~Japan e-commerce logistics market~ is estimated to grow significantly at a CAGR of around 7.8% during the forecast period. Some of the major factors that drive the market growth in Japan include the increase in internet penetration with strong growth in the infrastructure network. Japan’s developed economy and high urban population are the key factors that make the country attractive to online retailers. E-commerce retailers enjoy several benefits in Japan, such as tech-savvy consumers and single language used by consumers all across the country. Along with this, the country has higher online shopping spending in the summers and during this period Japanese firms offer yearly summer bonuses to its employees. According to export.gov, in 2019, average worker bonuses account for around $3,000 and the spending of this bonus amount is primarily focus on leisure, luxury goods, and travel.
Get Free Sample link @ https://www.omrglobal.com/request-sample/japan-e-commerce-logistics-market
The companies which are contributing to the growth of Japan e-commerce logistics market include Amazon.com, Inc., DHL International GmbH, Rakuten Inc., SF Express, and CEVA Logistics. The market players are considerably contributing to the market growth by the adoption of various strategies including new product launch, merger, and acquisition, collaborations with government, funding to the start-ups and technological advancements to stay competitive in the market. For instance, in July 2018, Rakuten Inc. launched new initiatives such as open new fulfillment centers to realize the vision for “One Delivery” end-to-end logistics service. This will enhance the logistics services of the company and market of logistics globally.
full report of Japan E-Commerce Logistics Market available @ https://www.omrglobal.com/industry-reports/japan-e-commerce-logistics-market
· Market Coverage
· Market number available for – 2024-2031
· Base year- 2024
· Forecast period- 2024-2031
· Segment Covered- By Source, By Product Type, By Applications
· Competitive Landscape- Archer Daniels Midland Co., Ingredion Inc., Kerry Group Plc, Cargill
· Inc., and others
Market Segmentation
Japan E-Commerce Logistics Market by Services
o Transportation Services
o Warehousing Services
o Other E-Commerce Logistics Services (Processing and Packaging)
Japan E-Commerce Logistics Market by Products
o Baby Products
o Personal Care Products
o Books
o Home Furnishing Products
o Apparel Products
o Electronics Products
o Automotive Products
o Others (Grocery, Pharmaceuticals and Nutritional Products)
Japan E-Commerce Logistics Market by Location
o International
o Domestic
Company Profiles
o Amazon.com, Inc.
o Aramex
o CEVA Logistics
o DHL International GmbH
o E-com Express Pvt. Ltd.
o Japan Post Co. Ltd.
o Rakuten Inc.
o SF Express
o XPO Logistics, Inc.
o Yamato Transport Co., Ltd.
The Report Covers

• Comprehensive research methodology of the Japan e-commerce logistics market.
• This report also includes a detailed and extensive market overview with key analyst insights.
• An exhaustive analysis of macro and micro factors influencing the market guided by key recommendations.
• Analysis of regional regulations and other government policies impacting the Japan e-commerce logistics market.
• Insights about market determinants which are stimulating the Japan e-commerce logistics market.
• Detailed and extensive market segments with regional distribution of forecasted revenues.
• Extensive profiles and recent developments of market players.

For More Customized Data, Request for Report Customization @ https://www.omrglobal.com/report-customization/japan-e-commerce-logistics-market
About Orion Market Research Orion Market Research (OMR) is a market research and consulting company known for its crisp and concise reports. The company is equipped with an experienced team of analysts and consultants. OMR offers quality syndicated research reports, customized research reports, consulting and other research-based services. The company also offer Digital Marketing services through its subsidiary OMR Digital and Software development and Consulting Services through another subsidiary Encanto Technologies.
Media Contact:
Company Name: Orion Market Research
Contact Person: Mr. Anurag Tiwari
Email: [info@omrglobal.com](mailto:info@omrglobal.com)
Contact no: +91 780-304-0404

Hey everyone,
I recently bought a new electric scooter(MaxWheel) and I'm really enjoying it. It has all the basic features like three speed modes, lights, and blinkers. However, one thing it's missing is a smartphone app for remote control. This means I can't turn it on or off, or lock it, using my phone. As a result, I'm hesitant to leave it outside since anyone could just take it.
I've been thinking about taking on a side project to upgrade my scooter into a smart scooter. My goal is to be able to control it with a mobile app – to turn it on/off, lock it, and possibly track it if it's moved.
I was wondering if anyone has done something similar or has any advice on how to get started. Specifically, I'm looking for:

1. Hardware Recommendations: What components would I need to add these capabilities (e.g., GPS tracker, smart lock, Bluetooth module, etc.)?
2. Software Solutions: Are there any open-source projects or apps that could help with this?
3. Integration Tips: How would you go about integrating these new components with the existing scooter electronics?
4. Security Measures: Any tips on ensuring that the system is secure and can't be easily hacked or bypassed?

I'm fairly comfortable with basic electronics and programming, but I'm definitely not an expert. Any advice, resources, or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance for your help!

I am 36 years old. I don't have any friends. I haven't been in a relationship in two years. I don't make as much money as I would like. I am have a really slow recovery from a tonsillectomy and I am just having a hard time getting myself motivated to do anything.
I had one pretty good friend, an ex, and we went on a platonic trip together in March. I had a really good time and generally enjoyed myself. Got to see Chichen Itza and get some fun in at the cenotes and beach. Since then we haven't hung out though. In her texts she said the guy she has been seeing is moving out of town in a few months so she is spending time with him. She has dated him off and on for 20+ years and this has never been an issue before so I do feel like some of this is also just fatigue of hanging out with me. We didn't get in any fights on the trip but it did show we have much different priorities/personalities. She brought her dogs, they go everywhere with her, and one is incontinent so it was dictating quite a bit of our schedule but I am pretty used to this so I felt like I handled it fairly well. I also do think some of this is her boyfriend not wanting us to hangout, which is understandable. I just said No worries and we haven't talked since. She didn't message me on my birthday, but I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't remember. We have been hanging out regularly for 2-3 years so it is a bit of a hit, but it was something that felt ultimately was going to happen so I am not mad, just a little sad. I haven't hung out with anyone other than my dad since the middle of March though.
Just hurts to not have anyone to hangout with at all. I have talked to two coworkers and one of them has bailed on me multiple times and the other just said he was too busy to make any plans in the first place. I have done meetups in the past but I always just feel so awkward not knowing anyone and I am awful at initiating contact with anyone, guys or girls. I also just don't really have that many interests, even though I tend to enjoy most things I do. I own a dirt bike but haven't gotten out to use it because it is really hard to load by myself and I am just not that confident with it. And if I am doing anything alone without somebody else keeping me accountable I tend to just blow it off. I have also tried Bumble BFF but honestly was so turned off by it. I kept on getting hit on, creepy af, and it just feels awkward.
I feel like I am bad at making friends because I am not very personable and also tend to overshare and say stupid things just because I haven't talked to anyone in so long it is just kind of like a dam bursts.
I would like to get back into judo or jujitsu, but with college and my mortgage I am barely squeaking by financially, and 200+ a month is a little too much for me. I even canceled my cable plan to save some money for bills despite loving basketball. I also don't really have enough energy for active hobbies due to my tonsillectomy right now.
I work full time and am taking college classes at the same time. I was never the best student, but I have finished 9 computer science courses and a statistics class over the last 2.5 years. I have 5 classes left for my bachelors and am on course to graduate Spring 2025. Straight A's and one B+ so far so I have been really happy with my grades, but the industry has completely fallen apart over the last year or two and I am worried that after investing all this time and money into going back to college I might not be able to get a job. The best student I know wasn't able to land a single internship this summer and that really shocked me. He is an amazing programmer, better than anyone I know.
Because I have a mortgage on a little duplex I cannot really afford to do an internship to try and help my job prospects, I am going to really have to rely on doing well in the interviews. I am also planning on trying to take advantage of the career fairs and other on-campus opportunities next fall but that is so not my comfort zone that I don't want to set my expectations really.
With how busy I am it has also been a great excuse for myself to not pursue more social outlets and the only thing I do for dating is online apps and while I can get the occasional date I don't think I have ever actually had a real connection through it. I am just bad at connecting with people on a personal level, be it friends or dates. I have been on so many first dates it is kind of depressing. The town I live in isn't small, like 150k, but I feel like I am running low on options after years of failures.
I had been suffering from chronic tonsillitis over the last year. I had 5 bouts in total, three of which were back to back episodes from January to March this year. I got a tonsillectomy on April 20 and am still having problems swallowing food. I am basically still on a puree diet.
Getting the tonsillectomy was a real eye opener for me because with my ex not being a contact anymore I didn't have anyone to rely on so I had to have my father fly out and spend a week with me. I didn't have any friends to rely on and it really just kind of hit me how depressing my life is. All of my old high school friends, who I don't keep up with, have families.
The one thing I had going for me is that I had a decent physique. Due to a lack of a social life I was pretty good at going to the gym and lifting regularly. I was 6'1 and 180-185 pounds, nothing impressive but I was happy with myself. I am down to 160 pounds now since my tonsillectomy though and I am just extremely low energy all the time. My summer class started today and I am having a lot of issues just focusing after an 8-hour work day, even though I only work remotely on a computer.
During COVID I really made leaps and bounds to improve myself. I quit cigarettes after 15 years, I started going back to class. Got my own place and gained 40 pounds (in a good way) but after losing half of that weight and generally being miserable from my tonsillectomy it is just so hard to motivate myself to even go to the gym anymore and for 3 years I never had a problem getting off my butt to go to the gym, even if it was just for a mediocre lifting session.
I used to love playing video games and watching tv shows/movies but now I just find myself mindlessly watching youtube or reading and don't even have the attention span or interest in booting up a video game anymore or trying to find a show or movie to watch.
I always wanted a family, but I have never really had a successful relationship in my life and now since my tonsillectomy I have become a lot less sexually motivated than before. I don't even have the urge to masturbate anymore, and sex was never a strong point of mine in the first place, leading me to believe it will be even worse moving forward. I also just have never connected with somebody on like a really deep level and feel like years of failures/insecurity just kind of burden me a this point. And I am getting to the age now where I feel like I am almost beyond the point where this is still possible. It is weird telling somebody I am 36 and my longest relationship was only 4 months long.
I feel like I am on the right track on paper with only one year left until I graduate and I kind of really want to move even though I love where I live just so I can get a fresh start, but at the same time I am terrified I will graduate and just be in the same situation I am currently in. I also could never afford to buy another place without a better salary. The only reason I was able to afford what I currently have is because I bought during the 2020 market and got a 2.34% APR. But even with that my mortgage is close to 40% of my take home right now and I have one of the cheapest places in town.
I don't really have anyone to vent to or destress to so I just wanted to post something from a throwaway account. My dad has been texting me daily because I think he realizes how unhappy I am and I really appreciate that.
I have been wanting to go see some Nuggets games at the bar, but I still cannot drink alcohol until I am eating food again so I have just been following highlights on youtube. I also have never been a fan of hanging out at bars. I enjoy shooting pool but I am not good at social settings like that.
I will leave it at this for now. A very long, poorly formatted ramble. But I have seen much worse. Thanks.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that

Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,

It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:

If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:

Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.

[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]

I didn’t do it. I didn’! I didn’t! I’m no murderer, no, listen! I will tell you your a killer. You do not believe me? Even for a moment? But little is my own sentence even a concern for me, the freedom in society has little left to offer me. Grief and horror are all that fill my mind, the only residents remaining in my home. And you’d expect it to be such an oppressing grief. But no, no, no…it is much more the horror. It is much more the intense fear, the great disgusting and evil works that wait for me in the dark. The grizzly voice that reassures me of fate in its worst forms. It is here now. Cackling at its maniacal work. I hear it. What are you worth wretch! You’ll burn all your years and infinite more! But forgive me, my anger is difficult to suppress against my enemy. He lingers still. A lover of deception however, would be a fool in his own craft to reveal his intentions. Thus, would be a fool to reveal their own horrid form. Therefore, relinquish some of your repulsion of me, so that you may have at least some possibility of belief in what I say. I understand the situation I’m in, but why should I refrain from telling the truth simply because it is unlikely you will believe me? Especially when you condemn me? Listen then!
I was watching television, and my roommate was out the entirety of this night. My family remained in Los Angeles during this time, so they are not making any affect on what occurred. But you want me to tell of my roommate? I am telling you! You ask about the murderer, so you must listen to all I know of him. It was in the most ordinary of circumstances and activity when such a striking and alarming voice pierced the room. The TV was quiet, and I lounged about with dull mind. When I heard someone call for my name from down the hall, whom which I couldn’t see since the door was closed, I of course simply responded, “Yeah?” This was the very first of the remarkable experiences I began to have. I realized what had just occurred. I was home alone, so who could be calling to me from my own room? Well I suspected then my roommate. But I had trouble reconciling the voice I heard with that of my roommate. It had such an eerie tone to it. Almost as if it were teasing me. Yet, it was such a convincing and deceptive call, that the mocking tone it had was almost imperceivable. As if maybe this creepy inflection was a result of my own nerves or unfamiliarity with the event.
Regardless of it’s true nature, this odd quality roused my attention. Was I indeed not alone? But then it must be my roommate, since it was my name. I could not get over the gross friendly tone it called to me with. It’s as if it was bragging about knowing my name. I froze for a moment with the TV playing, listening for another call. “Javier” a woman's voice called out gently and compassionately. But such disgusting compassion did it call out. It seems it couldn’t itself disguise just the slightest hint of malevolence that just snuck under the tone. Or perhaps it meant to say it how it did. But it terrified me. I reasoned it must be somebody I know. But I couldn’t bear the action of getting up looking around. I was simply frozen, wishing not to move and cause myself to miss out on hearing more by making a racket myself. it didn’t even come from behind the door, it was as if it was somewhere far away. Yet it was so clear and punctual in volume.
This left me more at unease and helpless to find a solution. This time I did not respond. I greatly regretted responding the first time. I only paused the TV and looked about myself anxiously, dreading that something would speak again. After many moments of silence, I compromised to rest from my alert. And as the words spoke drifted deeper into the past, the simple abnormality of them caused them to resist their place in my mind as credibly existing. Though it happened not long ago that same hour, I questioned if I did indeed hear a call out for my name in such a mysterious and ugly tone as I had. This was just before the most morbid of calls occurred. It spoke to my name again, “Would you come, Javier?” But such terror came over me in that delicately rude and friendly tone which it spoke to me in. The suspense and anticipation for the call was intensely surmised to a realization as my heart began a sprint. This voice was not just a woman's, it was my sister. How incredibly unlikely she would be here, unannounced and somehow in my home without my knowledge. I still held intense fear, for you must understand the uncanny sense from this call. It was as if someone was inciting their vocals and tone to imitate or mock a human. It seemed not as if they were doing an impression of my sister—no, for it sounded exactly like my sister—but instead it seemed as if they attempted an impression of a human. Such a perfect quality, yet just so slightly imperfect that I may subconsciously perceive something wasn’t quite genuine in this call. I darted my perceptions across the room wide eyed. I quickly looked about myself, checking behind me multiple times.
Now, the following details not only enhance the unbelievable notions of my current situation, but may in fact completely discredit me in even speaking about them. But you must hear it! I implore you to imagine this! It is the truth—all of what I say is. For the night I heard her—my sister that is—speak to me in my own apartment, was the same night, as I learned weeks later, is the same night she had died. Sophia, that is her name, had killed herself.
Many nights passed like this when I was alone. I was tormented by calls with no direction or location. I shuddered at creepy voices beckoning in the dark. Sometimes, even in daylight, things spoke to me while I was alone. Unrelenting and disturbing voices within my home. Now, you may presume at this moment I am clearly schizophrenic. Indeed, I too had this notion. I seeked a psychiatrist during this time, to which medicine was prescribed and an indefinite period of shipping as well. But I perceived far too many REAL things. Yes, these could be hallucinations, but you couldn’t possibly have that conclusion if you hear what else this has done to me.
It happened after many terrible nights that I heard of my sister’s death. I was very shocked at first. But sadness was not next door, grief did not have time to move in. Instead, a realization taunted and teased my peace. I would hear her tonight, speaking to me. You may not imagine the dread that filled my day. I went to work and back home as a zombie. The tasks and conversations passed me by as dreams. I was incredibly absent and void of presence in my own life. My head spun before it comprehended any purpose of grief and despair. When I returned home I found myself double, triple checking that the lights were on and the blinds shut. Even though these things were clearly in my sight. I also locked doors and called my roommate to make sure he was home. I begged and pleaded with him, but he only brushed me off telling me he can't ditch his shift. I paced back and forth within the rooms pitching the plan to myself to have a hotel room. I eventually settled on this as it brought peace to me. And that night passed, at least before I slept, how I hoped. My sister did not speak to me from the darkness. But woe had not stopped its intention upon me that night.
I managed to fall asleep. In my dreams that night, I was visited with a vivid nightmare. I stood in my childhood home waiting at the door with a bat in my hand, standing between my sister and the entrance. I had this feeling that something bad was going to happen, and that I had to protect her, though nothing in particular was occurring. Then, with a gentle creek, a clawed hand reached and pushed the front door gently open. A demonically horned monstrosity stepped into the room. Its hooves clopped upon the wood floor. I intended to combat it, but my muscles took no command from me, and I swung the bat as if I was in molasses. It lunged with a deep roar to my sister, digging its hands into her stomach and viciously tearing it open with ease. It dug through her chest cavity as a dog digs holes in the dirt, spewing and tossing guts and organs out slashed and mutilated. I stood helpless and disgusted, until it turned towards me. It dropped my sister to the ground like a doll it no longer wanted to play with. It approached and grasped me tightly, growling a deep animalistic anger, its stature looming over me. It took its claw and dug it into its own eye, slicing it and tearing it open. It leaned over me, inches from my face. I screamed in horror. Black blood seeped and dripped from its swollen socket into my mouth. I struggled ferociously but the blood continuously poured from its eye into me.
I awoke sweating in pitch black, feeling Intense fear in myself. As a child that had not had their night light. I was terrified of the thought of something being in the darkness. I knew I was awake, and I was in a hotel in the middle of the night, but my heart started racing in irrational fear. I didn’t even have the courage to lift my head and look about the room to satiate the tormenting curiosity in the mystery of a possible supernatural visitor. But, I did. There was a demon sitting on the chair. A darker than dark silhouette of someone sitting hunched, looking at me. It was a shadow. But I knew, even then, this was a devil. I felt it. The blood in my skin fell away. I was mortified; in absolute terror. I stared unmoving with my heart beating out of my chest at this figure.
I slowly began to hold disdain for it. It did not move, it did not speak. But, I was beginning to be relieved of my fear. Instead, it was replaced with hate. Burning, mean hate. I hated it. No, I abhorred it. I was angry. The most intense rage fell upon me. I stood up from my bed, looking about the darkness. I stomped and clenched my fists. Captured in the most ridiculous delusion of fury, I began yelling and thrashing my room. I broke vases and electronics. I smashed the TV to the ground. I bit and gnawed at the chair leg which the thing sat on. I flipped the mattress and kicked doors off their hinges. I scratched and tore pillows like a feline. I was filled with so much hate and anger. I remained like this until hotel staff came to subdue me. Which, at their arrival, the feeling subsided suddenly.
I now was plagued daily by these voices, and nightly by this demon. The visits were not as dramatic as the first, but still, It watched me from different places in the dark each time. All it did was sit there. Weeks passed like this, I lost tremendous amounts of sleep attending to fruitless solutions and avoidances. Either I slept not a wink the night and evaded my tormentor, save for the voices if I’m alone, or I had to face my tormentor in the midst of night with a bravery I did not possess, awoken by various nightmares or visions designed for me that night.
But this is merely his entrance, I must now speak of the acquaintance he made with me. It was another terrible midnight where I stared at it, in whichever spot it had chose for the night, contemplating the nature of such a gross presence and its effect on me. When, filled with a ridiculous exhaustion and exhasperation, I called out to it, “What do you want!” I saw a slight twitch in its head, which struck me with more surprise than fear, although I had both. “Do you know me?” It spoke in a low and growled voice. It had such a tone of malevolence and mocking speech, it even felt as if it spoke condescendingly, as if I was a child it was reducing to. “No.” I said, my breath failing me. “I knew your sister.” The demon stated with a snicker, which developed into a chuckle, then an intense and hearty laugh. He wailed and howled in laughter even, he sounded insane. Such a disgusting sound it was to hear its voice in the darkness so pleased with itself. It confused and frustrated me in fear greatly, and it became so loud and went on for so long I couldn’t stand it. “Shut up!” I yelled finally. It stopped laughing immediately. “But you know Javier, you know me too.” It spoke very seriously. I stared in bewilderment. “You’re guilty! You’re guilty! You love murder! Haha! You love yourself! You stroke huh?” The demon spoke without relent and enjoyed his own hilarity. “What the fuck?” I said in a trembled whisper. “Yea, you hate clothes, you little pathetic bitch.” It cackled.
I was roused again with the most extreme and unimaginable anger. I yelled my defense at him. He grew in laughter. I screamed any kind of profanity and slur I could think of at his station, and he only grew in volume with me. This went on until I finally arrived at my king accusation, which was finally enough to have it stir, “You’re a failure of creation!” He was silent for a moment. “What is it you know of creation?” It spoke with such a terrible and tremendous tone. “Are you worth any more than me? You’re subject to death the same. I’m a connoisseur of freedoms, yet, what are you? You are a slave of fear, scared of your own desires. And, even more so, subject to me.. As much as a mouse loses its life to the metal spring when it grabs cheese, so do you spoil by me.” “You speak nonsense!” I retorted “You’re very stupid, it’s difficult for you to grasp.”
Then, without much more deliberation, it simply began roaring with the most horrific and inhumane noises. It began screeching—it screeched with blood curdling yells and sorrow. It screamed as if it was lit on fire. At once, in the shadows, it began clawing at its own face. I heard sounds of ripping and tearing—with noises as if pounds of deli meat were slammed onto the cutting board. This was accompanied by an intense and putrid smell of rot, and I began weeping. This experience was more than I could bare, and I couldn’t describe to u what was unnaturally filled in my mind. This night felt as if i was never going to escape the moment, like the present moment was my eternity. This sight annoyed me to my soul for what seemed like hours, and I even conjectured to myself that this torture was eternal.
But soon, he did indeed cease. A gentle glow of orange illuminated the end of my bed. He stood before me, tall and with elegance in the light. He was skinned, his jaw dislocated, his face scratched bare and raw so that no features were pertruding. He was completely nude, with hooves and fur patches among his disfigured appearances. He wore this boldly with shame, yet, overcame it with overwhelming pride.
Such beauty it was to admire his stature. I could not help but gaze with wonder and pleasure. I must have admired him for a while, perhaps even hours. I became mad with lust for him, such a delicious sight he was! I should give up my other fruitless endeavors of life if I could just have the delight to taste him.
But just as I settled on my prospective bliss, my roommate entered the room. His yell of terror attacked my ears, interrupting us. Why scream? Why that hideous look on his face? What was he so scared of? What possessed him to be worthy of beholding any sort of indignation upon my beautiful companion? A little worm—that ugly little leech that dared breath the same air as us. “Get rid of it.” The demon told me, but I hardly needed a command to conceive of my goal.
Oh, what fun I had! It was like the first fresh sip of lemonade on a summer day! Like the sunshine that seeps through window seals—like the birds chirping in the dewy mornings. Like the adrenaline of a rollercoaster—the tickle of a drop. Like the intoxication that gives you belief of so much confidence. And to feel it on my hands? It was the joy of a child when he smashes his fingers into the moist sand—that innocent satisfaction of destroying a castle. Like the excitement of opening your favorite bag of chips—grabbing the ends and pulling the plastic with might until bursts open with goodies; yes, that’s what it was like for me to stick my thumbs deep into his eye sockets, and pull to open—if only I could. It was such, as when I bit down on his throat with all my might and sipped. It was indeed so, when I scratched and clawed till my nails came off, opening his chest and pulling at ribs like discarded hot wings, ripping at organs and intestines, pulling of nails, bending fingers two loops around, snapping his arms, smashing his head with my foot—but again my happiness was destroyed. For my companion had fled the scene, and he was no longer present. At once, I recovered some coherence and realized the tragedy of what I had done. How would I hide this? How could I discard of blood evidence all over me? How was he going to chip in on rent in this condition? I obviously had not calculated all the required considerations before doing such a thing. I was enraged by the black magic possessed by the demon, stupid, tricky, evil thing. So you see, it was his fault.

My new car is very expensive to repair because its design is so complex that its parts are difficult to access and replace. Its hundreds of electronic parts are also flimsy and they decide to shit the bed once a year. My old car was simple but functional and ridiculously easy to repair even without a mechanic, but now I need to send my car to someone who basically specialises in fixing my death machine on wheels.
Social media is awful now. No platform is focused on real people anymore, it's all ads and celebrities and "content" which is the same across platforms and designed to make you mad/sad/scared enough into clicking. Everyone on the web just seems a lot dumber and meaner now too. I haven't enjoyed social media or the internet in years, it's as if real people left long ago and I've been talking to bots since around 2015.
Software is shit. I hate invasive autocorrect and "suggestions" to my writing. I hate two-party authentication, I hate everything about Microsoft office. I hate every bell and whistle that is intended to make my experience better but only serves to get in my damned way. I hate that google images is virtually unusable now because it shows so much unrelated shit and AI stuff now. I hate paying for multiple streaming subscriptions.

Hello gang. I just wanted to start off by saying that I am thoroughly enjoying the community here, and how we have united against Loblaws and many of us share a common goal: Cheaper grocery prices. For those of you who just want to destroy hundreds of millions of dollars off of Loblaws books, I salute you as well. The end goal for many of us is to be able to purchase basic needs at a reasonable price point without walking out a grocery store totally discouraged and feeling ripped off.
Ever since the bread price fixing scandal, and how they essentially got with a slap on the wrist a $25 gift card so you could go shop some more, the good faith people have giving has been depleting. Capitalism doesn't seem to work with essential and basic needs. This is also demonstrated with private utility providers, - natural gas, gasoline, diesel and electricity.
Capitalism does appear to work very well in other sectors where it is too difficult to price fix, such as retail, electronics, renovation supplies, etc.
Our short term goals ( like boycotting Galen ), could be susceptible to tiring out, even though destroying millions of dollars of their revenue feels great, incredible even, it does seem like at some point, it will end. Long term goals could allow our efforts to go beyond one Loblaws, and create a broader environment of fair food prices. Lobbying our governments to consider establishing an oversight committee that encourage and incentivize not-for-profit grocery chain models. Distributing start up grants to qualified individuals. By removing the goal of growth and profits for food, it would give substantial room to decrease food prices and even while paying staff and governors of this non-profit model substantial and competitive salaries.
To me, this is the kryptonite to corporations that would continue to instigate what almost feel like a class against middle to lower income earners.

Why did the farmer visit the pharmacy? To speak with the farm-assist.
Hi and welcome to my post! Wanted to start off with a funny to me dad joke.
Nice to meet you, I'm Dylan! To put it simple, I am a single 22 year old man who has been pretty lonely in life and lacking in female connection and interaction. And part of what comes with that is the desire to be intimate with a person. I am very mature for my age and will always be respectful of your boundaries and feelings, especially with anything sexual. Lately all I have is myself when it comes to sexual desires, so I would like to have someone to keep company with in that regard too.
I'm just relaxing at work since there's nothing really going on and thinking about going home tonight and burning a woodwick candle. Perfect for when there's a storm outside. I love candles! 🕯️ Sometimes a campfire outside on a fall night or a crackling WoodWick candle is a relaxing constant among our busy and hectic world. It's nice to just disconnect, feel grounded and happy in your own little cozy space. Feeling calm and collected and at peace. Something that fewer people take the time to do these days.
I am seeking a woman around my age or older to build a close connection with that could possibly lead to a relationship and something intimate which includes the possibility of teasing/sharing pics etc. but only when we were comfortable. Figured I would be open in my Intentions as that's the best way to be.
You:
Kind, respectful, and easy going.
Comfortable with the idea of eventually sharing intimate things together.
Willing to eventually move off of Reddit.
Want something genuine and fun!
Are honest in your intentions and a good person to be around!
That's about it, we will get along great I know it.
I've been feeling a little bummed out lately. I always try and stay happy and see the best in things. But.. I've just been so alone. Most of my whole childhood and adult years have been spent feeling lonely. I grew up surrounded by cornfields which was peaceful but also has a lonely aspect to it. My family never really were close and never did anything as a family really. And part of it too is the fact that I never had any neighbors my age to interact with. But aside from that, my adult life has been very lonely. I'm just always by myself. I barely have any meaningful adult relationships or experiences, or even any friends.
I work a 3-11 job in building maintenance at my company world headquarters building which I love, but again it's very lonely. I work the off shift so the building is always empty. I don't get normal social interaction with people my age or a chance to build relationships. I only have 3 older men as co-workers and we are mostly in the basement away from any people on the floors from knowing our existence. I always walk the floors and see office people laughing and chatting with their coworkers and I just don't have that kind of experience. And just.. no one knows I exist really. Everyone probably assumes I have a lot of friends, but I'm struggling inside with being so alone and trying to meet people and get past the "hi how are you?" "I'm good thanks" stage. Most people don't seem to want to talk beyond that. And most women are already in relationships and thus it would seem weird to approach them in an office setting trying to get to know them deeper. But man those "hi how are yous" are the only real interactions I get during my day.. so thus I decided to come here lol. Rant over, sorry! I promise I'm not a downer. 😅
Now for some things about me!
As you can tell, I am very mature for my age and am polite and have good grammar which unfortunately not everyone my age does anymore lol. I am not active at all on social media/internet culture really and don't know much about all the slang the younger people these days use. I feel like I'm 50. 🤣
I am left handed which is pretty cool. I'm not much of a party person or a drinker, I much prefer a quiet night at home and maybe a beer or two on a weekend but that's about it. I am simple and stay out of drama and trouble and don't get much into politics or other things that cause drama with people. I much prefer a relaxing campfire and a night at home and to just let the world keep on turning haha. I consider myself pretty intelligent and mature, especially for my age which is why I'm open to older ladies.
Physically I'm 180 pounds, have brown hair, green eyes, and a typical build. There's a few pictures on my profile.
Some of my hobbies are:
• Photography
I have a Nikon D200 and D5500 that I love to shoot with. I love nature scenes, abstract, black and white/goth kinda photography, sunsets, etc. it's so fun to just let your mind explore. It's not about what camera you have, but those who are behind the camera! I'm gonna try and photograph the northern lights tonight!
• Cooking and baking
I loveeee to cook and bake! I enjoy making various meals but also love to just have a frozen pizza once in awhile or something like that. I recently made homemade chili which turned out great. I love to bake, especially in the fall! I love pies, cakes, pastries, cookies, etc. I restored a vintage KitchenAid mixer that needed tbe gearbox rebuilt. Eventually I would love to practice home canning my own food.
• Music
Oh my gosh, I like so much!! Alternative rock, punk, post punk, electronic, synth pop, psychedelic rock, hard rock, etc. I am very non judgemental and open when it comes to music. My three current favorite bands are Type O Negative, Joy Division, and the Cure.
• Nature walks and camping
I really enjoy camping, making fires, and relaxing by a campfire. I love to take walks outside and just enjoy the beauty and simplicity of nature. It's wonderful, especially in a world so focused on everything digital.
• Repairing things
I'm a maintenance guy and one of my hobbies is electronics repair so I am good with my hands and just all around good at troubleshooting and fixing all sorts of things around the house. Last week I helped my elderly neighbor get his tractor started, it needed a new component in the starting circuit. So I'm pretty handy which... Comes in handy! 😂
• Autumn 🍁
This isn't a hobby per say, but man do I love the fall!!! It's my absolute favorite time of the year. Oh my gosh. The beautiful colors, crisp cool air, misty and foggy days, rain, lack of bugs, being cuddled up with a candle or by the fire drinking a tea, etc. I love it! There's only two seasons for me. Fall, and waiting for fall! Haha.
• Scented Candles and incense
Going along with my love for fall, I absolutely love candles! I have like 30 something lol. 😂 Currently my favorite are WoodWick, which are owned by Yankee candle. They have such a soothing crackle and the scents are great! I also love to burn incense from time to time as well. I have cottagecore hippie vibes.
• Old houses and architecture
I love old houses! Especially 1900s and Victorian era homes. Old homes have so much character to them and are just so beautiful from a time when people took pride in their craft. I strongly dislike the modern cookie cutter cheap construction of homes today. I would love to live in an old home one day. I also love their architecture and uniqueness, as well as architecture of old cathedrals and other buildings.
• Relaxing
Basic I know, but sometimes on the weekend I just love to get cozy in bed and relax and put on a YouTube video or an album! 😊
That's about it for me, I'm a pretty laid back and simple person. My ideal person is someone who is respectful and honest! I am very straightforward and open minded and would hope that you are as well.
If I seem interesting to you at all I would love to hear from you!
Thank you so much for reading.

To whoever jsbenz378 is, gg. Sucks that MD has a crap time limit while interacting 🥲. Long story short, I was playing Horus Chimera and he was on grass branded. He went first and set up a decent board but I ashed grag to not get puppet locked. He passes with grag and sanctifier, he maxx’s and I fight through his hand and bait nibiru but still end on two horus and discard chimera and swing for 5600 with second chimera fusion set.
Turn goes back to him and we have genuine interaction going on and it was legit back and forth but since I only had 20 seconds left going into his turn I lost due to timeout 🥺.
The one time I’m actually having fun against branded (as I feel like chimera Horus fits my play style and I enjoy it/dont hate losing to tier 2 and above) and I get screwed over due to time.

Hello! Just got into town today, I visited here a few years back but never really went anywhere. I just came down from Oregon and am going to be here a couple days to enjoy the town and the scenery.
If anyone has any work or knows of any work I could do while I’m here it’s be greatly appreciated! I’m 29m, not too strong but I can do any sort of general labor. Most experience is in fast food/retail. But I went to school for Computers and I am a huge tech nerd. So if you have any computer problems or need help with most consumer electronics I can be of service.
Insta @LouieLives69 if you want to do a quick background check, haha.
Thanks for reading and have a great day!

I feel like a puzzle missing a piece most days, or I'm searching for a new color. I miss that feeling of being with someone to tackle life with. The constant search for a partner to share the mutual excitement of "what's next". I dont know, maybe I'm being dramatic. But maybe if you like that sort of thing you might be interested in what's below as well.
About me-
Hobbies/interests- I love fixing machines, electronics, cars, lawn equipment. I have a lot of tools in my basement, about 10% of them I actually use regularly, I just find tools fascinating I guess lol. I am a gamer and I will spend hours doing deep dives on game lore that I played for an hour years ago, I love tech in general and have a 3d printer and computers all over my house. I also love cooking. I spoil most of my guests with homemade meals and try to learn all my friends favorite meals.
Appearance- Im taller, a little over 6 foot, I have LONG curly dark hair with facial hair as well. I keep relatively fit and work out at home with a minor home gym, my job also keeps me very active. The gas station clerk down the street called me Jack Sparrow the other day so I guess that's cool?
Music Taste- In no order at all I listen almost everything, and what I listen to is very mood dependent; NF, One Republic, Nightwish, Hozier, Daft Punk, KISS, Eminem, Nekrogoblikon, TWRP, Men at Work and many many more. I learn the lyrics to most songs as well, music is very important to me. Send me songs!
Personality- Calm, Eccentric, ADHD. I work a professional job and as such a very calm demeanor has been trained into me. Although I cannot deny I do get excited about things and love loud music and hyping up my friends. I am rather shy at first but typically warm up fast.
Situation- I live alone with my pets, and keep my house as clean as I can with my schedule. I like to think I "have my shit together". I tend to host BBQ's for the neighbors occasionally and just generally like having people over to entertain and cook for them. I work full time, enjoy what I doing and am making a career out of it.
What I'm looking for- Someone to spend time with on weekends, movies and crafts and the odd adventure. I dont really have a vision or preference on appearance as I find most women attractive, although I admit a certain affinity toward red hair. If you can handle being spoiled with little gifts and watching movies with the best takeout in town we might be in good company.
Send me a message, lets get to know each other and see where the conversation takes us.

ALABAMA:
Huntsville, AL
Decatur, AL
Mobile, AL
ARIZONA:
Oro Valley, AZ
CALIFORNIA:
Sacramento, CA
Fremont, CA
COLORADO:
Lakewood, CO
Lone Tree, CO
Wheat Ridge, CO
Denver, CO
FLORIDA:
Hialeah, FL
Tampa, FL
Tampa, FL
Largo, FL
Kissimmee, FL
Leesburg, FL
Orlando, FL
Orlando, FL
Orlando, FL (Golden Sky Lane)
Altamonte Springs, FL
Gainesville, FL
Jacksonville, FL (Commerce Center Drive)
Jacksonville, FL (Baymeadows Road)
Jacksonville, FL (City Station Drive)
Sanford, FL
Daytona Beach Shores, FL
GEORGIA:
Roswell, GA
Athens, GA
Dublin, GA
IDAHO:
Lewiston, ID
ILLINOIS:
Bloomingdale, IL
Danville, IL
INDIANA:
Indianapolis, IN
Elkhart, IN
IOWA:
Waterloo, IA
KANSAS:
Olathe, KS
Kansas City, KS
LOUISIANA:
Bossier City, LA
MARYLAND:
Columbia, MD
Laurel, MD
Silver Spring, MD
Gaithersburg, MD
MISSISSIPPI:
Jackson, MS
MISSOURI:
Jefferson City, MO
NEW JERSEY:
Ledgewood, NJ
Lawrenceville, NJ
East Brunswick, NJ
Bridgewater, NJ
NEW YORK:
Lakewood, NY
Buffalo, NY
Amherst, NY
Williamsville, NY
Rochester, NY
Poughkeepsie, NY
Stony Brook, NY
Kingston, NY
Scarsdale, NY
Nanuet, NY
NORTH CAROLINA:
Rocky Mount, NC
Cary, NC
Durham, NC
Burlington, NC
NORTH DAKOTA:
Grand Forks, ND
OKLAHOMA:
Oklahoma City, OK
Stillwater, OK
Lawton, OK
PENNSYLVANIA:
Erie, PA
SOUTH CAROLINA:
Myrtle Beach, SC
TENNESSEE:
Memphis, TN
TEXAS:
Dallas, TX
Dallas, TX
Lake Jackson, TX
Houston, TX
Pasadena, TX
Tyler, TX
Longview, TX
Lufkin, TX
VIRGINIA:
Newport News, VA
Williamsburg, VA
Colonial Heights, VA
WASHINGTON:
Silverdale, WA
WISCONSIN:
La Crosse, WI
Wauwatosa, WI
Link to the List: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pguGU2ZlWSgoX8y5mItBDM2ZFL-Z7r03TlzuvLqkvk8/edit
Link to the video: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pguGU2ZlWSgoX8y5mItBDM2ZFL-Z7r03TlzuvLqkvk8/edit

Why did the farmer visit the pharmacy? To speak with the farm-assist.
Hi and welcome to my post! Wanted to start off with a funny to me dad joke.
Nice to meet you, I'm Dylan! To put it simple, I am a single 22 year old man who has been pretty lonely in life and lacking in female connection and interaction. And part of what comes with that is the desire to be intimate with a person. I am very mature for my age and will always be respectful of your boundaries and feelings, especially with anything sexual. Lately all I have is myself when it comes to sexual desires, so I would like to have someone to keep company with in that regard too.
I'm just relaxing at work since there's nothing really going on and thinking about going home tonight and burning a woodwick candle. Perfect for when there's a storm outside. I love candles! 🕯️ Sometimes a campfire outside on a fall night or a crackling WoodWick candle is a relaxing constant among our busy and hectic world. It's nice to just disconnect, feel grounded and happy in your own little cozy space. Feeling calm and collected and at peace. Something that fewer people take the time to do these days.
I am seeking a woman around my age or older to build a close connection with that could possibly lead to a relationship and something intimate which includes the possibility of teasing/sharing pics etc. but only when we were comfortable. Figured I would be open in my Intentions as that's the best way to be.
You:
Kind, respectful, and easy going.
Comfortable with the idea of eventually sharing intimate things together.
Willing to eventually move off of Reddit.
Want something genuine and fun!
Are honest in your intentions and a good person to be around!
That's about it, we will get along great I know it.
I've been feeling a little bummed out lately. I always try and stay happy and see the best in things. But.. I've just been so alone. Most of my whole childhood and adult years have been spent feeling lonely. I grew up surrounded by cornfields which was peaceful but also has a lonely aspect to it. My family never really were close and never did anything as a family really. And part of it too is the fact that I never had any neighbors my age to interact with. But aside from that, my adult life has been very lonely. I'm just always by myself. I barely have any meaningful adult relationships or experiences, or even any friends.
I work a 3-11 job in building maintenance at my company world headquarters building which I love, but again it's very lonely. I work the off shift so the building is always empty. I don't get normal social interaction with people my age or a chance to build relationships. I only have 3 older men as co-workers and we are mostly in the basement away from any people on the floors from knowing our existence. I always walk the floors and see office people laughing and chatting with their coworkers and I just don't have that kind of experience. And just.. no one knows I exist really. Everyone probably assumes I have a lot of friends, but I'm struggling inside with being so alone and trying to meet people and get past the "hi how are you?" "I'm good thanks" stage. Most people don't seem to want to talk beyond that. And most women are already in relationships and thus it would seem weird to approach them in an office setting trying to get to know them deeper. But man those "hi how are yous" are the only real interactions I get during my day.. so thus I decided to come here lol. Rant over, sorry! I promise I'm not a downer. 😅
Now for some things about me!
As you can tell, I am very mature for my age and am polite and have good grammar which unfortunately not everyone my age does anymore lol. I am not active at all on social media/internet culture really and don't know much about all the slang the younger people these days use. I feel like I'm 50. 🤣
I am left handed which is pretty cool. I'm not much of a party person or a drinker, I much prefer a quiet night at home and maybe a beer or two on a weekend but that's about it. I am simple and stay out of drama and trouble and don't get much into politics or other things that cause drama with people. I much prefer a relaxing campfire and a night at home and to just let the world keep on turning haha. I consider myself pretty intelligent and mature, especially for my age which is why I'm open to older ladies.
Physically I'm 180 pounds, have brown hair, green eyes, and a typical build. There's a few pictures on my profile.
Some of my hobbies are:
• Photography
I have a Nikon D200 and D5500 that I love to shoot with. I love nature scenes, abstract, black and white/goth kinda photography, sunsets, etc. it's so fun to just let your mind explore. It's not about what camera you have, but those who are behind the camera! I'm gonna try and photograph the northern lights tonight!
• Cooking and baking
I loveeee to cook and bake! I enjoy making various meals but also love to just have a frozen pizza once in awhile or something like that. I recently made homemade chili which turned out great. I love to bake, especially in the fall! I love pies, cakes, pastries, cookies, etc. I restored a vintage KitchenAid mixer that needed tbe gearbox rebuilt. Eventually I would love to practice home canning my own food.
• Music
Oh my gosh, I like so much!! Alternative rock, punk, post punk, electronic, synth pop, psychedelic rock, hard rock, etc. I am very non judgemental and open when it comes to music. My three current favorite bands are Type O Negative, Joy Division, and the Cure.
• Nature walks and camping
I really enjoy camping, making fires, and relaxing by a campfire. I love to take walks outside and just enjoy the beauty and simplicity of nature. It's wonderful, especially in a world so focused on everything digital.
• Repairing things
I'm a maintenance guy and one of my hobbies is electronics repair so I am good with my hands and just all around good at troubleshooting and fixing all sorts of things around the house. Last week I helped my elderly neighbor get his tractor started, it needed a new component in the starting circuit. So I'm pretty handy which... Comes in handy! 😂
• Autumn 🍁
This isn't a hobby per say, but man do I love the fall!!! It's my absolute favorite time of the year. Oh my gosh. The beautiful colors, crisp cool air, misty and foggy days, rain, lack of bugs, being cuddled up with a candle or by the fire drinking a tea, etc. I love it! There's only two seasons for me. Fall, and waiting for fall! Haha.
• Scented Candles and incense
Going along with my love for fall, I absolutely love candles! I have like 30 something lol. 😂 Currently my favorite are WoodWick, which are owned by Yankee candle. They have such a soothing crackle and the scents are great! I also love to burn incense from time to time as well. I have cottagecore hippie vibes.
• Old houses and architecture
I love old houses! Especially 1900s and Victorian era homes. Old homes have so much character to them and are just so beautiful from a time when people took pride in their craft. I strongly dislike the modern cookie cutter cheap construction of homes today. I would love to live in an old home one day. I also love their architecture and uniqueness, as well as architecture of old cathedrals and other buildings.
• Relaxing
Basic I know, but sometimes on the weekend I just love to get cozy in bed and relax and put on a YouTube video or an album! 😊
That's about it for me, I'm a pretty laid back and simple person. My ideal person is someone who is respectful and honest! I am very straightforward and open minded and would hope that you are as well.
If I seem interesting to you at all I would love to hear from you!
Thank you so much for reading.

I am neha ( 26 f ) , I am here to vent and get some suggestions or maybe even a real friend . This is a story of how I ruined my love life and destroyed the man who meant everything to me . We grew up in Coimbatore , i first met my boyfriend when I was in 11th grade , I actually saw him in a video , it was a Facebook video made by his friends , one of his friend proposed a girl , so they made a video of it , he was there in it too . He is tall , above 6ft , he looked ok , normal , a bit weird too with his specs and curl hair . He didn’t stand out , after few days I saw in a local chat place , he was with his friend , all sweaty , they came from gym . I recognised him immediately though. I saw him sneakily , idk why , after going home I sent him a request to his Insta . We started talking the same night , he said he saw me too , we connected way too fast , he was very funny and practical, we became best friends very soon , we almost spoke daily , in that following year we became so close, there wasn’t anything sexual , we just talk about our day and our lives daily , then he got into a relationship with a girl , I liked her too , life was so easy and fun back then , after we got into college , I Started to date a guy in my college , but we didn’t stop talking , nothing changed between us , after going to college we started getting drunk and smoking up , it was all new and we all did it almost everyday in first year , it was pretty fun . The guy I was with that time , didn’t really smoke up that much , he got drunk but he didn’t smoke pot that much , but the rest of us gathered everyday to smoke pot and play carrom . We both even meet at night to just smoke up and listen to music . At the end of the first year , one day he called me one evening and told me that he wanted to meet me , he sounded very low , I was with my my boyfriend and his friends that time but I left there immediately,booked an auto and Met him at a usual place near an IT park , we drink coffee and smoke cigarettes there usually.he was already there when I went in , he saw me and smiled but that looked very sad , he told me that his girlfriend kissed someone , a distant cousin of her actually , she kissed him in a moment and texted her girlfriend about it , she mentioned that she regrets it very much , I can’t stand it , I don’t know what to do , I feel nauseous, stuff like that . He showed the screenshots , he didn’t talk much he just smiled but that killed me . I was so angry on her , I didn’t even know what to do to make him feel better at that moment, I said she is not worth it , don’t worry , things like that . He didn’t talk about it after that , he changed the topic and he just sat there for 30-40 mins just smoking thinking about something. We speak almost daily and I know everything about him , he told me when they first had sex , we speak about everything, just not anything sexual to each other , when I saw him like this , I was feeling only rage , I was so angry on her , I don’t understand why she kissed some other guy , after getting into that relationship he was very loyal , I know how loyal he was , he even got a tattoo of her initials , but when he knew about this kiss , it made him so sad I guess . After 2 hours , we went home . I called her as soon as I went home , i scolded her so much , she started crying and told me that it was a mistake, she sounded very regretful too , she cried so much , I couldn’t bring myself to be mean after that .but that night i couldn’t sleep , my ex called me all night but I didn’t pick his call , I kept texting him , we used to text in Snapchat daily , I kept sending him texts and he texted me back to , he said he is going to get drunk and pass out , I also felt that’s better , after some days she even cut her hand , like scratches with knife on wrists , she was very regretful too , then somehow they didn’t break up , he wanted to after that but she didn’t let him , but gradually it got ok , but after this we started to speak and meet more frequently than before , I started to drop him in my college , both of our colleges are in same road , we started going in one vehicle daily. Mostly I drove , we speak all the time about nothing , even when we were going on my scooty , we just make fun of people in road , we laughed , had fun . One day he even pressed my breasts accidentally, side of my breast . I started neglecting my ex , that guy I dated that time , after few months , people started to notice , but still we didn’t care . (I actually come off from a well doing family , my family has enough money but my parents have a very unsuccessful marriage, they don’t even speak to each other , I have a younger sister and elder sister . My elder sister is married , my younger sister difference is 3 years . My parents doesn’t speak to each other , my mom openly says that they are together only for the kids . ) I loved being with him , he made me feel safe , comfortable and it’s always warm when I’m with him . We smoked pot all the time though , it was so fun , we even bunked college went to room and just smoked pot and watched anime all day . One day my ex boyfriend and his friends were in Ooty and they wanted me to come , I said I’ll come with him , I can’t come alone , and I asked him to come . We rolled some joints and started to go in his bike , we went a beautiful ride , stopped and smoked up in between, after we reached there I went with my ex boyfriend. We all smoked up that night got drunk , he usually doesn’t talk that much , but all of us were drunk and it was chill , some of my friends like him some don’t , but it’s all chill . We stayed in a tent stay there , that night I was with my ex , he wanted to make out , we kissed and did some stuff but I just felt restless and distracted, I kept thinking about him and my ex was a drunk too , it didn’t turn me on , after some time he passed out . I went out and went to his tent to see him if he is asleep , but he wasn’t there , then I started to look for him and I found him near the fire place , he was smoking up there alone with a phone in his hand , he was just singing this song 7 years by Lucas I think , he was singing along with a joint in his hand , he saw me coming , smiled but he didn’t stop singing, I can see him feeling even little embarrassed, but he looked so happy and free . I sat down there started to smoke up with him . After sometime I asked him why haven’t even kissed even once , I just asked him in a fun way but he got all serious all of a sudden , he saw me straight in the eyes and told me that he would love to kiss me , I literally felt butterflies in my lower tummy , my hips felt all tight too , idk , I still remember everything though . I kissed him in an instant, I kinda rushed in and kissed him, it felt magical . We kissed for a long time , we just kissed , nothing else . But I loved it , after sometime we separated, he saw me smiled and said I tasted sweet and bitter with weed taste . But my heart was beating so fast that time , I wanted to make out with him right there , I’ve felt horny before but he was the only guy made me feel like this , I tried to kiss him again but he stopped me and told me im drunk and asked me to go sleep . Next morning they asked me to go with them but my mind was fully on that kiss , I came back to cbe in his bike , we didn’t talk anything for the first time I just hugged him on the way back , it was nice too . I thought about plans to break up with my ex , after he dropped me home I kept thinking about the kiss , things got normal after a few days , we were like before but we started to flirt a bit , I started to call him baby and it gradually became very intimate . One day in a movie I kissed him again and he kissed me back too , we started making out bit by bit , it developed into a place where he started to grope me while im driving , I enjoyed every bit of that , I broke up with that guy I was with but he was still with that girl . Around final year first semester end they broke up too . We had intercourse the next day , it was amazing , I loved everything about him and the best thing is he is my best friend too . We rented a place for us by college end , we had sex every single day , it was the best , I loved staying with him . After this there was covid and we had to stay in our place , for one whole year I lived with him happily, he never let me down even once , he was already very caring from beginning but after we got committed , he really did treated me like a princess . He didn’t speak much but his actions were most considerate , we both worked remotely and having the time of our life , two years went by , I was happy and fullfilled , at the end of third year he quit his job and tried to get a different better job with extra good pay , 3 months passed by , one day few friends of mine from my work visited our place , they told me about opportunity to work in chennai for a month , I took it and went to chennai for a month , he dropped me to bus and sent me off to chennai . We spoke daily but not that much , I went out with my friends daily got drunk , just having fun . Some of my friends think my boyfriend is beneath me , one even said that I deserve better , she said he didn’t even get a job in three months joked and asked me whether I am the one who’s paying rent , actually he never asked me rent or money , he always paid for everything , but that time when they were joking I didn’t defend him , I still couldn’t believe that I didn’t say anything . In that week I met a guy , he came with my friends , he flirted with me when I was there , after I went back to PG I got a text from this guy , he got my number from my friends it seems . After some texts I responded and we started texting ,i liked the attention I think idk , I was talking to my boyfriend daily too , but somehow he noticed that I am not ok , he asked me about it and I said it was work issue and I am tired , 3^rd weekend I met that guy alone , he wanted to have a drink and I went , I slept with him that night , to be honest the sex wasn’t good , when he got inside me I felt darkness , I swear . Idk why I did it , after sex that guy slept in a second , I saw him lying down and I felt like killing myself , I left to my pg in midnight , I booked a cab and went back . I saw my snap notifications from him but I couldn’t open it , I blocked that guy’s number , I went to pg , cried myself to sleep . Next morning I spoke to my boyfriend , told him that I got cold and resting today , he told me that he got a job as a business manager for a US IT firm , he sounded so happy and told me that he called yesterday night to tell me this . I was crying so hard when he was on the phone , at that moment I swear I even fogot the face of that I slept with , he asked me to get rest and I hung up . I couldn’t talk to him , I felt so guilty and ashamed , as I was thinking this I get a notification my swiggy that he placed order to my pg , he bought soup . I broke down , it was like everything is telling me how big mistake I made , suddenly my thought went to that day he told me about his ex’s kiss , I can see that sad smile . I decided not to tell him and love him more and more , he had his birthday in 15 days I wanted to do something for him . When I came back from chennai , he picked me , he was so happy to see me , he spoke about his new job to me on the way , he was like a child , maybe cause he missed me for a month , I can see that he is so happy like silly child just to see me , after going home I had sex with him , I even rimmed him and I kinda liked it , it was the best sex we had , I felt alive and also very guilty . I treated him better and better to ease my guilt , but this made him very happy , I arranged a small party with my sister ,his friends and my mom .the day before his birthday we got drunk he asked me why I am not being adamant like before , ‘enna kadhal ha ‘ (joking sayin I am so in love) he joked about how afetr five years we can get super rich and start a family , I melted hearing all this .i promised myself that I will never let him down . but ha ha This is why I think karma is a bitch , at the noon of his birthday I got a text from that guy saying that he is thinking about that night . He heard the notification took the phone to pass it to me , he just saw the phone simply , just a glance and he just stopped and opened the text , I was blowing up balloons opposite of him , I saw his face and my heart sank , he came closer and gave me the phone , he didn’t speak anything , I opened my phone in a panic , saw the text and I saw him , he asked me ‘ so you slept with some guy ? ‘ , I didn’t reply , my whole mind got blank , I felt like I was gonna faint , he just saw me and said why . Of all these years I knew him I never saw him cry , but now his voice was shaking , he just asked me ‘ yen ‘ (why in tamil) . I saw tears on his eyes , I can see his eyes becoming lifeless in a matter of minutes , I tried to hug him but he just moved away , no matter how much we fight , when I hug him , he gets all cute and lovely , but he just moved away in an instinct . He then came forward hugged me tightly , he said ‘ sorry ‘ . I still don’t know why he said sorry , but that sounded so weak to me , he is my everything and I hurt him , I know everything about him and I still fucked up . He hugged me for some more time , I knew this warmth might be the last thing . After few mins , he rubbed his eyes in my dress , saw me smiled the same way . But it felt more like he is laughing at himself , I watched my 6 ft man walking out of the room , I just stood there alone , and I felt very cold , I remember that cold everyday , evening people came for the party and he got ready and cut the cake , fed me the first piece , my mom and sister was there too , he behaved very good , spoke with my family , but I can see that he is broke , but he still made it through the night , I went to speak with him that night , but he said he can’t . he said ‘ please I can’t ‘ . I choked hearing his voice , he went to terrace , I didn’t sleep at all that night , I walked around our little one bhk apartment , I smoked two packs of cigs that night , I went to check on him in the terrace by 4 , he was sleeping there on the floor , he hugs himself in sleep and its so cold , I cried watching him , just one day ago he was being silly like a kid talking about future family , now he is there alone , heartbroken . Morning usually he makes coffee and rolls one , I made coffee and rolled one , waited for him to come down . He came down saw me and smiled , but its not the cheerful smile , it just hurt so bad watching him like that , he drank the coffee , smoked up with me , even told me its good. Then he got ready , I cooked but he said he can’t eat , he is not hungry , that morning was so silent , he cheers up with he sees me , he was my biggest fan , now he left home with just saying bye . I got a text from him that aftrn asking me to move back to my mom’s if possible , I was dead . I couldn’t say no , I hurt him , he didn’t even scold me , he even requested me , I can only say yes . I asked him that I want to stay one more night , he said ok like always . That night I asked him to cuddle with me , he said ok , he wanted that too it seems , we just hugged in silent , he slept off quickly , he always told me that when I sleep with him it makes him stressfree and he gets a good night sleep . He was asleep on my breasts , I saw him sleeping and I couldn’t stop my tears , realising that this is the last time , I made a stupid mistake , but everything felt unimportant now , I saw him sleeping and I kissed him on his cheek , must have whispered sorry a 100 times , our four years relationship came through my mind , I realize that he made sure I was happy in every way he knew , I proposed him , I made him fall for me , now I broke his heart . I didb’t sleep that night too , morning I dozed off , when I woke up he wasn’t there, he made juice for me and left for work . I packed some of my stuff and went to my mom’s . when I stepped out of our little home , I broke down and cried . I went home and cried , I told my mom we fought , but my sister knew something was up , she tried to ask him but he said it was a small fight , I confessed to her that night , I still remember seeing her confused look , she is a gen z kid , but even she gave me a look of confusion , she didn’t understand how I could do that , she liked my boyfriend very much , she was almost proud of him . But when she knew I cheated on him , she felt disgusted I think . Our sister bind kind of broke too that night . My life was dull , I missed him every second , I missed talking to him , I missed his smell , everything . I just focused on work , two months went by with no contact . I saw him near IT park at our spot one day, he looked like he was sick , he lost weight , his eyes are dry , he looked so pale . I saw him from a distance and I couldn’t believe my eyes , my baby looked so weak and sick , he was having a coffe and smoking a cig alone at the place we used to sit . My eyes teared up watching him , he looked so lonely . None of my friends knew we broke up because I cheated , he specifically asked me not to say anything to anyone . I didn’t speak to him that day , I couldn’t . I was full with guilt . After going home I called his friends and asked how he was and they said that they lost all contact with him and he is ghosting everybody . I broke him and also made him alone , I seriously considered killing myself but I was a coward . After a month , when I was in office , my mom got a diabities issue and fainted , my sister called him in a hurry , he came immediatiely and admitted mom in hospital , when I came there I saw him with a plastic cover with insulins for my mom . After my elder siter came , he left , he asked me to call with updates . Before leaving he asked me why I cheated , he said “ is it because I am not satisfying you “ or “ you wanted a emotial support “. when he said that , I just stood there , I can see his face , hiding a humiliation , I never had a sex issue with him , I loved being with him , but my baby asked me this , I felt ashamed . I couldn’t face him , I just stood there , he said never mind and left . I stood there seeing him leave ,but I didn’t give up , I started texting and snapping so much and somehow I made him talk to me normally , but his eyes has lost its color, he looks like he is tired of everything . After few days we both got drunk and alone , I kissed him as soon as I got the chance , he kissed me back too , usually when he kisses , he hold me ears , looks me in the eyes and kiss me , he did the same out of the habit , as soon as our eyes locked , he bursted out in tears , I truly felt how much this man loved me and how much I hurt him , he wanted to do more but he stopped himself , when he burst into tears, my heart completely broke , I hate myself so much , I hate my friends for fucking up my mind , I hate that guy . My man is gettting punished for giving everything to me , its been a year , he changed , he looks lean , unhealthy , I even think his hair is falling , almost like a zombie . I would glady kill myself for him , I just want him to be happy , I destroyed the only person I love , I see how devastating this can get for him, he looks so weak , I can’r accept it . I should’ve defended him when they joked about him . Its all my fault , its been a year and I still can;t go back to him , I can’t imagine another guy to raise my kids , I want him . Help me .

This post is part of a series of reviews. To see them all, click here.

Season Information

• Airdates: 30th August 1980 - 21st March 1981
• Doctor: 4th (Tom Baker)
• Companions: K-9 (V/A: John Leeson, S18E01-20), Romana II (Lalla Ward, S18E01-20), Adric (Matthew Waterhouse, S18E09-28), Nyssa (Sarah Sutton, S18E21-28), Tegan (Janet Fielding, S18E25-28)
• Other Notable Characters: The Decayed Master (Geoffrey Beevers, S18E21-24), The Tremas Master (Anthony Ainley, S18E24-28)
• Producer: John Nathan-Turner
• Script Editors: Christopher H. Bidmead

Review

In retrospect I really shouldn't have called Season 15 "The Transitional Season". Because, well, Season 18 is obviously the Doctor Who season most clearly transitioning between eras. So much so that by the end of the season the only thing left of the 4th Doctor era is the 4th Doctor himself. Through this season, the 4th Doctor, Romana and K-9 become the 5th Doctor, Adric, Nyssa and Tegan. And it leads to kind of an odd feeling.
It's also notable that there's a serious tonal change that happens this season. While Graham Williams never quite got to make the comedy era of Doctor Who that he wanted to, he did give it a more relaxed and free-flowing atmosphere. Under new Producer John Nathan-Turner, as well as new Script Editor Christopher H. Bidmead, the story veers right back into being a more serious show. And for the first time, there was real effort being put into grounding a lot of the stories in real science. And while the actual science involved isn't really accurate, I do think it has a positive impact on the season as a whole. The science on Doctor Who is always made up, but at least this way it feels like we're pointing in the vague direction of something real.
It's certainly a refreshing change of pace from the rest of the 4th Doctor era. The 4th Doctor era, at least from Season 13 onwards had a tendency to feel very gimmicky. During the Hinchcliffe era it was taking popular horror stories like Frankenstein or The Mummy and adapting them for Doctor Who. During the Williams era, that shifted more towards genre parodies, with some journeys in to Greek mythology. Season 18 feels kind of refreshing in large part because…there's not really any obvious influences. Sure we're pulling from real science, both in individual episodes and in a more general sense with the broad theme of entropy, but that feels a lot less invasive than pulling from more famous media.
Which leads us nicely to the entropy thing. Season 18, at least in theory, has an overarching theme of "entropy". Or more accurately it has an overarching theme of "decay" that sometimes takes on the form of entropy. Because look, there's nothing especially entropic about the vampires in State of Decay or the way the Argolins are dying out in The Leisure Hive, but it still falls into the larger umbrella of decay. Which gives this season a fairly melancholic tone to it on the whole. Throughout the entire season, things seem to be falling apart, especially once we get to E-Space. Warriors' Gate is full of all of this imagery of past riches fading into nothing, Keeper of Traken is literally about an entirely way of life nearly falling apart, and Logopolis is where we, really and truly, get the entropy theme, for real this time. But also…
Logopolis, in which the Doctor dies, briefly turns into a man with white cracked skin only to sit up looking about a decade younger, is probably the best indication of the other half of our decay theme. Because Doctor Who is a show where things generally work out for the best, this is a season that is as much about rebirth as it is about decay. The Argolins from Leisure Hive are given a chance at new life for their civilization. The peoples with meet in the E-Space Trilogy all ultimately get delivered from their decaying societies and given a chance to build back up to something new. In Meglos…I guess at the end there the people of Tigella do ultimately get to live on the surface of their planet…somehow. Even in Keeper of Traken the story leaves the Trakenite people on something of a hopeful note, with a new Keeper installed to look after it. Sure, in Logopolis we learn that the Master apparently blew up Traken off screen (if I had a nickel for every time the Master blew up a planet off screen…) along with its entire solar system, but at least at the end of Keeper things are looking hopeful.
And that idea of renewal kind of extends to the show itself right? Like this is clearly a season that's transitioning into a new, renewed version of itself, at least in theory. That's why we lose Romana and the robot dog, and replace them with a couple of kids and a fairly young flight attendant. John Nathan-Turner felt that the trio of Romana, K-9 and the Doctor were too invulnerable, which is why he decided to write out the two surplus geniuses. You can see this in how stories are structured. Generally speaking in the five stories that Romana and K-9 are in this season, Romana is either confined to her own subplot or taken out of commission, while K-9 is so constantly dismantled or on very low power, it begins to feel like a running gag by the time he leaves.
And at the same time, this season shows us Romana at the absolute height of her competence. She's basically the Doctor's equal by the time we enter E-Space. I think that's why I feel like it was the right time for Romana to leave: she'd done all the developing she needed to. There was nowhere to take the character without making the show just as much about her as it was about the Doctor. So while losing Romana, and Lalla Ward with her, is a shame, it was the right time to drop her. Losing K-9 on the other hand…look the TARDIS is already about to get exceptionally crowded and unless you don't bring Nyssa back in Logopolis there really isn't time for the robot dog, but I'd argue that there was no need to drop K-9 from the show. His presence making the TARDIS team "unassailable" just doesn't hold up, as him continually being dismantled throughout this season proves. And, as Tom Baker once observed in one of the funniest outtakes in Doctor Who history "you [K-9] never fucking know the answer when it's important".
But we do eventually have to introduce the younger folks. It starts out with Alzarian teenager turned TARDIS stowaway Adric. Adric has a reputation as an awful companion, though personally I've never been that down on him. I don't love the character, but he's perfectly acceptable in small doses. The biggest issue I take with him is that he plays into the sullen teenager a bit too much. The moody teenage genius is just not an enjoyable character to follow along with, and it's only going to get worse next season. However, there are moments, particularly in Keeper of Traken where the student/pupil dynamic with the Doctor makes him genuinely likable. Also, his obvious crush on Nyssa, more seen in Logopolis is fairly endearing. But a lot of the time he's just, and I've used this phrase before, an arrogant little shit. And I think it is fair to point out that Matthew Waterhouse, inexperienced as he was, often gives a very wooden performance.
Nyssa is introduced in Keeper of Traken. There we see her interacting on her own homeworld. She takes initiative a number of times in that story, mostly during the jailbreak section which she organizes. In Logopolis she's out searching for her father and that's when she has the rug pulled out from under her. She learns that, in short order, the Master killed her father and then that he destroyed her home system. Between the two stories we get a really solid setup for Nyssa, and Sarah Sutton is really solid in the role, though whether the show will follow through on any of this in the next couple seasons…is a story for another time. And speaking of characters whose somewhat tragic first couple stories often get overlooked, in her first story Tegan learns that the Master has killed her aunt, who she was clearly quite close to. Sure, it's not on the level of Nyssa's loss, but it's not a competition. Tegan, like Nyssa, gets a strong introduction, and like Nyssa we'll see in the future how successful the followup to that introduction is.
And then, there's the Doctor. Amidst all of this change, he's the one thing that stays constant from the prior era, and he ends up feeling a bit out of place by the end of season as a result. Some of this is in retrospect of course. It's only weird seeing the 4th Doctor with Nyssa and Tegan because we think of these two as 5th Doctor companions. But I do think that there's something to the idea that the 4th Doctor belonged to the 1970s. We've now reached the 1980s and the scarf man has somewhat been left behind. Or that may be because Tom Baker just seems tired this season. He's not putting in bad work, because he knows the character too well to do that, but he does seem more disconnected than ever. Of course if I'm going to mention this, I should mention that Baker was getting over an illness during the filming of the E-Space trilogy. And he has his moments of higher energy, particularly in Keeper of Traken for whatever reason. But there are also times, even before the illness, where Tom looks like he's sleepwalking through all of this. I think it's fair to say it was time for him to leave.
On a technical level there are some changes. The Doctor's costume changed substantially, and the rest of the cast will be wearing the same clothes they were introduced in for the rest of next season (well okay, Nyssa's outfit will undergo some minor alterations). It's one of the less well-handled elements of the JNT era: people stop dressing like people, but end up stuck in costumes. This will somewhat ameliorate as time goes on, but it's something worth noting: it starts early, and was very intentional. JNT explicitly wanted all of his main cast to be wearing "uniforms". Musically we've undergone a big change as well. Dudley Simpson is gone and he's been replaced by a rotating cast of composers from the BBC Radiophonics workshop. These are all solid at bare minimum, with my favorite probably being Paddy Kingsland. As a result of this change, the style has changed considerably. Over the course of Simpson's time as composer, the show became more and more orchestral, whereas under the Radiophonics composers we've gone in a more electronic direction. It's a big shift, but by the end of the season it feels natural, and I think Doctor Who does well with a synth sound.
Season 18 begins the reign of Doctor Who's final producer. Eventually JNT will stay on too long, as even he would admit, but at this point all of his ideas feel new and fresh. They aren't all improvements, though some are, but Season 18 does feel entirely different from what came before it, and there's value in that. More than that though, other than enforcing a more serious tone than the Graham Williams era, Season 18 ends up feeling like it's going back to basics. Sure it's got an arc (two of them in fact) but all of the stories feel a lot less constrained by a style than earlier 4th Doctor era stories, which works to it's advantage. Genuinely, this is a strong season, a strong start to John Nathan-Turner's run as producer, and a strong end to the 4th Doctor era.
Even if, you know, it already felt like the show had left him behind well before he regenerated.

Awards

Best Story: State of Decay
What can I say, I like it when old Uncle Terry does horror. It's odd, I'll admit, to have talked up so much how refreshing it felt to have a season that didn't rely so much on gimmicks and then to say that my favorite story from said season to be the vampire pastiche but…I'm allowed to be self contradictory if I like. And genuinely, State of Decay works so well that it's worth highlighting my own inconsistency to highlight the story.
Worst Story: Meglos
Meglos (the character) has no motivation, the stuff on Tigella is the most boring version of a conflict we've done…probably dozens of times at this point, none of the characters are at all memorable…what a waste of the return of Jacqueline Hill.
Most Important: The Keeper of Traken
Logopolis has the regeneration and introduction of block-transfer computation, so this was a closely run thing. But Keeper introduces the version of the Master that will be sticking around for the remainder of the show, sets up a lot about Logopolis, and introduces a new companion. Like I said it's close, but this feels like the right call to me. I also could have gone with Warriors' Gate, but Keeper and Logopolis both feel much more significant to me.
Funniest Story: N/A
Often times when there's not really a comedy in a season, I go for the strangest story as a sort of proxy for the funniest story. But the strangest story this season was Warriors' Gate, and it's not the right kind of strange to qualify for this award. So we're leaving this space blank, as JNT intentionally tries to move the show away from what Graham Williams was doing with it.
Scariest Story: State of Decay
I had to chose which was scarier between the destruction of the universe via entropy or vampires and went with vampires. I think my sense of scale might be borked.

Rankings

1. State of Decay (8/10)
2. Warriors' Gate (8/10)
3. The Leisure Hive (7/10)
4. The Keeper of Traken (7/10)
5. Logopolis (7/10)
6. Full Circle (7/10)
7. Meglos (1/10)

Season Rankings
These are based on weighted averages that take into account the length of each story. Take this ranking with a grain of salt however. No average can properly reflect a full season's quality and nuance, and the scores for each story are, ultimately, highly subjective and a bit arbitrary.

1. Season 7 (8.1/10)
2. Season 10 (7.5/10)
3. Season 4 (7.0/10)
4. Season 11 (6.5/10)
5. Season 18 (6.4/10)
6. Season 12 (6.3/10)
7. Season 6 (6.3/10)
8. Season 1 (6.2/10)
9. Season 14 (6.2/10)
10. Season 13 (6.1/10)
11. Season 3 (6.0/10)
12. Season 5 (6.0/10)
13. Season 15 (5.9/10)
14. Season 2 (5.8/10)
15. Season 9 (5.8/10)
16. Season 8 (5.8/10)
17. Season 17 (5.8/10) *
18. Season 16 – The Key to Time (5.6/10)

* Includes originally unmade serial Shada
I'm genuinely considering abandoning the season/doctor era rankings portion of these posts. Do I think that Season 18 was good…absolutely. The 5th best season of the first 18 though?
What's happened here is that a lot of very solid scores (4 sevens…) have skewed the results up higher than they would otherwise have gone to the point that, even me giving Meglos a 1/10 hasn't affected it that much. The end result is a season going much higher than I would otherwise put it. Granted if I were as high on Warriors' Gate as some, I'd probably feel better about this, but if I were as high on that story as some it probably gets a perfect score and borks these rankings even further. I don't know, I guess the rankings serve their purpose as a snapshot of how good I felt any given season was on average, but I less and less feel like they're a reflection of my actual rankings of the seasons
Next Time: Somehow, I've reached the end of the 4th Doctor era. Now I just have to write about him. That's…going to be a lot.

What is Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic?

Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic is an innovative, all-natural formula that promotes healthy weight loss. This tonic has been carefully crafted to help people lose excess body fat while providing long-term results. It contains a unique combination of eight natural ingredients, each of which is known to target potential causes of unexpected weight gain.
This formulation stands out because it addresses issues related to blue light exposure and a lack of N-REM sleep, both of which have been linked to weight gain. By incorporating Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic into your daily routine, you can expect to see overall health benefits.
Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic is a unique combination of science and nature that aims to revolutionize healthy weight loss. This one-of-a-kind tonic, more than just a drink, provides a captivating experience by combining a variety of exotic and mysterious ingredients. Let's find out more about Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic and its enchanting ingredients.
Take a trip to Sumatra with the Sumatra Blue Tonic, a combination of Oriental Blue Tonic and exotic ingredients. This creates a unique Weird Blue Tonic that stands out. The roots and plants in this formula produce a bizarre blue liquid that promises a transformative experience.
Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic contains the ancient Oriental Blue Tonic, a remedy with an exotic twist, going above and beyond to provide an Exotic Blue Tonic that targets the underlying causes of unexplained weight gain.

How Does Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic Work?

Sumatra Tonic Awakens Metabolism and Burns Fat Overnight. Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic is a natural solution designed to help with healthy weight loss by addressing key factors contributing to unexplained weight gain.

The Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic recognizes the impact of blue light from electronic devices on the body's metabolism, disrupting the circadian rhythm and leading to weight-related challenges. Lack of non-rapid eye movement (N-REM) sleep is another critical factor. The Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic addresses disrupted sleep patterns, which can contribute to weight gain by affecting natural energy regulation and metabolism.
Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic contains a unique blend of eight natural ingredients chosen for their proven abilities to counteract the effects of blue light exposure and enhance sleep quality. Together, these ingredients create a powerful formula with various benefits.
The blend boosts metabolism, helping the body process nutrients and break down excess fats. Users often report higher energy levels, supporting a more active lifestyle and improved overall well-being.
Beyond weight loss, users may experience clearer thoughts and improved cognitive function.
The Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic supplement contributes to a healthy inflammatory response, promoting overall wellness. The Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic encourages better sleep quality, ensuring individuals enjoy a restful and rejuvenating night's sleep.
Users notice improvements in skin and face, such as a brighter and healthier complexion, potentially reducing the appearance of fine lines.

Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic Active Ingredients

Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic’s science is based on its powerful ingredients. The ingredients are natural and clinically proven to have beneficial effects, which justifies their inclusion in this formula. Let’s have a closer look at each of them and their respective advantages:-

1. Valerian Root: Known as the natural melody of relaxation, Valerian root helps in restful sleep, helps in abnormal weight loss by aiding metabolism Acts as a night watchman, make sure your body is fresh for another day’s challenges.
2. Humulus Lupulus: Commonly known as hops, this tonic has diuretic, digestive and anti-inflammatory benefits. Its soothing properties promote peaceful sleep, while antibacterial properties maintain a balanced internal environment, laying the foundation for weight loss.
3. Griffonia simplicifolia or 5-HTP: Derived from the seeds of the Griffonia simplifolia plant, 5-HTP is a precursor to serotonin, improving mood, improving sleep and improving appetite.
4. Spirulina Blue: Packed with antioxidants, Spirulina Blue fights inflammation and free radicals, creating the ideal environment for weight loss.
5. Berberine: Found in plants such as barberries, it supports normal blood sugar levels and is beneficial in general metabolism.
6. Black Cohosh: Known for its detoxification properties, it can support the body’s natural detoxification and relaxation processes.
7. Lutein: Lutein is found in abundance in fruits and vegetables, and protects eye cells from oxidative damage, contributing to overall health.
8. Inulin: Inulin, a dietary fiber found in certain plants, supports digestive health, promotes good gut flora, and promotes a sense of fullness, helping to improve weight management.

Benefits of Using Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic

Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic is packed with the goodness and potency of natural ingredients such as valerian root, berberine, and others, providing you with a variety of major health benefits. Here are some benefits:

• Lose weight: This slimming diet helps you shed excess fat while you sleep, allowing you to shed pounds and get closer to your ideal figure. The content addresses the root cause of unexplained weight gain.
• Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic activates your body’s natural fat burning ability to release energy and improves endurance in physical performance, thereby maintaining energy levels.
• Skin Revitalization: Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic contains natural ingredients that help repair and renew skin cells, nourish your skin, increase radiance, and reduce signs of aging like fine lines and wrinkles.
• Improved Sleep: Drinking Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic induces a deep and rejuvenating night’s sleep, allowing your body to get adequate rest and recovery.
• Increased energy: This slimming cream gives you a natural boost of energy, leaving you feeling refreshed and renewed to tackle your daily tasks, making you more productive and happier.
• Reduce Inflammation: The natural ingredients in Sumatra Slim Belly Tonic enhance your body’s inflammatory response, reduce inflammation and improve overall health and wellbeing.

It started happening recently, I'm pretty sure it has to be something with electronics. I am not certain if the noise is coming from the speakers or not. Here is the video of me turning the calights on and off, and it making weird sounds. Any help is appreciated 👍🏻. I've already posted to Citroen and someone asked me if it was a prank, sadly it isn't. After the recording I went to the gas station to get cigarettes, and I drove with higher rpm than usually because I was a bit frustrated because of this problem. When I returned home and tried again to turn the lights on/off it worked normally. Now I don't really know how rpm may have affected this, but I'm still not satisfied because I'm looking for a permanent fix (the problem happened earlier and it stopped, but not with the lights). As I said above any help is appreciated.