, imply, importance, important, impose, impossible, impress, impression, impressive, improve, improvement, incentive, incident, include, including, income, incorporate, increase, increased, increasingly, incredible, indeed, independence, independent, index, indicate, indication, individual, industrial, industry, infant, infection, inflation, influence, inform, information, ingredient, initial, initially, initiative, injury, inner, innocent, inquiry, inside, insight, insist, inspire, install, instance, instead, institute, institution, institutional, instruction, instructor, instrument, insurance, intellectual, intelligence, intend, intense, intensity, intention, interaction, interest, interested, interesting, internal, international, Internet, interpret, interpretation, intervention, interview, introduce, introduction, invasion, invest, investigation, investigator, investment, investor, invite, involve, involved, involvement, Iraqi, Irish, iron, Islamic, island, Israeli, issue, it, Italian, item, its, itself, jacket, jail, Japanese, jet, Jew, Jewish, job, join, joint, joke, journal, journalist, journey, joy, judge, judgment, juice, jump, junior, jury, just, justice, justify, keep, key, kick, kid, kill, killer, killing, kind, king, kiss, kitchen, knee, knife, knock, know, knowledge, lab, label, labor, laboratory, lack, lady, lake, land, landscape, language, lap, large, largely, last, late, later, Latin, latter, laugh, launch, law, lawsuit, lawyer, lay, layer, lead, leader, leadership, leading, leaf, league, lean, learn, learning, least, leather, leave, left, leg, legacy, legal, legend, legislation, legislative, legislator, legitimate, lemon, length, less, lesson, let, letter, level, liberal, library, license, lie, life, lifestyle, lifetime, lift, light, like, likely, limit, limitation, limited, line, link, lip, list, listen, literary, literature, little, live, living, load, loan, local, locate, location, lock, long, long-term, look, loose, lose, loss, lost, lot, lots, loud, love, lovely, lover, low, lower, luck, lucky, lunch, luxury, machine, mad, magazine, mail, main, mainly, maintain, maintenance, major, majority, make, maker, makeup, male, mall, man, manage, management, manager, manner, manufacturer, manufacturing, many, map, margin, mark, market, marketing, marriage, married, marry, mask, mass, massive, master, match, material, math, matter, may, maybe, mayor, me, meal, mean, meaning, meanwhile, measure, measurement, meat, mechanism, media, medical, medication, medicine, medium, meet, meeting, member, membership, memory, mental, mention, menu, mere, merely, mess, message, metal, meter, method, Mexican, middle, might, military, milk, million, mind, mine, minister, minor, minority, minute, miracle, mirror, miss, missile, mission, mistake, mix, mixture, mm-hmm, mode, model, moderate, modern, modest, mom, moment, money, monitor, month, mood, moon, moral, more, moreover, morning, mortgage, most, mostly, mother, motion, motivation, motor, mountain, mouse, mouth, move, movement, movie, Mr, Mrs, Ms, much, multiple, murder, muscle, museum, music, musical, musician, Muslim, must, mutual, my, myself, mystery, myth, naked, name, narrative, narrow, nation, national, native, natural, naturally, nature, near, nearby, nearly, necessarily, necessary, neck, need, negative, negotiate, negotiation, neighbor, neighborhood, neither, nerve, nervous, net, network, never, nevertheless, new, newly, news, newspaper, next, nice, night, nine, no, nobody, nod, noise, nomination, nominee, none, nonetheless, nor, normal, normally, north, northern, nose, not, note, nothing, notice, notion, novel, now, nowhere, nuclear, number, numerous, nurse, nut, object, objective, obligation, observation, observe, observer, obtain, obvious, obviously, occasion, occasionally, occupation, occupy, occur, ocean, odd, odds, of, off, offense, offensive, offer, office, officer, official, often, oh, oil, okay, old, Olympic, on, once, one, ongoing, onion, online, only, onto, open, opening, operate, operating, operation, operator, opinion, opponent, opportunity, oppose, opposed, opposite, opposition, option, or, orange, order, ordinary, organic, organization, organize, orientation, origin, original, originally, other, others, otherwise, ought, our, ours, ourselves, out, outcome, outside, oven, over, overall, overcome, overlook, owe, own, owner, pace, pack, package, page, pain, painful, paint, painter, painting, pair, pale, Palestinian, palm, pan, panel, panic, pant, paper, paragraph, parent, park, parking, part, participant, participate, participation, particle, particular, particularly, partly, partner, partnership, party, pass, passage, passenger, passion, past, patch, path, patient, pattern, pause, pay, payment, PC, peace, peak, peer, pen, penalty, people, pepper, per, perceive, percentage, perception, perfect, perfectly, perform, performance, perhaps, period, permanent, permission, permit, person, personal, personality, personally, personnel, perspective, persuade, pet, phase, phenomenon, philosophy, phone, photo, photographer, phrase, physical, physically, physician, piano, pick, picture, pie, piece, pile, pilot, pine, pink, pipe, pitch, place, plan, plane, planet, planning, plant, plastic, plate, platform, play, player, please, pleasure, plenty, plot, plus, PM, pocket, poem, poet, poetry, point, police, policy, political, politically, politician, politics, poll, pollution, pool, poor, pop, popular, population, porch, port, portion, portrait, portray, pose, position, positive, possess, possession, possibility, possible, possibly, post, pot, potato, potential, potentially, pound, pour, poverty, powder, power, powerful, practical, practice, prayer, preach, precisely, predict, prediction, prefer, preference, pregnancy, pregnant, preparation, prepare, prescription, presence, present, presentation, preserve, president, presidential, press, pressure, pretend, pretty, prevent, previous, previously, price, pride, priest, primarily, primary, prime, principal, principle, print, prior, priority, prison, prisoner, privacy, private, probably, problem, procedure, proceed, process, processing, processor, proclaim, produce, producer, product, production, profession, professional, professor, profile, profit, program, progress, progressive, project, prominent, promise, promote, prompt, proof, proper, properly, property, proportion, proposal, propose, prosecutor, prospect, protect, protection, protein, protest, proud, prove, provide, provider, province, provision, psychological, psychology, public, publication, publicity, publish, publisher, pull, punishment, purchase, pure, purpose, pursue, push, put, qualify, quality, quarter, quarterback, quarterly, queen, quest, question, quick, quickly, quiet, quietly, quit, quite, quote, race, racial, radiation, radical, radio, rail, rain, raise, range, rank, rapid, rapidly, rare, rarely, rate, rather, rating, ratio, raw, reach, react, reaction, reader, reading, ready, real, reality, realize, really, reason, reasonable, recall, receive, recent, recently, reception, recipe, recipient, recognition, recognize, recommend, recommendation, record, recording, recover, recovery, recruit, red, reduce, reduction, refer, reference, reflect, reflection, reform, refugee, refuse, regard, regarding, regardless, regime, region, regional, register, regular, regularly, regulate, regulation, regulator, reinforce, reject, relate, relation, relationship, relative, relatively, relax, release, relevant, relief, religion, religious, rely, remain, remaining, remarkable, remember, remind, remote, remove, repeat, repeatedly, replace, replacement, reply, report, reporter, represent, representation, representative, Republican, reputation, request, require, requirement, research, researcher, resemble, reservation, resident, residential, resign, resist, resistance, resolution, resolve, resort, resource, respect, respond, response, responsibility, responsible, rest, restaurant, restore, restriction, result, retain, retire, retirement, return, reveal, revenue, review, revolution, rhythm, rice, rich, rid, ride, rifle, right, ring, rise, risk, river, road, rock, role, roll, romantic, roof, room, root, rope, rose, rough, roughly, round, route, routine, row, rub, rubber, rude, ruin, rule, run, running, rural, rush, Russian, sacred, sad, safe, safety, sake, salad, salary, sale, sales, salt, same, sample, sanction, sand, satellite, satisfaction, satisfied, satisfy, sauce, save, saving, say, scale, scandal, scare, scatter, scenario, scene, schedule, scheme, scholar, scholarship, school, science, scientific, scientist, scope, score, scream, screen, script, sea, search, season, seat, second, secondary, secret, secretary, section, sector, secure, security, see, seed, seek, seem, segment, seize, select, selection, self, sell, Senate, senator, send, senior, sense, sensitive, sentence, separate, sequence, series, serious, seriously, servant, serve, service, session, set, setting, settle, settlement, seven, several, severe, sex, sexual, shade, shadow, shake, shall, shallow, shape, share, sharp, she, sheet, shelf, shell, shelter, shift, shine, ship, shirt, shock, shoe, shoot, shooting, shop, shopping, short, shortly, shot, should, shoulder, shout, show, shower, shrug, shut, shy, sibling, sick, side, sigh, sight, sign, signal, significant, significantly, silence, silent, silver, similar, similarly, simple, simply, sin, since, sing, singer, single, sink, sir, sister, sit, site, situation, six, size, ski, skill, skin, skirt, sky, slave, sleep, slice, slide, slight, slightly, slip, slow, slowly, small, smart, smell, smile, smoke, smooth, snap, snow, so, so-called, soccer, social, society, soft, software, soil, solar, soldier, sole, solid, solution, solve, some, somebody, somehow, someone, something, sometimes, somewhat, somewhere, son, song, soon, sophisticated, sorry, sort, soul, sound, soup, source, south, southern, Soviet, space, Spanish, speak, speaker, special, specialist, species, specific, specifically, specify, speech, speed, spend, spending, spin, spirit, spiritual, split, spoil, sponsor, sport, spot, spray, spread, spring, square, squeeze, stability, stable, staff, stage, stain, stair, stake, stand, standard, standing, star, stare, start, state, statement, station, statistical, status, stay, steady, steal, steel, steep, stem, step, stick, still, stimulate, stimulus, stir, stock, stomach, stone, stop, storage, store, storm, story, straight, strange, stranger, strategic, strategy, stream, street, strength, strengthen, stress, stretch, strike, string, strip, stroke, strong, strongly, structural, structure, struggle, student, studio, study, stuff, stupid, style, subject, submit, subsequent, substance, substantial, substitute, succeed, success, successful, successfully, such, sudden, suddenly, sue, suffer, sufficient, sugar, suggest, suggestion, suicide, suit, summer, summit, sun, super, supply, support, supporter, suppose, supposed, Supreme, sure, surely, surface, surgery, surprise, surprised, surprising, surprisingly, surround, survey, survival, survive, survivor, suspect, sustain, swear, sweep, sweet, swim, swing, switch, symbol, symptom, system, table, tactic, tail, take, tale, talent, talk, tall, tank, tap, tape, target, task, taste, tax, taxi, tea, teach, teacher, teaching, team, tear, technical, technique, technology, teen, teenager, telephone, telescope, television, tell, temperature, temporary, ten, tend, tendency, tennis, tension, tent, term, terms, terrible, territory, terror, terrorist, test, testimony, testing, text, than, thank, thanks, that, the, theater, their, them, theme, themselves, then, theory, therapy, there, therefore, these, they, thick, thin, thing, think, thinking, third, thirty, this, those, though, thought, thousand, threat, threaten, three, throat, through, throughout, throw, thus, ticket, tie, tight, time, tiny, tip, tire, tissue, title, to, tobacco, today, toe, together, toilet, token, tolerate, tomato, tomorrow, tone, tongue, tonight, too, tool, tooth, top, topic, toss, total, totally, touch, tough, tour, tourist, tournament, toward, towards, tower, town, toy, trace, track, trade, tradition, traditional, traffic, tragedy, trail, train, training, transfer, transform, transformation, transition, translate, translation, transmission, transmit, transport, transportation, travel, treat, treatment, treaty, tree, tremendous, trend, trial, tribe, trick, trip, troop, trouble, truck, true, truly, trust, truth, try, tube, tunnel, turn, TV, twelve, twenty, twice, twin, two, type, typical, typically, ugly, ultimate, ultimately, unable, uncle, undergo, understand, understanding, unfortunately, uniform, union, unique, unit, United, universal, universe, university, unknown, unless, unlike, until, unusual, up, upon, upper, urban, urge, us, use, used, useful, user, usual, usually, utility, utilize, vacation, valley, valuable, value, variable, variation, variety, various, vary, vast, vegetable, vehicle, venture, version, versus, very, vessel, veteran, via, victim, victory, video, view, viewer, village, violate, violation, violence, violent, virtually, virtue, virus, visibility, visible, vision, visit, visitor, visual, vital, voice, volume, voluntary, volunteer, vote, voter, voting, wage, wait, wake, walk, wall, wander, want, war, warm, warn, warning, wash, waste, watch, water, wave, way, we, weak, weakness, wealth, wealthy, weapon, wear, weather, web, website, wedding, week, weekend, weekly, weigh, weight, welcome, welfare, well, west, western, wet, what, whatever, wheel, when, whenever, where, whereas, whether, which, while, whisper, white, who, whole, whom, whose, why, wide, widely, widespread, wife, wild, wildlife, will, willing, win, wind, window, wine, wing, winner, winter, wipe, wire, wisdom, wise, wish, with, withdraw, within, without, witness, woman, wonder, wonderful, wood, wooden, word, work, worker, working, workout, workplace, works, workshop, world, worried, worry, worth, would, wound, wrap, write, writer, writing, wrong, yard, yeah, year, yell, yellow, yes, yesterday, yet, yield, you, young, your, yours, yourself, youth, zone.

State of the consumer Are U.S. consumers finally tightening the purse strings? That's the main question on the minds of investors as major retailers kick off their quarterly earnings reports this week, starting with Home Depot (HD). The home improvement chain's Q1 results came in below Street expectations, hurt by a delayed start to spring, continued softness in certain larger discretionary projects, and higher mortgage rates.
Dig deeper: Retailer earnings come at a time when consumer sentiment is weakening, amid expectations of stickier inflation for some time to come and a tempered outlook for income growth. Investing Group Leader Bret Jensen believes stagflation is an increasingly likely economic scenario. "Right now, I believe the average American consumer has a better handle on the U.S. economy than the average investor and a better take on the true level of inflation than governmental statistics."
Scott Feiler, consumer sector specialist at Goldman Sachs, said the consumer spending concerns have been driven by updates by bellwethers in the sector, and the notable slowdown seen in April - one of the worst months of the retail quarter. Companies like Wayfair (W) and Whirlpool (WHR) have already warned that consumers are cutting back spending on big-ticket items, while fast-food chains such as McDonald's (MCD) and Starbucks (SBUX) have observed pickier and more value-minded customers. "Consumer cracks are emerging," especially among lower incomes, warned Bank of America analyst Savita Subramanian.
Earnings watch: Walmart (WMT), which will report Q1 results on Thursday, is expected to report modest upside to the consensus U.S. comparable sales estimates, driven by bargain-hunting shoppers. Also keep an eye on other retailers scheduled to report results next week: Lowe's (LOW), Target (TGT), TJX (TJX), and Ross Stores (ROST).
Sustained weight loss Patients who are taking Novo Nordisk's (NVO) blockbuster obesity drug Wegovy have reportedly maintained an average of 10% weight loss four years after starting the treatment. "We see that once the majority of the weight loss is accrued, you don't go back and start to increase weight if you stay on the drug," said Martin Holst Lange, Novo's head of development. The data could help Novo in its efforts to convince insurers and governments to provide coverage for the treatment. The U.K.'s National Health Service provides only two years of Wegovy coverage, while Medicare does not cover the drug. A recent poll showed that many people believe Medicare should cover weight loss drugs. (2 comments)
Resisting takeover Anglo American (OTCQX:AAUKF) has unveiled a major shakeup of the company - which includes divesting its steelmaking coal and nickel businesses - as the British miner aims to stave off BHP's (BHP) takeover bid. Anglo American will demerge Anglo American Platinum (OTCPK:ANGPY), while its diamond business De Beers will either be divested or demerged "to improve strategic flexibility." The overhaul is aimed at sharpening Anglo American's focus on its mainstay assets - copper and premium iron ore. "These actions represent the most radical changes to Anglo American in decades," its CEO Duncan Wanblad said. The plan was announced just a day after the firm rejected BHP's (BHP) new £34B proposal.
Power grid boost The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved two new rules Monday that are expected to make it easier to expand the construction of big power lines and bring more renewable energy to U.S. homes and businesses. One rule will require companies that produce and transmit electricity to weigh factors such as supply and demand over at least 20 years; the other addresses the permitting of critical projects in areas that lack adequate transmission capacity. The rule requiring long-term planning is "the biggest single action by the federal government to advance transmission," according to Rob Gramlich, president of power consulting firm Grid Strategies. (46 comments)
Today's Markets
In Asia, Japan +0.5%. Hong Kong -0.2%. China -0.1%. India +0.5%. In Europe, at midday, London +0.1%. Paris -0.1%. Frankfurt -0.2%. Futures at 7:00, Dow flat. S&P -0.1%. Nasdaq -0.1%. Crude flat at $79.10. Gold +0.3% to $2,349.10. Bitcoin -1.5% to $61,690. Ten-year Treasury Yield unchanged at 4.48%.
Today's Economic Calendar
6:00 NFIB Small Business Optimism Index 8:30 Producer Price Index 9:10 Fed’s Cook Speech 10:00 Jerome Powell Speech 8:15 PM Fed's Schmid Speech
Companies reporting earnings today »
What else is happening...
WSB survey results: Derisking and diversifying is still the way to go.
Biden administration raises tariffs steeply on Chinese EVs, chips.
Uber (UBER), Lyft (LYFT) face landmark trial on rideshare drivers.
BYD (OTCPK:BYDDF) sends shockwaves across auto with Seagull.
Biden faces mounting calls to take on grocery price-fixing issue.
HubSpot (HUBS) rises on report of 'compelling' offer from Alphabet.
Wedbush: Apple (AAPL)-OpenAI pact appears to be done deal.
OpenAI unveils new flagship model GPT-4o, available for free to all.
OPEC risks losing market share if it does not start raising output.
ZIM (ZIM) surges as container shipping stocks' momentum continues.

Apologies for the millionth "what should I do with my career" post, but I would be very appreciative of some guidance.
After having a little experience under my belt from my Big4 private tax advisory job, and a lot of free time, I've been doing a lot of soul searching. And I've came to the conclusion that tax isn't going to be for me. I've been reflecting on what I've been enjoyed in the past as well as what i've been good at and bad at.
Uni Background:

• BSc Physics (Top UK uni , not oxbridge, 2.2 because of severe family issues)
• really enjoy working with numbers & high numeracy skills - stats, calculus, ect...
• Although not proficient enough for most finance jobs, I believe I have the foundations in programming/excel which I can build on, as well as willingness to learn other data tools.
• Good at and enjoyed labs - the process of creating a strategy to best use tools to convert qualitive/quantitative analysis into a report/presentation was always rewarding.
• Highlights were:
  • A consulting/RnD experience I had with a bioscience company, focused on increasing efficiency within their business through designing refrigeration and reheating process.
  • Consulting-based internship I had with an energy company. predicting and capitalising on changes in the wider market.

Upsides of job:

• I enjoy working in a team, and I find I can bond with and get along with people easily.
• I've enjoyed the advisory aspect more then the compliance aspect.
• Studying from CA with ICAS. Lots of free time to study/pursue extracurriculars (compared to other service lines, I get home by 5PM most days lol).
• I've found the restructuring engagements somewhat interesting and highlights were:
  • Sitting in on a initial meeting with the head of M&A for an emerging sports brand.
  • Doing initial research into local companies, to help client proposals.
• For the previous two I find it's the element of analysis, critical thinking and strategy (atleast more so then reading through tax manuals) that has kept me engaged.

Big Downside of job:

• The legislative aspect of tax, I find super boring. Although I've not done a whole lot yet (mostly admin), I can see in the future being burnt out by reading through tax manuals and the lack of numbers/analysis.

Loose ideas from whats around me:

• valuations - Audit seems monotonous, but the CF teams I've worked alongside seam to have some of the aspects i've listed. However it seems everyone wants this, and Idk if theres a valid reason/experience that sets myself apart.
• move to consulting arm within big4, dont know much about each sub service line.
• Quant masters - have the funding, but I think a 2.2 is a nail in the coffin for target unis.

Was anyone in a similar position that managed to figure out what they wanted? I would like to talk to my counsellor about this, but it feels too early and I would want some ideas in mind when talking to them.
Thanks for any advice.

In this post I want to break down how I think about and how I build custom B2B lead gen eco-systems that are designed to engage a cold prospect, educate and help them to then turn into $XX,XXX deals.
I'll share the metrics and best practices from my own experiences from working with around 20 b2b companies with varying deal sizes, starting from $5k marketing packages, to $90k/yr fintech solutions and $200k software dev & IT deals. If you don't agree with my approach, that's fine, there's multiple ways to skin a cat.
Fundamentals are mostly the same and we can split it in 3 main parts.

1. Traffic acquisition
2. Nurture & education mechanism
3. Conversion mechanism.

Where most businesses go wrong is that they try to sell their expensive service to a cold prospect.
That might look like cold emailing and cold "linkedining" (new term) prospects an offer or asking if they're interested in this and that, on the spot.
This is not a good approach for one simple reason - no one want's to be sold to. Not to say that this direct approach doesn't work, for some it works good enough to stay afloat, but it's not something you can use to drive real, inbound interest in your services. Selling to prospects that you get on a sales call from 1 email or DM is extremely hard since you have to do the heavy lifting to educate them on the call and then you also have to sell them.
My goal is to turn this dynamic on it's head. Yes, we want to reach out to cold prospects. Yes, we want to run ads. But not to sell immediately. Rather, we're inviting and getting those prospects into our ecosystem where if they go through your educational materials like reports, case studies, how-to's AND have a real pain, they will come to you to solve it.
Let's break it down.
Traffic acquisition.
There's 2 channels I use to acquire traffic. Sometimes I use both, sometimes one or the other. For the most part that depends on the TAM and what we're selling.
1 - Paid ads (LI and META) are great if you need volume and your deal size varies between $5k - $20k. If you get it right, it's a system that scales easily so you can control demand and growth fairly easily too. It's also very quick and easy to troubleshoot since you can change a variable and see the result in next 3 days.
The ultimate goal of paid ads is to get as many people in your funnel as possible. The only logical way to do it is using lead magnets. Industry specific reports with unique insights that only your ICP would care about, easy-to-code tools that only your ICP would find useful (calculators work great for me), guides and courses made to solve a very specific problem, you get the picture.
We're giving away this free value in exchange for their email address. I can already hear people yelling "But giving away stuff for free only attracts freebie seekers" That's because you don't have a mechanism in place to convert that opt-in into a deal. (I'll go into in the next sections)
To make a great lead magnet I follow this mantra:

1. Has to be industry and role specific
2. Has to solve 1 painful problem for the lead
3. No surface-level, bait-and-switch teasing BS. (using lead magnet as a sales page is a big no-no)

Lead magnet is your chance to build rapport, show your competence and build good will by actually helping your prospects before you ever speak with them. USE IT WISELY. I see many businesses only tease the solution. My advice - give away all your secrets. If you're vague, your leads will think that your approach is basic and you won't capture the interest.
For us, around 20% of lead magnet leads opt-in into the next step of the funnel where we ask much more details. Company name, website, name, phone, etc, etc.
Do this step right and you'll get leads from your ICP opting into your funnel in droves, for cheap.
One little hack I do whenever I launch lead magnet campaigns is create 5-10 lead magnet ideas, create the ads and the landing pages, but don't create the lead magnet itself. Then run ads to those 5-10 lead magnets and see what your cost per lead is AND see what quality leads you attract. My baseline KPI's are sub $15 CPL on the initial launch and 3 out of 10 leads be real, actual companies that fit the ICP.
If you hit that initially, you can reiterate on the ads and the LP and get your CPL way lower.
2 - Cold outreach (LI and email) is great if you're after high ticket or enterprise level deals.
Cold outreach is great for huge target markets and/or very high value accounts. You won't reach Elon Mush through ads, but you could through cold outreach.
Instead of blanket-spamming 10k leads that might or might not need our service we do this.

1. Score companies based on fit (we use AI for this on scale by giving it bad fit examples, medium fit examples and great fit examples while also describing why each is bad, medium or great. Then we ask to output a score from 1-10)
2. For companies that score 7 or higher, look at buying signals. Recent hires, open positions, growth or decline, recent funding, featured in news (why featured in news?) and, of course, technographics.
3. Companies that display positive signals AND are a fit based on scoring, we send a personalized message automatically.

90% of this happens automatically at this point, but don't get confused - it's not AI copy that gets sent out. We have a general template and framework that we base our messages upon and AI fills in the blanks. All that is based on what information we find on the companies and what state they're currently in.
"Hey Adam, saw that Houberz is looking for an engineer with deep understanding of X. I know first hand how hard it is to fill such roles.
I have a case study on how we did Y using X technology, thought you might be interested in giving it a quick read before you pull someone onboard."
This is the general gist of it. Combine it with reaching out to leads that are likely in-market and you'll average 15% reply rates. Blast 10k emails to random list and you'll get 0.5% - 1% reply rates.
That is how we get qualified traffic on the front end.
This is how we convert it into deals.
1.1 - Paid
Once you have people claiming your lead magnet, the magic happens on the thank you page. I've seen many people just have a generic thank you page that does not prompt the next action.
Wasted digital real estate.
Instead of leaving it blank, we either have a call booking page where we pitch a non-sales call that would help fix the lead a specific problem or a signup page for a live workshop.
2nd has higher opt-in rate, but has longer time-to-deal, 1st gives you 1-1 time with high value prospects, but is more expensive..
Ideally, run both. Best of both worlds.
On top of that, when someone opts in and claims your lead magnets, you can then email them on a regular basis as part of your newsletter which gives you another channel to nurture leads and throw offers their way.
2.1 - Cold outreach
As soon as you receive a positive response to your lead magnet offer, you send it over, find that person on LI and connect (so you have another channel and they see that you're a real human) then ask if they're struggling with a specific problem that your service can fix.
If they do, great, share more case studies, share how they could solve the problem themselves and then soft-pitch a meeting in which you propose to "continue the conversation"
For cold, each convo will be different so you will have to come up with helpful and relevant email responses on the fly.
Remember speed-to-lead. The faster you answer, the higher the chance of you pushing the lead to the next step of your funnel.
So do you need both of these acquisition channels? Do you also need to post on Linkedin and dance on Tiktok?
Depends on your business. Generally, the more eyes you have on you, the more deals you'll close. These two channels are foundation for myself and any business I consult, but to supplement that and build credibility, we're also heavily investing in LI organic.
Why? People who watch your ads and engage with your emails will check out your LI eventually. If it's barren, you won't leave an impression. If it's packed with valuable, funny, insightful and humanizing posts, not only your leads will connect with you, but they'll feel compelled to engage.
So it's not one system or another - it's all of them working in cohesion.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

Embarking on your solar journey is an exciting step towards energy independence and environmental responsibility. But the process can be daunting, especially when it comes to getting quotes and choosing the right solar installer.
To help you navigate this crucial phase, we've compiled essential tips, drawing insights from competitor analysis and the experiences of countless homeowners.

1. Do Your Research Before Requesting Quotes

Before diving into the quoting process, invest time in researching the solar landscape.
​

• Understand the Basics: Familiarize yourself with solar technology, the different types of panels and systems, and how solar can benefit your specific home. This knowledge will empower you to ask informed questions during consultations.
  
• Check Your Roof: Assess your roof's suitability for solar panels. Consider factors like orientation, shading, and size. If your roof isn't ideal, explore alternative options like ground-mounted solar or community solar programs.
  
• Financial Incentives: Research available local, state, and federal incentives, such as tax credits, rebates, and net metering policies. These can significantly impact your solar investment's financial viability.
  

2. Gather Multiple Quotes

Don't settle for the first quote you receive. Instead, aim for at least three to five quotes from different solar installers. This will give you a broader perspective on pricing, system options, and company approaches.

3. Compare Quotes Carefully

​

• System Size and Production: Pay close attention to the proposed system size and its estimated annual energy production. Ensure it aligns with your energy consumption needs.
  
• Cost Breakdown: Examine the cost breakdown carefully. What's included in the price? Are there any hidden fees or additional costs? Look for transparency in pricing.
  
• Warranties and Guarantees: Compare warranties on panels, inverters, workmanship, and performance guarantees. A good installer will offer comprehensive protection for your investment.
  
• Financing Options: If you're not paying cash, explore the financing options offered by each installer. Compare interest rates, loan terms, and monthly payments.
  

4. Vet the Installers

Beyond the numbers, it's crucial to assess the installers themselves:
​

• Experience and Reputation: Look for established companies with a proven track record in the solar industry. Check online reviews and ask for references to gauge their reputation.
  
• Certifications and Licenses: Verify that installers have the necessary licenses and certifications, such as NABCEP (North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners) certification.
  
• Customer Service: How responsive and helpful is the company? A good solar installer will prioritize clear communication and exceptional customer service throughout the process.
  

5. Ask the Right Questions

Don't hesitate to ask questions during consultations. Here are some key inquiries:
​

• Can you explain the technical details of the proposed system?
• How do you handle permitting and inspections?
• What kind of ongoing maintenance and support do you offer?
• What is your estimated timeline for installation?
• Can you provide references from previous customers?

Read More: What Is The Power Output Of A Solar Panel

​

FAQs

• How long does it take to get solar quotes? Typically, you can expect to receive quotes within a few days to a week after your initial inquiry.
• Should I choose the cheapest quote? Not necessarily. The cheapest quote might not always offer the best value. Consider factors like warranty, equipment quality, and installer reputation.
• What happens after I accept a quote? The installer will handle the permitting process, schedule the installation, and guide you through system activation and net metering enrollment.
• Can I negotiate the price? Yes, it's often possible to negotiate with installers. Don't be afraid to ask for a better deal or compare offers from different companies.
• Do solar panels require a lot of maintenance? Solar panels are generally low-maintenance. Most require only occasional cleaning and an annual inspection.

By following these tips and asking the right questions, you'll be well-equipped to choose the best solar installer for your needs and secure the best possible deal for your solar investment.

I am STILL NOT the Original Poster. That is u/ta-bff-234324. He posted in AITAH and amiwrong but posted the same text in both subreddits. I chose to use the ones from AITAH
Thanks again to u/Literally_Taken for the rec and to Choice Evidence and u/chickenoodledeprived for letting me know about the update!
Previous BORU here. New update marked with ****\*

This sub has a 7 day waiting period. Ergo, the latest update is 7 days old.

Trigger Warning: racism
Mood Spoiler: tentatively happy ending
Original Post: April 1, 2024
My (29M) best friend Jess (29F) keeps on mentioning my ex (29F) in front of my fiancee, and I am thinking of cutting her off. I want to know if I am overreacting, or if Jess is in the wrong.
For context, Jess and I went to the same high school and the same college. We were friends in high school. However, since we both went to the same out-of-state college, we became best friends since then. We have always been there for each other during the best and worst times. However, things have always been platonic, and she is more like a big sister to me, who made sure I stay on the right track.
I have only been in two long-term relationships so far. One was with my ex Lisa for 7 years. We met in college and dated all through our college years. Lisa and Jess also became good friends, too. After college, Lisa and I just grew apart and had different goals in life. I became "boring" after college as I was working on my PhD while doing a full time job. Lisa broke up with me as she wanted to party on weekends, while I was home studying. I was heartbroken, but I don't think I ever blamed her or had resentment towards her, as I understood my decisions were selfish and should not hold her back from having the best life.
Jess always stood by me and comforted me during that time. Jess and Lisa were good friends and Jess always kept on telling me that Lisa loves me and will be back one day when I am ready. I foolishly held on to that hope and stayed friends with Lisa. That was until I met my fiancee Yang. After I finished my PhD, I got a nice job in a big tech company. Yang joined our team a year after me. We started going out for drinks, and dinner and we started dating seriously pretty soon. We are happy together, and financially in a great place. Needless to say, I stopped talking to Lisa after I started dating Yang.
I proposed to Yang a year after we started dating and got engaged last year. Jess has been acting weirdly since we got engaged. One of the first things she said to Yang after we got engaged was how I had planned the same thing for Lisa (proposing on a local hiking trail). It was a bit off-putting that she was bringing up Lisa whom I broke up with almost 5 years ago on such a happy occasion. However, Yang asked me to not spoil my mood, as she felt Jess was just commenting on how I had that plan in mind for years. Since then, every time we meet, Jess without fail brings up Lisa and how the things I am doing are all the things I had planned with Lisa. This happened when we bought a house, planned for vacations, etc. Jess always starts with some nostalgic story and then brings up how Lisa and I were so happy together. She is still good friends with Lisa and keeps giving me updates about Lisa and how great Lisa is doing at work when no one is asking for it. It felt like she was painting a rosy picture of Lisa to Yang and telling Yang that she would always be second to Lisa.
Yang told me Jess's comments bothered her, and I also felt the same. I have brought this up with Jess many times and asked her not to do it. However, she says she will try but since I dated Lisa for 7 years, she would be part of many stories from the past. Also, she asked me why talking about Lisa bothers me and if I still have feelings for her. I have reduced hanging out with Jess. However, she is close with my mom and is always invited to all our family parties and holidays.
I talked to my mom and sister about this and they feel I am overreacting. They feel Jess is just telling stories and since the stories are mostly from college days and later, Lisa will be a character in the story. They also feel I should not be bothered by Jess mentioning Lisa since we broke up a long time ago. I feel that it's disrespectful to Yang as she doesn't need to hear about all the fun Lisa and I had when we were together and how we were planning to get married. Do you think I am the asshole to stop here or Jess is truly acting out of line?
Relevant Comments:
Commenter: Probably need to separate your time with your fiancé away from your friend. ... On a side note, your friend comes across poorly on one other aspect. When you were too busy to date so you could study. She is encouraging you to stay available while your ex goes about dating around? Think she ever encouraged your ex to not? Or do you think she was telling your ex she could have all the fun she wanted cause you'd still be around? Food for thought.

OOP: She thought we were 24 when we broke up and she always justified that Lisa was young and it's natural to date around before you settle down. She also encouraged me to do the same. However, after my breakup, I decided that I would not be in a relationship (based on what happened to the previous one) and never dated anyone until after I graduated.

Commenter: Not wrong, in fact it's thoughtful of your finace's feelings. " Jess always kept on telling me that Lisa loves me and will be back one day when I am ready." - yikes.
An easy: "Jess, you keep bringing up my ex, and keep making comments which are dismissive of my relationship with Yang. I am telling you point blank that this is harming our friendship and it saddens me that you dismiss my feelings as being unimportant on this topic. If you can't respect me, and my relationship with Yang, please understand why it will likely end our friendship."

OOP: We have had this exact conversation. Jess then proceeded to ask Yang is she offended by her telling stories about me. Yang was polite and said she is ok. Then she told me I am being too sensitive.

Commenter: Op do you know if Lisa is married? Maybe Jess is trying to sabotage your engagement so you can be with Lisa.

OOP: I know Lisa is single. She has not been in any serious long term relationship after me. Infant, Jess always makes it a point to bring that up regularly and update me, even after I tell her I have no interest. My mom loves gossip and they also discuss a out Lisa regularly.

Jess is just being a mean girl/have you talked to Lisa at all?
At this point, I suspect Jess is just being mean to Yang. I would have cut her off long ago if she was not so close to me or my family for so many years.
Lisa is out of the picture, to be honest. I have completely gone no contact with her for the last 2 years.
Jess has feelings for you:
That's not true. I did not write it since I thought it was irrelevant, but Jess is happily married and has a 3 year old kid.
There is no consensus bot on AITAH, but top comments were NTA
Update Post: April 23, 2024 (22 days later)
I wrote a post a month ago regarding my friend Jess mentioning my ex constantly in front of my fiancée. Thanks to everyone who commented, and how inappropriate it was. However, the last month has been nothing but crazy and I still trying to make sense of what happened so far.
After my post, I decided to talk to Jess and gave her an ultimatum not to speak about my ex Lisa again. I know Jess and Lisa are still friends, but I was uncomfortable of her comparing my fiancée Yang with Lisa all the time. I broke up with Lisa 5 years ago, and she is nothing but a faint memory in my past. Jess kept on defending herself and telling me that I was with Lisa for most of my adult life and it's hard to tell any stories from the past without including her. She also blamed me for being emotionally childish and just forgetting about Lisa when she was with me for 7 years. Finally, Jess agreed that she will not bring up Lisa in front of Yang, and I should also not treat Lisa as she does not exist since she is still Jess's friend. I informed Yang about our conversation. Although she was appreciative about it, she said I did not need to do it and she knows how much I love her and every time Jess brings up my Lisa, she feels sorry for Lisa that she let a guy like me go.
Yang went to visit China two weeks ago for a month as we plan to get married in her hometown. She is taking care of her shopping as well as preparations for the wedding. Jess invited me to her house that Friday for dinner as I was home alone. I am also good friends with her husband, and we were all just chatting and drinking in the living room. Around 7.30pm, the doorbell rang, and Jess excitedly went to open the door. To my surprise, it was fucking Lisa at the door. She was all dressed up as if she were ready for a date and came in. I had not seen her in person for almost 3 years and I was shocked to see her. She sat down and started making small talk with me. I was extremely uncomfortable and went into the kitchen to talk to Jess. I was angry at her and asked her what was going on. She kept on telling me that it's been 5 years since the breakup and to get over it and be nice to Lisa. She said Lisa was excited to meet me and she thought we were all adults and could have one fun evening together. We had a fight and I told her that she should not have invited Lisa after our conversation the other day and I do not want to be friends with her anymore. I went into the living room and politely excused myself and told everyone that I had a work emergency and had to leave early. Lisa looked sad, but I genuinely felt uncomfortable to be made to hang out with my ex without my consent.
I came home and called Yang. I have never seen her more furious, and she told me she is not comfortable with Jess anymore as she has some agenda that we do not know about. It's different to talk about Lisa, but to invite her without consulting is not ok. I also felt the same and I called Jess the next day and told her that she crossed a line, and I was terribly upset with her. I stopped taking her calls and ghosted her. I also told my mom and sister about the whole incident.
Last Sunday, my mom called me for lunch. When I got there, I saw Jess was already there. I told my mom that I do not want to talk to Jess and can't stay. However, she asked me to sit as they all wanted to talk to me. I have a glutton for punishment and decided to hear them out. My mom started with how Jess has been there for me all these years and only has my best interest at heart. She kept on telling me that they are the three people (mom, sister, and Jess) that love me the most. Jess started saying how she felt that I was making a big mistake in not having to hear what Lisa had to say. She told me that Lisa was my first love and Lisa is now ready to settle down and we can pick where we left off. She reminded me how broken I was when Lisa left me and how life is giving me a second chance. My sister also chimed in and said how they all liked Lisa more than Yang and how we both looked so great together. Finally, my mom started saying how our culture was so different than Yang and it is hard for them to relate to her. I asked them in what way, and my mom said that they did not understand what Yang says sometimes and have nothing in common with her. Then my mom asked me to think about how Lisa and I would have such wonderful looking kids, while if I marry Yang, our kids will look so different. I started getting their drift and I probed more. My mom told me how our kids would look Asian with "small eyes" and not like any others in the family.
I asked my mom if she cared about my kids looks more and not about how smart they will be since Yang has a PhD. She blew it off, and I realized she just did not want me to marry Yang because she was Chinese and not white. My mom told me to forgive Jess and my mom asked Jess to talk to Lisa on my behalf and asked her if she would be interested in getting back together with me. My mom was adamant that since I loved Lisa so much, I should be happy and pick up things where we left off as that is the best for everyone. I have never been so angry and may have said a lot of unkind things to all of them before I left
I am so depressed right now. I not only lost my best friend, but also am not sure how I can move on from what my mom said. My mom and sister raised me and that is the reason where I am today. However, I cannot get over how racist they are being and how they were just pretending to like Yang all these years while actively working on breaking us up. I have been so shocked that I have not told any of this to Yang so far. I might wait for her to come back next week and talk to her in person.
Again, thanks everyone for all your messages on the last post as they helped me a lot to think through the situation. My life is more fucked up than I could imagine, and I cannot imagine how dejected Yang will feel after hearing all this.
*****New Update Post: May 7, 2024 (5 weeks after OG post)****\*
I wrote a post two months ago regarding my best friend Jess constantly bringing up my ex when talking to my fiancée Yang. I wrote an update two weeks ago about my mom, sister and Jess scheming about trying to get me back with my ex Lisa because they were uncomfortable with Yang being Chinese. They tried to do it when my fiancée was visiting her parents and I felt so betrayed by their actions.
As I said in the previous post, I blew up on my mom and sister about what they said and immediately left. I did not take calls from them or answer texts for the next several days. Their messages initially were anger towards me on why I left before they could finish what they wanted to say. However, I think they realized on day 3 that they might have crossed the line this time and became extremely apologetic. I finally messaged them to leave me alone and not to contact Yang or I until we contact them. Jess did not message me the whole time.
I did not tell Yang about the situation until she came back home 9 days ago. I initially did not know how to bring up the subject, but she sensed something was wrong and asked me about it. I was so worried about hurting her, but I told her about what happened. I was upfront about the stunt Jess pulled and she was angry at Jess. I also told her about my visit to my mother's place, but she did not react with any anger. She just asked me if I was ok.
The next few days were confusing where I was more upset than Yang. She was just excited showing me all pictures and telling me stories. Finally, on last Thursday evening, she opened up and asked me if I was ok about my mom's behavior and what I plan to do. I told her my thoughts and how I cannot forgive them for what they said about her being Asian and them wanting me to marry a Lisa because she was white. I asked her why she was not more upset as it was bothering me.
She told me that when she told her parents about me, they had the exact same reaction for her dating someone who was not Chinese. Her family is very traditional, and her parents were very upset about her decision. It took them a few months to warm up to me and accept me. She never told me about this because she wanted me to have good relationship with her parents. She told me that now they are the most excited doing arrangements for our wedding.
She told me that she has always felt something was off when she talked to my mom, my sister or Jess and they did not like her. My mom and sister would be very friendly with her in front of me, but never invited her for anything when I am not around. She suspected that it may be due to fact that she is not white and does not understand the American traditions. She said she is not upset with them and now that this is in the open, she should talk to them and assure them that she would be as good of a wife as Lisa or any other girl. She said that she does not want to break a family in order to start a new one.
Despite my protests, Yang invited my mom and sister for lunch on Sunday. She said that it would be good for us to talk about everything and hear why they are concerned about her marrying me. I was really not happy with this, but Yang spent most of Sunday morning cooking for them.
When my mom and sister arrived, there were a lot of waterworks and apologies. My mom apologized to Yang and me for her behavior and told us that she would never bring it up again. My sister also was quiet and had tears in her eyes. There were a lot of blame games. My mom and my sister were blaming Jess for constantly telling them how Yang might not be great for me and how she won't fit into our family. My mom and sister fought with Jess after I left and Jess blamed Lisa. Based on Jess's story, Lisa has been depressed for the last few years and when I suddenly got engaged to Yang, it became worse. Jess thought I was also depressed after Lisa left me, because I did not date anyone for 3 years. In reality, I just wanted to focus on my work and studies and never had time. So, Lisa convinced Jess that she has to get back together with me as that is what I wanted too. Jess said how sorry she felt for Lisa as she was her longtime friend and listened to her plan as she thought it was good for everyone.
My mom and sister told us that I should stay away from Jess because she orchestrated the whole situation. They kept on hugging Yang and apologizing to her. Yang in turn also started crying and telling them that she will do better to fit in with them. It was all a big mess. I am still skeptical of my mom's change in heart, but I also want to see Yang happy. However, I think it will take a lot of time and healing before I could truly trust my mom and sister.
Currently, my mom invited us to lunch at her place next week and told me that Jess will not be there. Jess has still not message me or Yang. I really don't know what I can do in this situation. I am still upset and furious at my mom, but I also want to respect Yang's effort to keep the family together. Thanks to everyone for all the messages and supportive comments. It really helped reading them when I was feeling very sad.

Do NOT comment on Original Posts. See rule 7.

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.]

A week ago, someone asked why “divestment from IDF contracts is so difficult.” After the actions, suspensions, and arrests of last week, I have also wondered why protestors and MIT’s administration did not reach an agreement. Here’s an effort to explain it.
I’m looking to read the protest demands carefully and generously, then consider MIT’s constraints generously. My conclusion is that if the core demands had broad support on campus—and I can't say whether they do or do not—there are still principled, consistent reasons MIT could not agree to them.
Please add anything I’ve missed about the SAGE and MIT positions in the comments. Factual corrections or additional details are appreciated.
(If you’re here for hot takes, you’re in the wrong thread. I’m not saying what MIT should do about the demands, and I'm not sharing opinions about student protests or MIT's response. Please feel welcome to share your opinions about these in other posts about these topics.)
The demands
The core demands of the Scientists against the Genocide Encampment (SAGE) are:

1. The immediate termination of two active faculty contracts with the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMoD)
2. A ban on future faculty contracts with IMoD.[1]

The protestors identified these contracts in the MIT Brown Books, which provide detailed information about all sponsored research projects on campus. SAGE says the following two basic research contracts are active:

• “Autonomous Robotic Swarms: Distributed Coordination and Perception.” SAGE alleges this project can be used to “target Gazan citizens or American protestors.”[1]
• “Field-capable Bacterial Biosensors with Hyperspectral Reporters for Remote Detection of Analytes of Interest." I have not seen any specifically alleged concerns about this project. [3]

SAGE proposes to end current funding for these projects, but says they can proceed with alternative funding.[2] SAGE also says a review of project-specific human rights risks or new limits on foreign military research would only work if they ended these two contracts with immediate effect.[2] So while public statements do take issue with at least one of the research subjects, the demands focus only on the sponsor.
Two facts about these contracts have been widely misreported. First, the contracts appear to be funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), not IMoD.[4] As the “direct sponsor,” IMoD chooses which academic research projects to fund. DoD involvement does not appear to be an important consideration to SAGE. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that ending contracts with a primary government funder could add complications for MIT.
Second, SAGE has said that “more than $11M” has been funded through DoD/IMoD since 2015.[1][3] But the data SAGE has published duplicates balances for many multi-year awards. Once deduplicated, the amount allocated by DoD since 2015 is closer to $3.4 million, of which $3.2M has been spent.[4] The demands do not address spent research funds, only the unspent balance of the two active grants, an amount not publicly reported by SAGE or MIT. That said, the direct cost does not seem to be a material issue for either side.
Conflicts between the demands and MIT’s research policy
Meeting protestors’ core demands would require MIT to do something it has not done before: electively ban faculty from working with a specific sponsor. Doing this would conflict with the MIT faculty’s longstanding position on “research freedom,” which A) lets faculty freely choose collaborators and topics and B) limits university intervention when their research faces criticism.[5][6]
Consistent with research freedom, MIT has not previously banned sponsors or ended research contracts except when required by U.S. law. For example, when many MIT faculty said that MIT should sever all ties with the Saudi kingdom after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, MIT did not terminate any Saudi-affiliated research contracts.[5] MIT has similarly rejected calls to stop faculty research contracts with fossil fuel industry partners.
MIT’s faculty and administration have taken related public positions favoring “research openness,” including for sponsors in host countries criticized for human rights concerns like Russia and China.[5][6] These positions assert that science requires open collaboration even during foreign policy conflicts. MIT recently reaffirmed its position on openness as Congress considered new limits on U.S.-China research collaboration.[7]
SAGE argues that research freedom was disregarded in February 2022, when MIT terminated a $100M/year collaboration agreement with Russia’s Skoltech after the Russian military invaded Ukraine.[1][8] However, as a broad, university-level partnership between MIT and Skoltech, the agreement did not implicate faculty research freedom as SAGE’s demands do.[8] MIT continues to allow faculty to work with Russian sponsors and collaborators, although U.S. State Department sanctions now restrict research collaborations with many Russian institutions, including Skoltech.[9]
The Saudi and Skoltech decisions show MIT's inflexible position on faculty research freedom, even when human rights concerns are broadly held in the MIT community. MIT exercises more discretion over non-research funding, like direct partnerships and gifts. But unless required by U.S. law or foreign policy, MIT seems unlikely to create a tailored ban on one faculty research sponsor.
Other policy limits on military-sponsored campus research
MIT’s existing rules for campus research limit how military-sponsored research can be conducted, but not the collaborators or subjects faculty can choose. Research projects:

• must be publishable without restriction.
• cannot require students to work on classified topics.
• cannot exclude researchers by country of origin.[10]

These rules practically limit the military projects that can happen on campus. For instance, no research project could be kept secret from anyone else at MIT. (See [11] for reasons that MIT has opted to limit military research through conduct restrictions.)
For sponsors in some countries, MIT applies an “elevated-risk review” to faculty research proposals when the content could present risks to human rights, U.S. national security, or U.S. economic competitiveness.[12] These reviews involve both an MIT-wide faculty committee and senior administrators. They can result in project modifications, contract changes, or a refusal of MIT support.[4][12] Elevated-risk reviews are not done for approved research contracts because “the bar for administrative intervention to terminate such projects should be set very high.”[4]
There are at least two reasons an elevated-risk review would not satisfy SAGE's stated demands. First, SAGE seeks a content-independent ban on contracts with IMoD, which does not easily fit with a review process that looks at content-specific risks.
Second, since expanding these reviews would limit faculty research freedom, doing so would normally involve faculty. But getting faculty involved means that changes could not happen immediately, which SAGE has said it cannot accept.
Sources and further reading
[1] SAGE website
[2] SAGE final proposal to MIT administration
[3] MIT Graduate Students for Palestine, “No more MIT research for Israel’s Ministry of Defense,” The Tech, 10 May 2024
[4] SAGE data extracts of MIT Brown Book research contracts
[5] Richard Lester, "Review and Reassessment of MIT’s Relationship to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (2019)
[6] MIT Faculty, "MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom" (2022)
[7] Maria Zuber, “Written Testimony to House Committee on Science, Space and Technology” (2021)
[8] Phillip Martin, “MIT abandons Russian high-tech campus partnership in light of Ukraine invasion” WGBH News (2022)
[9] “Information Regarding Informal Research Collaborations with Peers at Russian Institutions” MIT VPR website (2022)
[10] MIT Policy & Procedures 14.2 (“Open Research and Free Interchange of Information”)
[11] Harvey Brooks on research freedom, protests, and military contracts at MIT (1973)
[12] MIT VPR, “Elevated risk project review process” (2019)
EDITS: Since posting I've fixed typos, made formatting adjustments for reading clarity, and corrected a few statements based on comments below (see my in-thread responses).