Okay so this will be a long one but bear with me. It has been an ongoing situation for more than a year now.
I live in a 2br in a reasonably okay area, I’ve been here since 2018. It’s my 14yr old, myself and my big lab that is fully trained. In 2020 right before the pandemic, a family moved in downstairs (mom, dad, a high school are girl and a younger daughter, sometimes their older son visits). When they first moved in, I introduced myself and after introductions she told me that they thought drug addicts lived up there because of the noise. I apologized and told her it could have been my dog and to please feel comfortable enough to knock if we were ever too loud. We’ve never really talked, just polite greetings when our paths crossed.
Everything has been fine the last couple of years until last March while my 14 yr old was home by herself, she was recording herself doing her makeup and in the video we could hear banging coming from underneath the floor. She texted me about it and I told her that perhaps they were hammering something on the wall. From then on, it never stopped. We’d come in during the daytime and within minutes of it, they would be banging with a broomstick on their ceiling. I contacted management about it and let them know. The manager was surprised but said she’d talk to them about it. I’m not sure what she said or if she did, but it escalated, she went and spoke to a neighbor I get along with well and asked her to speak to me. The neighbor instead spoke to my now boyfriend who doesn’t live with me who was walking my dog. Neighbor downstairs then told my mother in passing that my boyfriend tried to get my (trained and super sweet) lab to bite her. Every single time that she has banged on the ceiling (a rough estimate of 15 times in the last year), I’ve called the security agency and followed up with management the next day. Last October I got a first notice to comply or quit in 3 days. It only gave me the date of the noise but not the time or nature of the noise. I was confused because I’d been working at my desk but figured perhaps I rolled my chair too loud. A month later, security came to my door at 10:30, I spoke to them through my doorbell since I was not home. They said there had been a noise complaint but I explained I wasn’t home and he left. I went to management the next day and she said that the lady had been in there crying and sobbing that we were incessantly making noise and stomping all day and her anxiety was getting bad. Management then asked if there was bad blood between us and I told her I hardly spoke to her since the first time we met. In January of this year, I bought 1/2 inch floor padding and carpeting and put it down all over my living room to try and make the effort to fix the situation before it got worse. I also went out and bought slippers for myself, my daughter and extra for visitors or bf. I sent video and photos to management to prove the modification. The banging stopped but only for about a month. In March, we came home on a Sunday at 1 pm and her door was open as we came up the stairs, she was looking at us from her hallway which made me uncomfortable. Within a minute of walking in, the banging started. I got angry and walked downstairs in plain view of the apartment camera and my own and told her she needed to stop because she had just seen us walk in, I didn’t really hear what else she said to me but I ignored her and went back up. When I went to management the next day, she told me that the downstairs tenant had gone to her apartment on the property crying that I had walked into her apartment and threatened her in front of her child. I was completely shocked and told my manager to review her tapes and gave her the time. She believed me and my mistake was not getting it in writing. She told me that her husband had also been in to complain and her children had gone in with her as well. Then asked me if I really thought they would all lie about the noise. I became more paranoid because now it seemed like management was not believing me about the noise even though I wasn’t home. I complained again after she started banging on the ceiling one morning around 8 while I was getting ready for work. They said a notice would be sent to her. In late April, I was out with friends and got back around midnight. Next morning I had work and when I got back there was a 2nd notice on my door. Along with it, a report from the night security saying that there was a complaint at 11 pm for moving furniture around and another one at 2 am for arguing and screaming but that both times when he approached my apartment, all was dark and quiet. I sent a video to management dragging my heavy coffee table to prove that on my carpet it doesn’t make any noise. I told them I’d been asleep and never heard the door at all. Unfortunately they upheld their 2nd notice. Last Thursday the 9th around 11 pm, I was washing my face getting ready to go to bed and I heard a loud knock. It was security, saying there was a noise complaint and asking if I was okay. I told him everything was fine and that I was just getting ready for bed. I asked if it came from downstairs and he said he could not tell me. The next day (5/10/24) I received a final notice to comply or quit. It states that on the 8th and the 10th there were noise complaints from downstairs. Again no time or nature of disturbances. I called management about it because I wasn’t even home on the 8th and had video of me leaving and coming back around 9 pm. I showered and went to sleep for my 7 am shift next day (I work an hour away). My lease was up April 30th, I emailed them twice in that month about lease renewal and management kept saying that corporate had not sent an offer for me and some other residents.
Again I’ve been there for 6 years, got along with the family that lived there before, get along with neighbors around the complex, I’m friendly with my side neighbors and currently there isn’t anyone on the other side of me. According to the property’s website, the apartment I’m at has a monthly rate of $2600, because of the pandemic and how long I’ve been there, I pay $1960 for mine. In the final notice, there’s also this paragraph that I’m not sure I understand too well since I automatically transferred to a month-to-month lease.
“You are further notified that the Owner hereby elects to declare the forfeiture of your Rental Agreement under which you hold possession of the above-described premises. If you fail to perform or otherwise comply, Owner will institute legal proceedings to recover any sums due plus possession of said premises which could result in a judgment against you and all other residents in possession including attorneys' fees and court costs as allowed by law, plus Owner may recover an additional punitive award of six hundred dollars ($600) in accordance with California law for such unlawful detention.”
I’ve always followed the rules, always complied with anything they asked, I genuinely am not doing anything to this family on purpose. But I am at the point where I don’t have company over, I don’t use my living room past 10, I don’t let my dog play with anything or chew on anything at home. My life feels like it is revolving around keeping the people downstairs happy.
Please, I need all of the advice, insight and help I can get. Thank you in advance!

Recently switched to public employment and got PSLF certified. Aidvantage transferred my account to MOHELA. I am having two issues already:
1) When I try to set up automatic payments, MOHELA’s web page for adding bank info has a red warning that says I am about to submit a duplicate payment and that it is already taking payments through “auto debit” - but my bank account does not show any withdrawals and I don’t know how MOHELA would have gotten my info because I never entered it. Should I disregard the warning and just set up the payments anyway?
2) for whatever reason, MOHELA sent me an email this morning stating that it placed me in forbearance and IN SCHOOL DEFERMENT STATUS, claiming I made a request for ISD. I certainly did not. Haven’t been in school for years. Not sure how they could have fucked that up.
What is wrong with this place? Any suggestions on what to do before I embark on a 6 hour wait time tomorrow? TIA

Start downloading all agreements in the Yotta website. Start documenting and saving all your emails. And document all attempts to withdraw money(and its subsequent failure) As well as get names of everyone that “helps” you by telling you “lol money machine can’t go brrrr “ so there’s a clear chain of who said what. As I know no staff member is allowed to say any of this without a higher up giving the green light. Which means at some higher level above customer service managers they were instructed to tell you this in the event you “for whatever reason” actually plan to use your own money 😱 Everything should be on paper with timestamps as the more of us have this collective data the more likely it is That in the event we do have to take legal actions We actually can. I’m fucking done. Yotta, Synapse, Evolve. I don’t fucking care anymore. Although it seems like Evolve wasn’t at fault and from what I’m seeing Yotta also got caught with its pants down and wasn’t “directly” responsible for me not having my OWN FUCKING MONEY It’s my fucking account and debit cards that are directly not working with any system

*Management style:
Not democratic/participative. Not transformational. Not Coaching. Very much Autocratic/Authoritative/Coercive. Sometimes Laissez-faire. Style depends on the department.
*Chain of command:
The ministry is seen as a church by top management. Top management are the “elders” and the CEO is the Senior Pastor. Then there is everybody else. So, confidence is put on their positions of authority. They are, in all sense and purposes, the “spiritual leaders”. They present themselves as having spiritual authority and, therefore, as being entitled to receive immediate agreement and unquestioned compliance.
Also, there are multiple management layers or chains which this quote sums up as well:
"When you become an admiral, you never have bad meals and you never hear the truth. there are all these layers of management and buffer layers and each one is afraid to tell unpleasant truth to the top levels.... “
Not a culture of authenticity where everyone on the team, including management, is encouraged, and expected to be who they are. There is a sense that top management puts up a false front, they seem to want to appear perfect. Illusions of invulnerability exist. They always lead well, they always make the right decisions, they never admit mistakes, etc. Want people to think they got it all together- all rainbows and lollipops. Do not exhibit vulnerability. Toxic positivity is also very much present: Everything is seen as “awesome”. So, there is judgment if you have a bad (not "everything is awesome") day.
The vertical chain of command, results in less collaboration, slow communication, lack of career growth, feelings of subordination, and decreased employee empowerment. Top management sets the rules and standards without any input from the “bottom” employees. Employee questions, concerns or ideas have to go up several steps of the chain of command so that upper management can address or approve. The bottom employees do not have the ability to make decisions related to their work or a particular situation. So, not everyone feels equal.
So, if you are not a spiritual leader, you are just basically told to submit and listen to those who are in authority over you because they are the people that “hear from God” and you are not and so whatever they say goes. And they set up a scenario where they basically kept those of us who were not spiritual leaders dependent upon them.
Many in management are overconfident and overestimate their abilities. They have a simple idea of how things are and how things work. Unfortunately, they make decisions that impact entire departments without gaining the needed knowledge.
The chain of command and lack of ongoing training also results in many employees being promoted so much that they max out their competence and will remain there until they leave or are let go. So, you end up with many in the role of management that lack the training and competence of the respective department. So, employees with the most authority are often not the most experienced and not adept in the particular field leading team members. And employees with the most experience and skills and knowledge and wisdom have the least (or no) authority.
Good leaders don’t always claim the “leader” title. Oftentimes, good leaders are those with more understated temperaments. Leadership is as much about listening as it is about telling. However, people with the most open and receptive personalities often do not have much authority.
Also, how the chain of command should operate when there is a unit that acted without proper authorization, it is not a junior authority who’s going to bear a responsibility for that, but somewhat of more senior status. And that’s true in any military or business or ministry operating by a code of ethics. So, if someone at the bottom of the chain is struggling, failing, or making mistakes, those at the top of the chain bear full responsibility. Everything stands or falls on leadership. Unfortunately, the chain at FCBH is not two directional.
There is also a sense that top management promotes employees who are least-competent but pose no risk to their own position (in-group bias) to management.
*Feedback:
Work environment or culture is not set up for employees to give honest feedback/opinions or to deliver bad news or to question or disagree with management.
Sample bias is also common. Management will send an email asking for feedback but they won't consider how only the people who are open to talking and sharing their opinions will participate while others won’t. Bias arises because employees with specific characteristics (e.g., extroverts) might be more likely to agree to participate than others, making the participants a non-representative sample. People with strong opinions or substantial knowledge about a specific topic may be more willing to give feedback than those without. Management does not follow up to determine why they are unresponsive or follow up frequently to reduce attrition.
Management claims they want to hear from employees, but they only want opinions and ideas on matters that are superficial or trivial. So, few employees give candid feedback on important and significant matters.
Top management does not involve employees in the change process when changes occur.
Management does not ask for honest feedback on their leadership or on decisions that are made that affect employees. Management will not ask how they are doing as leaders, what employees need from them. No regular check-ins or 1:1 on employees’ professional and personal well-being. Are employees stressed, disappointed or feeling burdened physically, emotionally or spiritually? No growth and career discussions.
Management will ignore most feedback, comments, suggestions even when it's common knowledge but will adamantly listen to employees who preface with "God told me to tell you..." Or “I felt God say …” or “God spoke to me and said…”
For example, management started focusing on Gen Z only after a few people claimed that “God told us that Gen Z are important for our future business growth.” In another instance, someone said “God gave us this word: we as a ministry need to really consider how everyone is wired, how each person is different. How people have different personalities.” Then, management affirmed this “word from God.”
If one employee brings something up to management it is often ignored and the employee is gaslighted. If two or more employees bring the same thing to management, then God is communicating something and they take it seriously (per Matt 18). Even if it is just coincidence or frequency bias.
*Groupthink/Conformity:
Groupthink, confirmation bias, in-group bias, illusions of unanimity, and self-censorship is very prevalent in the culture and especially in their meetings. There is a lot of direct pressure to not question, to conform, to agree with the views and personal convictions of the top management. Employees condemn those who disagree or question top management and they accept those who agree, creating immense pressure for conformity.
So, many employees frequently remain quiet, preferring to “keep the peace” rather than disrupt the uniformity. Employees are pressured to hide problematic information (especially from top management).
*Disagreements/Different perspectives:
Top management will also point out the working and living conditions of international employees to “encourage” local employees to not “complain” or give critical feedback or bring up legitimate problems (e.g., fumes or loud noises from construction in the building).
Management also often commits the "ends (or goals or vision) justify the means" fallacy: the work, the production and distribution of bibles (the ends) being done is more important, so employees shouldn't complain at all about the means or their working conditions (broken chairs, broken or inadequate equipment, poor work-life balance, bad management).
And, if management disagrees with you, with your observations, feedback, suggestions, or theology, they will often try to trump you with spirituality or vague meaningless spiritual terminology instead of using Scripture (properly interpreted), facts and reasoning.
In addition, top managers will take great offense when employees question or disagree with the directions and decisions they make. Dissent is not welcomed. Respectful debates/disagreement is not encouraged. Open discussion and alternative perspectives are not encouraged. Management does not value, support, or respect diverse opinions and ideas. They do not actively seek out different viewpoints. Do not allow people to speak their perspective, their thought of mind. So, there is no psychological safety. Employees do not feel comfortable expressing dissenting opinions without fear of retribution or judgment. Afraid of breaking the little glass image. People do not feel comfortable sharing setbacks, mistakes, failures. Management does not encourage open communication. Management often seeks agreement, instead of posing honest questions that challenge the status quo and provoke critical thinking and discussion. They do not encourage employees to challenge them. In fact, they are seen as a type of complaining or critical feedback and so are viewed as sin. This makes top management seem self-centered.
*Appeals to emotion: Guilt and Shame:
Top management often shares their personal opinions and convictions (e.g., spending money only when absolutely necessary, not accepting large gifts, not buying fancy items) as something everyone should do. It’s never direct. It's always through stories. Management loves stories. The personal convictions of management are presented as more than preferences.
For instance, top management encourages extreme frugality and poverty through their personal anecdotes #loudbudgeting and stories from international cultures. Think along the lines of: “we, here in America, have no right to be sad or to complain about things or to request better things or ask for accommodations or for more employee engagement because others (internationals) have it much worse.” Even wanting better equipment and supplies or asking for better working conditions is frowned upon (in some cases seen as a sin), even if your request helps you to do your job more effectively and makes the work better (a new whiteboard, a new office chair, better computers, etc.)
Example: “You should really try to come in to work even if you feel bad, even if you are snowed in and the roads are hazardous because people need to get our bibles. And our international employees work in much harsher conditions.”
You also get this feeling from the way they communicate that top management would rather not pay their employees. They would prefer it if everyone just worked for free because “we are on a mission from God. We are doing the Lord's work.” There is also a sense that employees should be more than willing to sacrifice their well-being, career goals, financial goals, personal goals for reaching people with their Bibles.
Leadership sets the example and expectations, so this all ends up making employees confused and feeling guilty and ashamed. Guilty and shameful about asks, spending money (even their own). Guilty and shameful about having nice things (new car, new phone, new tv), about making needs known, about sharing concerns regarding work, about asking for raises to keep up with cost of living, etc.
Example: An employee has continued to use an old whiteboard. It is so old it is hard to read and difficult to erase. Management likes to tell donors: “We don't spend money on everyday things like whiteboards…. Instead, we use that money for more bible recordings, for people to hear about Jesus.”
This also causes confusion. Every few months there is a meeting where management discusses how sitting on stores of money is bad, but spending it is also bad, but also not spending it is bad... "Being rich is bad. Money is bad. let's not accumulate money, that's bad. We must think about how people will see what we have. So we should look poor and not appear too frivolous." But top management is okay with receiving gifts from donors and other ministries. Management personally does not like to have nice “fancy” things, and as a ministry, they say FCBH should also not have nice fancy things, they should use the money for other more important things. They don't like when other ministries use their money for nice fancy things, but it's okay if other ministries give FCBH nice fancy things like tote bags, key chains, mugs, phone holders, lunch bags. Another example, it took them years to repaint the parking lot. It was at the point where people did not know where to park. Before repainting, management decided to remodel the hallways and install posters and multiple monitors with language stats.
There is also a subtle sense that producing audio and video bibles is the highest calling one can have. And it's implied that FCBH is the main means God uses to fulfill the great commission: “God needs FCBH to do these bible recordings or people (specifically unreached internationals) will go to hell.” So, top management hints that working anywhere else isn't really serving God (or at least, not serving God as well as one could if they worked somewhere else). They imply that working at this ministry is the only way to truly serve God and fulfill your calling. They also use this framing to guilt and shame employees into not quitting. Management implies that employees should not take opportunities to leave or take other jobs because getting the Bible to people is God’s highest calling for us as Christians:
“If anyone leaves FCBH, then they must not really understand the vision/calling. They are not committed to saving people. We should be willing to give up things to fulfill the calling. The apostles did not pursue better jobs and so God will provide if we need better pay, benefits, career. For those of us who join the ministry to hold true to get God's word to every person, it takes discipline because we have opportunities to do other things. I'm sure that Noah had problems with Builders because he probably had hundreds of people not thousands working on the ark. They started their own businesses and started side things going on. pretty soon they'll have no time to work with him on the ark. and you can have all kinds of diversionary things happen. and so we want to understand they focused in the ministry. and that's been one of the things that I've really tried to do is what did God tell me at the time this ministry began because I was not interested in this ministry. I was interested in living by faith and experiencing God through people and seeing people experience God. and when I was praying about that here in Albuquerque the Lord said bring my church together and make disciples. and then he also told me that when his people think the same they are one. so it's not a matter of getting rid of the buildings or the leaders but it's a matter of people thinking the same. They can go to different denominations, different buildings, have different teachers, and different preachers and leaders but once they think the same, they're one and that's what his objective was. and so that's when I felt like the Lord said get God's word to every person. So I'm challenging us to stay true to what God has called us to do. and every time somebody leaves the ministry there are reasons for leaving. but it startles me a little bit, because I think well we haven't, we haven't communicated the vision very well somehow because they didn't get it. like Noah building the arc. it it's a long project it's not a month or a year two years or three years. our immediate goal is 2033 and it means that we're committed to a cause. and that means some of us we give up something. I we've given up stuff we live in a small apartment and that's what we saw that God had us do and that's our lifestyle we we tone down our lifestyle to get the cause committed to the cause. and and I know that's difficult for some, in some cases maybe there's financial needs because of family growth and stuff there they just can't afford to work in the ministry. but sometimes it's a choice and every time somebody leaves it where it's actually a choice. I think we haven't communicated the mission very good the vision very good. I've been looking at is that could you imagine read reading the New Testament. and finding out that Peter about halfway through or Paul halfway through the ministry all of a sudden got a better job offer. and stopped their portion of the ministry they held the course no matter what happened. whether it was good or whether it was bad. Paul talks about this and sometimes we want to follow the Lord. but we don't impart on ourselves the same responsibilities that those disciples did. so when God Empower them is he empowering you in the same way. and you're making choices that maybe you shouldn't make that you will impart and say the Lord is leading me someplace else when in fact maybe it isn't. it's just a better offer. if the Bible in the New Testament was reading a little bit different than Stephen left the ministry at this point or James left the ministry at this point because of something I think we need to be very very careful and why I say that is that as we work internationally.”
SO, there is a lot of guilt and shame about leaving to pursue other interests or meet needs. Guilt and shame about wanting to leave to advance and develop professionally. For this reason, many remain “loyal” and stay at the ministry.
So there is lots of control and manipulation in the work culture.
*Weekly worship meetings:
These are mandatory and there are some legitimate concerns:
Top management seems to have misconceptions about true worship and worship experiences. They often reduce worship to singing by their communication, the way “worship” is used. Worship is seen as something we do on occasion - once a week, when we gather at work for the mandatory worship time. Top management, by ignoring other styles, seems to believe that there is a single style of worship which is correct for Christians.
And it seems like just about anyone can lead worship or be on the team: anyone that can play an instrument. Top management does not require a worship class or agreement to biblical principles concerning worship as a prerequisite for employees who desire to plan and lead worship experiences. So you end up with people who have different views/philosophies on the worship team. Unfortunately, many who lead do not take the time/effort to plan and lead worship experiences, to discern from songs that are better suited for individual or private worship from songs that are corporate or public worship, to discern songs that are controversial/questionable (have bad theology, weak theology), songs that are theologically ambiguous or songs that lean more towards “feminine” attributes. Most, if not all, of our modern “Christian” worship music is written at a simplistic level of understanding and comprehension. Most music tends to appeal to our emotions. Many songs appeal mostly to women. So there is a great need for teaching on the biblical principles concerning worship. Also a need to choose theologically balanced songs with music appropriate for the people. Unfortunately, many of the songs chosen are theologically incorrect (e.g., having elements from the Word Of Faith movement, New Apostolic Church, New Age). Songs are often not theologically balanced. Songs seem to be chosen for their emotional impact, to make employees feel good; many focus on just one aspect of God (e.g., love). Many promote self-centered worship.
Most of the worship leaders just sing the songs: They do not actually “lead” people into worship. They do not help people connect the lyrics of the song to where they are at in their personal life, to teach them something about God or help the people understand what this song means and what God wants them to get out of it, so they're not just singing songs and just doing, going through the motions or help them understand the depth and the richness of what lyrics mean and how it applies to their life. What matters to them seems to be whether songs are impactful, moving, and beautiful. (Whatever that means.) Whether songs make employees feel good. They don't seem to care whether the songs actually reflect truth: Do the lyrics line up with Scripture? Do the songs glorify self or God? How would new Christians or nonChristians interpret the song?
Theology is the study of God and it's very important doxology is an expression of praise to God so the point here is that all theologies should ultimately lead to doxology if theology doesn't lead to doxology then we've actually missed the point of theology so if you have theology without doxology you just have dead hold orthodoxy which is horrible. On the other side you have the people who say “forget about theology I just want to praise.” But if you have doxology without theology you actually have idolatry because it's just a random expression of praise but it's not actually informed by the truth of who God is so God is
concerned with both he's concerned with an accurate understanding of him and that accurate understanding of him leading to a response of praise adoration and worship towards him.
*Leadership quality:
Top management has more respect for donors and guests than their employees.
Management lacks basic core leadership principles/values:
Unfortunately, many employees are not given power or resources: Management just gives them the responsibility to get things done. Before responsibility is given, employees should be equipped: be empowered, have the authority, be given resources and have the experience. Employees are not empowered as individuals to solve their own problems using their own solutions. Micromanagement is often required every time the situation changes or problems arise. Employees are not inspired to act as leaders for themselves, delivering amazing performance without guidance. They have coaching sessions but only when there’s a problem. True coaching occurs regardless of whether the individual is crushing their goals or falling behind. Management does not seem to care about unlocking a person’s potential and getting the most of their performance. They seem only interested in producing more followers, not more leaders.
No method to hold management accountable to core values listed in their own Employee handbook. Employees are expected to abide by the procedures and rules described in the handbook but top management can choose to ignore it when it is convenient for them.
-Top management are NOT learners: No desire to develop and improve their skills.
-They do not ask employees: What’s one thing you see me doing—or failing to do—that you think I should change?
-They do not ask how they are doing as leaders. Or ask employees how they’re doing.
-They do not ask what employees need from management that they are not giving them.
-No performance evaluations for both management or non-managment.
-They often fail to emotionally connect with employees.
-They do not speak to employees' needs first.
-They do not focus on what they can put into people rather than what they can get out of them.
-They do not understand basic psychology, how people think and behave.
-They are often resistant to (and even hate) change: Perhaps because they fear losing control. In fact, new information, objective facts, research, stats, and even new ideas are often ignored in favor of what's easiest to do or because of tradition. If something has been done and “works”, top management does not see a reason to question it or to improve on it. If something was tried 5, 10, 20, even 50yrs before and failed, top management does not see a reason to try it again even if the exact circumstances have changed.
-They do not empower or give the means, the power or opportunity to do to employees.
-They do not trust others to follow through managing processes and performing tasks.
-They do not lead by example.
-They do not know when to move forward and when to back off, what to improve and how radical those improvements should be.
-They often fail to see options, and plan and prioritize.
-They fail to develop leaders around them.
-Their communication is often poor.
-Their listening is also poor: do not listen for more than facts, but also the feelings, meanings and undercurrents.
-They do not take the time to get to know the people they lead: no weekly check-ins which top organizations have to discuss how employees are doing professionally and personally. Management doesn't ask “what was good this week? What was not good this week? How is your well-being? How is your family?”
Competence in leadership skills is also poor.
-They are not teachable: not willing to keep learning, growing, improving in leadership and management practices: FCBH has a yearly “leadership” summit. But, the way it is set up, it reinforces weaknesses instead of challenging leadership growth.
The summit is also just for a select few in top management. Not every employee is seen as a leader so most employees are excluded.
Top managers attend the summit but there is no followup, no post accountability by other managers and especially by the employees that are under the managers. No discussion on how management will apply what was learned.
Some of the past speakers have had questionable characters and even questionable teachings (Judah Smith). Leadership qualifications and theological background seems to be ignored in favor of charismatics, dynamics, popularity.
-Top management does not take responsibility for their part of a disagreement or failure and apologize.
-They often embrace a victim mentality.
-They often limit yourself by your job title.
-They do not invest in better tools or processes.
-They are content with the status quo.
-They allow their past achievements to stagnate their desire to keep learning.
-There is a lack of discernment, finding the main cause of problems/issues.
-They do not anticipate problems.
-They do not accept the truth of the problem: Do not face up to the reality of the situation;
-They get bogged down in the details.
-They often avoid problems.
-They don’t deal well with problems.
-They do not have their team study all angles.
-They often do not value nontraditional thinking: Don’t embrace change, ambiguity and uncertainty well.
-They do not work well with differences.
-They do not have their own mentors or provide mentorship to others.
-They do not invest to improve their own professional or leadership skills.
-They are often insecure, constantly seek validation, acknowledgement and love.
-They limit employee's success and recognition:
-They do not seem interested in making people successful: Don’t attempt to remove barriers that prevent employees from being successful.

• They often feel threatened by accomplishments by employees who are not management:

If an employee who is not management has a great idea to improve the work, management often does not support it and may secretly try to shut it down.
When a team succeeds, management will not give other people credit and instead take the credit themselves.
It seems like some of the people working there were given the title of management, the position, and that alone made them qualified. Management or leaders assume that their position alone qualifies them to make critical decisions where they may not have the best data, insight, wisdom, skill, experience. Just because one may have the word “manger” in the job title, does not automatically make them a great leader. Leadership is about dealing with people, and the dynamics between those people, and influencing people.
*Dead end career path:
For the most part, top management assumes that team members are fine and "settled", rather than taking the time to understand their true feelings and needs. They do not ask employees where they are struggling, where they are having trouble, what frustrates them the most?
Management does not seem interested in making employees better both personally or professionally. They do not have a growth plan or professional development plan for employees. No job related training. They do not provide what is needed to help employees to grow and improve. They don't provide opportunities for employees to apply their talents and expertise. They don’t ask how they can better support employees. Employees don’t check on each other.
One is expected to work until health deteriorates and skills become obsolete so you leave in a worse place than you started. For most employees, there is no long term future with the organization. Management does not let employees know how they are doing and what the future looks like for them. What the opportunities are. They do not take the time to learn from employees what they want to be. No honest conversations to understand employees goals and ambitions. So, because there is no growth or development plan, no career path, once your skills are outdated, they will probably let you go or they will keep you in the same position and your salary will max out.
Management does not coach employees on how to manage their time, priorities, and energy; no teaching on how to problem solve, or make better decisions, or how to set boundaries or how to minimize context switching and zoom fatigue.

The online casino industry has experienced an explosion in popularity in recent years and, in part, that's down to the legalisation of iGaming in a selection of US states that has allowed the industry to spread around the world. Of course, online casinos have come a long way since the early days. Now, there are more casino games than ever and, along with the increase in these, there are more and more payment methods. This means that crypto gambling is now with us, and this has brought a whole new audience to iGaming. With so many sites to choose from, how do you find the best bitcoin casino? How do you know what goes into making the best crypto casino? Should you be paying attention to new bitcoin casino sites? As you read on, that's what we're going to be exploring.
An Overview Of The Best Bitcoin and Crypto Casinos
If you're someone who likes to jump right in, and take a snapshot, to follow you'll find our summary of the crypto casino market and discover the ones that we think are the best. If you're someone who seeks more detail, we have you covered too, but you'll need to read on. So, here's a look at the best bitcoin casinos, as well as those accepting other top cryptocurrencies:

• Heybets - The best for VIP perks and regular promotions.
• Metaspins - Attractive first deposit bonus.
• Inmerion Casino - Huge range of classic casino games.
• B.C Game - Bitcoin gambling for all budgets.
• Stake - Impressive all-rounder.
• Wild.i.o - Best bitcoin casino for ongoing promotions.
• Jackbit - Great selection of bitcoin table games, as well as online slots.

As you read on, we'll be exploring the best bitcoin casinos in more detail. We'll be delving into the range of bitcoin casino games, and how these compare to traditional online casinos. We'll also be looking at the cryptocurrencies that are accepted, as well as everything else you need to know about banking methods. If that's not enough, we'll be going into detail about the bitcoin casino sites and the bonuses on offer ( we know you'll be looking for free spins, an attractive match bonus, as well as VIP programs), as well as exploring the customer service on offer.

The Heybets Crypto Casino Site

There's no denying that Heybets is one of the top bitcoin casinos around. As well as offering a great online casino experience, there is also an attractive sportsbook where you can enjoy sports betting on the top action. This means that you can play games, and win in the best sporting events, all in the same place.
Let's have a closer look at what makes this one of the best bitcoin gambling sites:
Heybets and Crypto Casino Games
While there's plenty to consider when looking for the best bitcoin casino, there's no escaping the fact that the range of casino games matters. There needs to be plenty to keep players entertained, there need to be provably fair games, and sports betting is an added bonus. Here's what Heybets has to offer:
Slot Games
With traditional online casinos, slot games are the staple of what's on offer. These are the most popular casino games out there, and so you'd expect the best bitcoin casino sites to perform well here. The good news is that Heybets certainly delivers here. There are classic slots, jackpot slots, and those with stunning bonus rounds. Just a few of the titles include:

• Wanted Dead or a Wild
• Sugar Rush
• Hot to Burn
• Fruit Party

While the number of slots matters, for a site to be the best bitcoin casino, the quality matters too. Fortunately, the games here only come from the best providers, such as:

• NetEnt
• Hacksaw Gaming
• Red Tiger
• Quickspin

This just goes to show that you can rely on online crypto casinos if you're one of the many slot fans out there.
Table and Card Games
Something else that makes Heybets one of the best cryptocurrency casinos is the fact that it also caters well for fans of other games. Here, you'll find a selection of classics, such as:

• Blackjack - There's a range of blackjack variants at this btc casino such as American, Multihand, and Lightning.
• Roulette - You'll also find a range of roulette casino games to enjoy. You'll be able to play European and American roulette, as well as variants such as Lightning and Double Ball.
• Poker - While you won't find live online poker rooms here, there are 3 variations of video poker to enjoy.

Live Casino Games
Heybets also has a great range of live dealer games. You can enjoy live versions of blackjack, roulette, and baccarat. Thanks to the fact that the live casino is powered by Evolution Gaming, you can also make the most of live game shows, such as Dream Catcher and Monopoly Big Baller.
Banking and Crypto Transactions
As with all gambling websites, the payment methods on offer are important when it comes to choosing an online casino to play at. The top bitcoin casino sites allow players to use a range of cryptocurrencies, as well as supporting other methods that you'd find at fiat casinos. Ay Heybets, you can use the following to fund your account and play casino games:

• Bitcoin
• Litecoin
• Ethereum

While there's plenty of choice here, what would make this stronger would be the inclusion of the likes of Dogecoin and Tether.
When considering more traditional methods of depositing and withdrawing, Heybets also allows you to use bank wire. There are no fees when using this option for fiat currencies, but users of crypto will need to be aware of the relevant GAS fees.
Heybets and Bonuses and promotions
As you'd expect from a site that could well be considered the best bitcoin casino, there are a host of bonuses and promotions here. Let's get the bad news out of the way with first: this crypto casino does not offer a welcome bonus. With that out of the way, let's take a look at the bonuses and promotions on offer for existing players. While these change on a regular basis, these are the ones that are a constant:
Raise Your Arm Zeus
This bonus comes into play when you're playing the online slot, Gates of Olympus. You'll activate the bonus at this bitcoin casino if you manage to win 20x - 100x from the free spins feature. If you're in luck, this leads to this crypto casino boosting your winnings by 100%.
Extra Juice
The lack of a welcome bonus doesn't seem to sting quite so much when you look at the likes of Extra Juice. This bonus kicks in on a selection of new casino games. It can lead to winnings being boosted by 7%.
Sports Betting
While our focus is on online casinos, it's worth noting that Heybets also offers a range of ongoing bonuses and promotions for customers of its sportsbook.
Loyalty Program
If you're looking for the bitcoin casino with the best loyalty rewards then Heybets is it. The VIP program here has 5 tiers, and each comes with its own rewards. To enter at the bronze level, you need to have wagered at least $2,500. With this, you can enjoy 5% cashback on all bets. Reach diamond and you'll benefit from 10% cashback as well as exclusive bonuses and rewards. This certainly makes this site stand out from other bitcoin casinos.
Heybets Customer Service
With online gambling, it's a must that a site offers great customer support. At Heybets, you can be sure that you're covered here. Just like all relatively new bitcoin casino sites, there's a need for Heybets to go above and beyond to inspire confidence. It certainly does that with almost instant responses on its live chat which is staffed by knowledgable and polite agents. The only downside is that this isn't available 24/7.
Mobile Experience
While this bitcoin online casino doesn't have a dedicated app, players can still play games via their mobile browsers. The casino games here are compatible with mobile devices thanks to HTML5 technology and the work of the developers behind them.
Summing up the Heybets Online Crypto Casino
Let's sum up the pros and cons, and see what makes this online casino one that's worthy of your attention:
Pros:

• Great range of online slots and table games
• Impressive selection of live casino games
• Generous ongoing promotions
• Opportunity to explore sports betting

Cons:

• Lack of welcome bonus/deposit bonuses
• No mobile app
• Customer support not 24/7

The Metaspins Bitcoin Casino

When looking at the best bitcoin casinos, Metaspins is another online gambling site that can't be ignored. If you're the kind of player seeking an attractive deposit bonus, then you'll be more than happy with what's on offer here. As we get into the detail, you'll soon see why Metaspins deserves a place on our list of the best bitcoin casinos.
Metaspins and Bitcoin Games
Something that is clear when looking at the best BTC casinos is that there is no shortage when it comes to the range of games that there are to choose from. What puts Metaspins in the running for the best bitcoin casino site is the fact that there are more than 2,500 games to explore. Given that this site was only launched in 2022, it can still be considered to be one of the new bitcoin casino sites, so there's a good chance that the range of games will only grow. Let's take a closer look at what's on offer now:
Slot Games
What makes Metaspins one of the best crypto casinos is the range of slots that can be played. These are provably fair games, and they come from some of the best providers in the business. In fact, what makes the range of slots so exciting here is the sheer number of providers that Metaspins works with. There are more than 30 of these, including the likes of:

• Relax Gaming
• Wazdan
• Yggdrasil
• Quickspin

You can expect to come across some of the most popular slot titles, such as Gonzo'a Quest, Starburst, and Dark King: Forbidden Riches. For fans of jackpot slots, there's a great range of these too, including Jackpot Quest and Rainbow Jackpots Power Lines.
Table and Card Games
As you'd expect from a site in the ranks of the best bitcoin casino, there's more to this BTC casino than slots. There's also a great range of table and card games, meaning that Metaspins is an attractive destination for fans of all casino games. The games that you'll find cover all the classics such as:

• Blackjack
• Roulette
• Baccarat
• Video poker

Live Casino Games
Like many of the best crypto casinos, Metaspins also has an impressive range of live games. These come from top developers such as Swintt and Evolution Gaming. When gambling online here, there are traditional titles to choose from, including live poker games, as well as game show experiences. such as Crazy Time and Boom City.
Banking and Crypto Transactions
This crypto casino accepts a range of cryptocurrencies. This is good news for players as it means that can find the crypto that suits them. The other great thing at this crypto casino is that, if you don't happen to have any crypto of your own, you can use VISA or MasterCard to purchase some. The cryptos available include:

• Bitcoin
• Bitcoin Cash
• Ethereum
• Tron
• Ripple
• Dogecoin
• Litecoin

As bitcoin online casinos go, this is an impressive showing and will be a major draw for new players.
Metaspins Bonuses and Promotions
A major part of online casinos is the welcome bonus money that's up for grabs. Alongside this, players also like to see reload bonuses, cashback, free spins and even no deposit bonuses (although these are a little on the rare side). With that in mind, let's take a look at what this bitcoin casino has to offer:
Metaspins Welcome Bonus
The welcome bonus offered here is certainly attractive, and is bound to catch the eye of many players. As one of the best bitcoin casino sites, Metaspins offers a 100% match bonus up to a maximum of 1 btc. That means that if you were to deposit 0.5 btc, you'd then be rewarded with another 0.5, meaning that you had 1 btc to play with. The only watch out here is the wagering requirements. They come in at 40x, and they need to be met within 7 days. This could prove a little tricky if you were to take advantage of the maximum bonus money offered.
Deposit and Get
As deposit bonuses go, this one we think is extremely impressive. It really is as simple as it sounds: you continue to make deposits, and you can be certain that you'll get rewards. You just need to keep an eye on your rewards panel. When you see a notification, give it a click and see what you've been given. Some of the rewards on offer are:

• Reload bonuses to use on your favourite casino games.
• Free spins that can be enjoyed on the best slot games.
• MetaLotto tickets that can lead to substantial prizes.

These ongoing rewards mean that there are plenty of reasons for players to stay loyal to, what we believe, is one of the best bitcoin casinos.
Sports Betting
Just like many of the other best bitcoin casinos, Metaspins also has an impressive sports betting section. There are separate bonuses to be enjoyed here.
Metaspins Customer Service
To be seen as one of the best crypto casino sites, there's a need for online gambling platforms to offer outstanding customer service. Bitcoin casinos are still relatively new, and knowing that the company is there when you need it matters even more than it does at traditional sites. Metaspins delivers here, with 24/7 live chat, as well as a detailed FAQ section. The fact that customer support is always there means that this truly is one of the top bitcoin casinos.
Mobile Experience
This btc casino doesn't have a dedicated app as yet, but that doesn't mean the games can't be enjoyed on the go. Simply by using your mobile browser, you can access Metaspins from any mobile device and enjoy the full crypto casino experience, no matter where you are.
Summing Up the Metaspins Crypto Casino
As before, now's the time to round up the pros and cons of this crypto casino site, so that you can decide if this is one that you want to play at:
Pros:

• Attractive welcome bonus
• Huge range of provably fair games.
• 24/7 customer support
• Reload bonuses that include free spins
• Selection of cryptos accepted.

Cons:

• Wagering requirements must be met within 7 days
• No mobile app (however the browser experience is outstanding).

The Immerion Bitcoin Casino Site

If you're looking for crypto casino sites that feature all of the classics that you're already a fan of, then Immerion could well be the crypto casino for you. As you read on, we'll be looking at just what's on offer here. As well as considering the crypto casino games, we'll also be looking at everything else that you need to know Let's get started.
Inmerion Crypto Casino Games
With online gambling, players like to see a wide range of games. It's fair to say that when compared to other bitcoin casinos and fiat casinos, Inmerion has an impressive showing. There are more than 5,000 bitcoin casino games to be played, and we're going to explore these in more detail now:
Slots
You may think that Inmerion is the best crypto casino based on the number of slots alone. There are more than 3,000 of these to choose from, meaning that even the most ardent slot fans have plenty to keep them entertained. What we like here is that the number of slots isn't overwhelming thanks to the filters that can be used. You can set filters to search by provider, RTP, max win, and volatility.
Among this vast number of slots, you're going to come across new titles, as well as many classics, such as:

• Big Bass Bonanza
• Sugar Rush
• Gate of Olympus

Table and Card Games
For gambling sites to be among the best, there needs to be more on offer than slots. Inmerion does well here with a range of other games:

• Blackjack - There are more than 70 blackjack titles to choose from here.
• Roulette - With European and American versions to choose from, there are also another 146 titles to explore.
• Poker - There are live poker rooms as well as video poker here, with a total of 35 titles to choose from.
• Other Games - By exploring the tabs, you'll also find bitcoin casino games such as craps and bingo.

Live Dealer Games
Many crypto casinos give some attention to live dealer games, but here you'll find that there are more than 300 to choose from. There are all of the classic games, as well as the game show titles that Evolution Gaming excels at.
Banking Options
As you'd expect from one of the top bitcoin casinos, Inmerion has a range of cryptos that you can play with. You can make deposits and withdrawals using:

• Bitcoin
• Bitcoin Cash
• Ethereum
• Litecoin
• Tron
• Dogecoin
• USD Coin
• BNB Coin

Something else that we like here is that there's no minimum deposit so this is an online gambling site for players of all budgets.
Inmerion's Bitcoin Casino Bonus
Whether it's a healthy welcome bonus, a loyalty program, or reloads that appeal, btc casinos need to have something special on offer to be classed as the best. Let's take a look at what Inmerion has to offer:
Welcome Bonus
As it stands, there is no Immerion welcome bonus on offer. This may be a letdown for some players who can't benefit from their first deposit. However, there are other casino bonuses to enjoy.
Engine of Fortune
This is a daily bonus that allows you to spin the wheel of fortune. You need to have deposited at least $50 in the last 24 hours and then you can spin. The prizes on offer include free spins, cash, and a more than impressive top prize of 5 btc.
Daily Cashback
No matter who plays at this online crypto casino, they can all benefit from the ongoing cashback offer. Each and every day you benefit from receiving 20% of your losses from the previous day. This is something that really appeals and certainly puts Inmerion in the running for the best bitcoin casino.
Sports Betting
This is another of the best crypto casinos that has an attractive sports book, along with some great bonuses.
Inmerion Customer Service
Reputable casinos need to be there for their customers. There need to be ways that customers can reach out and have their queries resolved in a timely manner. Here, you'll find that live chat is on hand 24/7 to deal with any issues. What we also liked was the fact that there is separate support for those wanting assistance with deposits and withdrawals.
Mobile Experience
Just like the other other crypto casinos that we've looked at so far, there is no mobile app here. However, you can still enjoy Inmerion online gambling via your smartphones and tablets via your mobile browser. Nothing is lost when compared to the desktop experience, and it allows you to enjoy all that Inmerion has to offer with added convenience.
Summing up the Inmerion Crypto Casino
That brings us towards the end of our look at this bitcoin gambling site. Before we move on to the next, let's sum up the pros and cons:
Pros:

• Massive range of games.
• Ongoing promotions, including free spins.
• Range of cryptocurrencies accepted, with the chance to withdraw your gambling winnings with ease.
• Impressive sports betting section.
• Exceptional live dealer section.

Cons:

• No welcome bonus so no way to benefit from the first deposit.
• Lack of a mobile app

The BC Game Online Casino

As we continue to explore the best bitcoin gambling sites, next up is BC Game. This is a site that was established back in 2017, and there is no doubt that this is one of the most reputable btc casinos that there is. Let's take a look at what's on offer, and what makes this one of the best crypto casinos that there is.
BC Game Library
This crypto gambling platform is nothing short of mind-blowing when it comes to the number of games to choose from. At BC Game, you'll find that there are more than 9,000 to explore and that makes this crypto gambling site really stand out. What else is impressive here is that the games cater for high rollers as well as those with a more conservative budget. Let's take a look at just what there is here:
Slot Games
Like other bitcoin casinos that we've looked at so far, there are plenty of slots to enjoy here. Alongside titles that you'll find at other crypto casinos, BC Game also has a host of exclusive games that you won't find anywhere else. The remainder of the library is made up of titles from providers such as Play 'n Go, Microgaming, NetEnt, and Quickspin. Just some of the slots you'll find here include:

• Book of Shadows
• Starburst XXXtreme
• Aztec Pyramid

What we like here is that you can spin with bets as low as $0.01 so these games are accessible to all.
If you're a fan of jackpot slots, you'll find that there are more than 150 progressives here, with the chance to win life-changing amounts.
Table and Card Games
With so many games overall, it's probably unsurprising that there's also a great selection of table and card games too. Here, you can play classics such as:

• Blackjack
• Roulette
• Craps
• Baccarat
• Scratchcards

Live Dealer Games
BC Game also has live dealer games like the other btc casinos that we've looked at so far. These come from the best in the business, namely Evolution Gaming and Pragmatic Play. In truth, the selection here isn't as wide as it is at other crypto casinos, but there is still plenty to keep you entertained.
Banking Options at BC Game
Just like other crypto casinos that make our list of the best, BC Game has plenty of options to choose from. While there are no alternatives away from crypto, the number of these that you can play and withdraw your winnings with is impressive. Some of those that you can use include:

• Bitcoin
• Ethereum
• Dogecoin
• Ripple
• Cardano
• Tron
• Polkadot
• Solana

BC Game Bonuses
This bitcoin casino also comes with some attractive bonuses and promotions that are sure to appeal to players everywhere. Here's a look at what's up for grabs
Welcome Bonus
The welcome bonus here is a little different compared to that at other crypto casinos. That's because it's spread over your first 4 deposits. Here's how it's broken down:

• First deposit- 180% match bonus up to 20,000 BCD
• Second deposit - 240% up to 40,000 BCD
• Third deposit - 300% up to 60,000 BCD
• Fourth Deposit - 360% up to 100,000 BCD

The wagering requirements are 40x. While this may be common it does make it a little difficult to take full advantage of what's offered.
No Deposit Bonuses
Right now, BC Game is also offering a no deposit bonus for new players who sign up. Simply by joining, you can claim $5 worth of free spins that can be used on the Lucky Wheel. Prizes can be up to $500 or come in a variety of cryptocurrencies.
Loyalty Rewards
Players in the VIP program can enjoy higher payouts, free spins, and a host of other rewards. Once a player reaches level 22, you're also given the chance to play with the Super Spin. This is a version of the Lucky Wheel that comes with even more rewards, with the chance to pocket 3 btc.
Sports Betting
Like the other bitcoin casinos that we've looked at so far, BC Game also has a sportsbook that comes with its own bonuses and rewards.
BC Game Customer Service
We're impressed with this crypto casino and the levels of support that are on offer. Firstly, there's the 24/7 live chat function. This is staffed by knowledgeable agents who provide speedy responses. As well as this, there is also the option to reach out via email. This takes longer to receive a reply, but when it does come it is detailed and resolves most issues.
Mobile Experience
If you're wanting to play on the go, BC Game has an impressive mobile app. This can be downloaded on both iOS and Android devices and provides a truly outstanding experience. If you'd rather not download, you can also play via your mobile browser.
Summing up the BC Game Crypto Casino
If you're still trying to decide if this casino is for you, here's an overview of the pros and cons:
Pros:

• More than 9,000 games to choose from
• Accessible to players regardless of budget
• Impressive mobile app
• Generous welcome bonus

Cons:

• Wagering requirements could be lower
• The selection of live casino games is a little limited.

Stake Online Casino Site

If you have ever explored crypto casinos, there's a very good chance that you have come across the name, Stake. Why? Well, it's widely regarded as one of the best out there. As you keep reading, we're going to delve into the details and show you why.
Stake Game Selection
While Stake may not have as many games as we've seen at BC Game, there are still more than 2,000 to choose from. In truth, this is plenty to keep players entertained, and the good news is that each and every title is truly exceptional. Let's take a look:
Online Slots
Slots are a major draw for players, and Stake certainly delivers in this area. You'll find a wide range of titles, with those that are instantly recognisable such as:

• Sweet Bonanza
• Sugar Rush 1000
• Blue Samurai

Alongside top providers, such as NetEnt, Push Gaming, and Wazdan, there are also Stake original slots. If you give these a try, we're sure that you'll be impressed.
Table and Card Games
Just like the other best bitcoin casino sites, at Stake, you'll discover a great selection of classic casino games. Whether you're a fan of blackjack, excited by the spin of the wheel, or looking to take a chance with baccarat, Stake has you covered. The only game lacking here is poker. If your casino experience is based on video poker, you may need to play elsewhere.
Live Casino Games
You're sure to be impressed with what's on offer in terms of live dealer games. The lobby is bursting with titles coming from Evolution and Pragmatic Play. There are also titles from Bombay Live Games. This means that Stake has everything covered, and offers a live experience that's second to none.
Banking Options
As you'd expect from an operator that makes our list of the best bitcoin casinos, there are plenty of payment options to choose from. While this is a 100% crypto site, the good news is that you're not just limited to one or two of these. Just some of the ones you can use include:

• LiteCoin
• Bitcoin
• Ethereum
• Dogecoin
• Bitcoin Cash

In total, Stake accepts 20 cryptocurrencies, so there's sure to be one that you're comfortable using.
Bonuses at Stake Casino
Before we explore the bonuses and promotions that Stake has to offer, let's first look at what's not up for grabs. At Stake, there is no welcome bonus on offer right now. There's no first deposit bonus or free spins. Why? Well, Stake is confident that it has enough to offer, and can attract new players with ease. With that out of the way, let's take a look at what you can take advantage of:
Daily Race
There is a prize pool worth $100,000 every day. When you play casino games, or wager at the sports book, you have the chance to win from this.
Weekly Giveaway
Each week there's the chance to share in a prize fund worth $75,000. To take part, you need to wager $1,000 for a ticket.
Multiplier Race
If you reach the highest multiplier on specified games, you may walk away with the top prize of $10,000.
Loyalty Program
Stake has an attractive loyalty program. However, before you enter the first level, you need to wager at least $10,000. This makes this a program for true high rollers. The rewards on offer include rakeback and daily bonuses.
Stake Customer Service
Just like other operators that we class as being among the best crypto casinos, at Stake there is a live chat option. This is available 24/7 and offers a great way to resolve any queries. You can expect a speedy response from agents who are polite and courteous.
Mobile Experience
Stake doesn't have a dedicated mobile app right now. However, you can still play on the go by going directly through your mobile browser. This means that you can play on any tablet or smartphone, without the need to download.
Summing up the Stake Casino Site
Before we move on to the next of the best crypto casinos, here's a look at the pros and cons of Stake:
Pros:

• Well-established and trusted
• Amazing exclusive games
• Wide range of cryptocurrencies accepted
• Ongoing bonuses

Cons:

• No welcome bonus
• High entry level to the loyalty program

Wild.io Bitcoin Casino

As we continue our reviews of the best crypto casinos, next up it's Wild.io. As you'll see as you read on, this is a site that comes with an attractive welcome bonus as well as an impressive lobby. Let's take a look in more detail and see what else Wild.io has to offer:
Wild.io Games Selection
A common theme among the best crypto casinos is the wide range of games that can be played. Over at Wild.io, there are around 2,500 of these to explore. This means that there's never any danger of losing interest, no matter what type of games you're a fan of. Let's take a closer look:
Wild.io Slots
As bitcoin casinos, as well as traditional ones, go the range of slots here is certainly impressive. There are more than 2,000 of these to choose from, and you can expect to see these coming from the likes of Pragmatic Play, NetEnt, Gamzix, and others. Some of the top titles that you'll be able to play include:

• Wilds of Fortune
• Rise of Triton
• Book of Doom

Table and Card Games
While Wild.io is one of the more impressive bitcoin casinos, we can't help feeling that there could be a little more on offer in this section. As it stands there are just 26 games to choose from. To be fair, all of the basics are covered, but we'd love to see this range expanded.
Live Dealer Games
This section seems to be a work in progress. As you click to enter the live area, it says that there are currently no games to play. However, there is a detailed explanation of how live bitcoin games work. This is something to be monitored as it surely means live games are on their way.
Banking Options at Wild.io
When comparing Wild.io to other bitcoin casinos, it's fair to say that there's a wide range of currencies that can be used. Here, you can choose between using:

• Bitcoin
• Ethereum
• Bitcoin Cash
• Litecoin
• Dogecoin
• Ripple
• Tron
• Binance Coin
• Tether

Wild.io Bonuses
Wild.io is one of the very best bitcoin casinos when it comes to the offers that it has. Let's take a look at these now:
Welcome Bonus
As bitcoin casino bonuses go, the welcome bonus here is very attractive. Rather than just being based on your first deposit, it's a package spread across your first three:

• First deposit - 100% match bonus up to $99 + 100 free spins.
• Second Deposit bonuses - Deposit between $100 and $499 for a 110% match plus 75 free spins.
• Third Deposit Bonus - Between 75% and 120% depending on the amount deposited, plus 75 free spins.

The wagering requirements for all three bonuses are 40x.
Wheel of Fortune
If you deposit at least $20 you can spin the Wheel of Fortune every day. Prizes can be as much as $1,000, and there are plenty of free spins up for grabs too. There is also the Jungle Wheel for VIPs. This wheel brings bigger rewards but requires a minimum deposit of $100.
Weekly Spotlight
Each week, Wild.io nominates a game that is in the spotlight. When you wager on the specified game, you're rewarded with more loyalty points.
Wild Weekends
Each Friday, Wild.io launches a promotion for the weekend. This could be a reload matched deposit bonus, free spins, or anything else that the operator decides to offer.
Rakeback and Cashback
The higher up you are in the VIP program you are, the more you can claim back. You can recover anywhere between 1% and 20% of your weekly losses.
Loyalty Program
Every player is automatically enrolled. The more you wager, the more points you have and the higher you claim. Each level has exclusive offers such as free spins and matched deposits. There are also other perks such as higher maximum withdrawals.
Wild.io Customer Service
Like the other bitcoin casinos that we've looked at, the customer service on offer at Wild.io is impressive. With a live chat function that is available 24/7, you can reach out whenever you need any assistance. When we gave this a try, we had an almost instant response meaning that our query was resolved quickly. There is also a chatbot to help with queries.
Mobile Experience
As it stands, there is no Wild.io mobile app. To enjoy this casino on the go, you can play via your mobile browser.
Summing up the Wild.io Casino
Before we move onto the final of our bitcoin casinos, here's a rundown of the pros and cons of Wild.io:
Pros:

• Attractive welcome bonus
• Ongoing promotions
• Great range of games
• 24/7 customer support

Cons:

• Lack of live dealer games
• Limited table games

Jackbit Crypto Casino

Jackbit is the final operator to make our list that looks at the best bitcoin casino. With a great game selection and free spins up for grabs, you'll soon see why we rate this crypto casino so highly. Let's get into the detail now:
Jackbit Games Library
Established in 2022, Jackbit has quickly expanded its library so that it now exceeds 6,000 titles. There are plenty of slots to choose from, as well as an impressive range of table games. The live casino is also of note. Let's take a closer look:
Slots
There is certainly no shortage of slots at Jackbit. There are thousands of games to choose from, and these come from some of the best providers around. The likes of Yggdrasil, Red Tiger, and Microgaming mean that the quality is exceptional. Just some of the titles you will find include:

• 888 Dragons
• Wanted Dead or a Wild
• Sweet Bonanza
• Gates of Olympus

Table and Card Games
While some casinos only pay lip service to games other than slots, Jackbit is a little different. There is a vast range of choices here that covers all of the games that you could ever want to play. When you look at roulette alone, there are some 56 variations just of this game so you can imagine how vast the whole offerings are.
Live Casino
If live games are your thing, you'll find over 200 of these at Jackbit. As you'd expect, the classics are all covered, but there's also the inclusion of game show titles courtesy of Evolution. Just some of these include:

• Crazy Time
• Mega Ball
• Cash or Crash
• Monopoly Live

Banking Options at Wild.io
You can use a range of cryptocurrencies to play at Jackbit. If you don't happen to own any crypto, you can use your debit or credit card to purchase through the site. Some of the currencies that can used include:

• Bitcoin
• Tron
• Solana
• Ethereum
• Monero
• Tether

Jackbit Casino Bonuses
If you're a fan of free spins, the Jackbit crypto casino may well be of interest to you. Let's take a look at why.
Jackbit First Deposit Bonus
When you make your first deposit at Jackbit, you're rewarded with 50 free spins that can be used on the Lazy Sheriff slot. What makes this bonus really attractive is the wagering requirements: wager once and any winnings are then yours.
Jackbit Loyalty Program
The loyalty program here has its focus on rakeback. As you wager more and move up the levels (Rookie to Legend), the greater the percentage of rakeback you're entitled to.
Customer Service
The Jackbit casino allows players to get in touch via live chat or email. The live chat option is there 24/7 and this is a big plus. There was a slight delay in being connected when we gave it a try, but after that the responses were all pretty much instant and we found our query being resolved very quickly.
Mobile Experience
There is currently no Jackbit mobile app. If you want to play via your smartphone or tablet, you can do this via your mobile browser. You'll find that the games translate well to the smaller screen and nothing is lost in terms of the experience.
Summing up the Jackbit Casino
Let's finish by taking a look at the pros and cons of this bitcoin casino:
Pros:

• Great free spins bonus
• Low wagering requirements
• Impressive selection of games across the board
• Top customer service

Cons:

• Limited ongoing promotions

Bitcoin Casinos FAQ
Are Bitcoin casinos safe?
Like any online casino, safety depends on the platform's reputation. Look for casinos with positive user reviews, provably fair games, and proper licensing.
What are provably fair games?
Provably fair games use cryptography to allow players to verify the randomness and fairness of each game round themselves, giving more transparency than traditional online casinos.
What types of games can I play at Bitcoin casinos?
Many Bitcoin casinos offer a wide variety of games, including slots, and table games (like blackjack and roulette.he online casino industry has experienced an explosion in popularity in recent years and, in part, that's down to the legalisation of iGaming in a selection of US states that has allowed the industry to spread around the world. Of course, online casinos have come a long way since the early days. Now, there are more casino games than ever and, along with the increase in these, there are more and more payment methods. This means that crypto gambling is now with us, and this has brought a whole new audience to iGaming. With so many sites to choose from, how do you find the best bitcoin casino? How do you know what goes into making the best crypto casino? Should you be paying attention to new bitcoin casino sites? As you read on, that's what we're going to be exploring.
An Overview Of The Best Bitcoin and Crypto Casinos
If you're someone who likes to jump right in, and take a snapshot, to follow you'll find our summary of the crypto casino market and discover the ones that we think are the best. If you're someone who seeks more detail, we have you covered too, but you'll need to read on. So, here's a look at the best bitcoin casinos, as well as those accepting other top cryptocurrencies:

• Heybets - The best for VIP perks and regular promotions.
• Metaspins - Attractive first deposit bonus.
• Inmerion Casino - Huge range of classic casino games.
• B.C Game - Bitcoin gambling for all budgets.
• Stake - Impressive all-rounder.
• Wild.i.o - Best bitcoin casino for ongoing promotions.
• Jackbit - Great selection of bitcoin table games, as well as online slots.

As you read on, we'll be exploring the best bitcoin casinos in more detail. We'll be delving into the range of bitcoin casino games, and how these compare to traditional online casinos. We'll also be looking at the cryptocurrencies that are accepted, as well as everything else you need to know about banking methods. If that's not enough, we'll be going into detail about the bitcoin casino sites and the bonuses on offer ( we know you'll be looking for free spins, an attractive match bonus, as well as VIP programs), as well as exploring the customer service on offer.

The Heybets Crypto Casino Site

Hi everyone,
I need guidance from the experienced such as yourselves. I just placed an order for Tesla Model Y and did all of the steps. But what I did was I had initially submitted the request for finance prior to my trade-in request. What happened is that the finance request was approved immediately while the trade-in request has not yet been processed. I will still end up having a balance from my current car's loan and I was hoping to have it added to the balance to finance. I have not yet accepted the Finance agreement and still waiting for the trade-in value. Do you think it will automatically update the Finance terms after the trade-in value balance kicks in or do I have to call Tesla to resubmit the Financial terms with the new balance?

There's been much discussion, both on the podcast and on this sub, about the extent to which those involved in the Playboy inner and outer circle were subject to NDAs. Most recently, Crystal has been criticized by Marston and HB for supposedly obtaining NDAs near the end of Hef's life and "silencing" his close friend. I think there is some fundamental misunderstandings about NDAs and what their role might be in this story.
Who am I? I am a silly little lawyer, practicing in California, and I love the intersection of law and popular culture. I wrote a journal article in law school about NDAs and the MeToo movement but sure as hell didn't try to get it published, so I've done deep dives into this topic but I am by no means an expert. I do love to learn, however, so if anyone has expertise in this area and wants to correct me or add onto any of this I would greatly appreciate it.
What is an NDA?
A non-disclosure agreement or an "NDA" refers to the broad spectrum of contractual agreements where the terms of the agreement bind at least one party from communicating about a pre-determined topic. Basically, a contract that makes at least someone keep quiet about something.
A contract requires (amongst other things) consideration by both parties. This means both parties have to give and take something for the contract to be valid. A contract, or an NDA, cannot just be a piece of paper where someone promises to do something. There has to be something in it for both sides.
Consideration, most commonly, takes the form of money. I pay you X, so you will do Y. But it can also be in the form of permission to engage in a certain activity. For example, I did an escape room once that had an NDA clause in the waiver so that people wouldn't go blabbing about how to solve the room once they were done. In exchange for getting to do the room, I agreed to the NDA. If I didn't want to agree to those terms, I could just not do the escape room.
The terms of the contract have to be reasonably balanced. You can't pay one cent for someone to agree to give you their firstborn child. Courts generally aren't in the business of scrutinizing the fairness of terms of contracts unless there's something grossly egregious about them, but it still has to make some modicum of sense.
Misunderstanding #1 - Anyone who signs an NDA is a victim being silenced by the other party.
This seems to be the assumption that HB and Marston are operating off of. There's this notion that Crystal forced all of Hef's circle to sign NDAs near the end of his life and now they're being silenced because of it.
First, you can't just have people sign NDAs and expect them to be enforceable. If Crystal did get NDAs from Hef's circle later in life, they had to have been paid consideration for it. Either Crystal offered them a sum of money (which they accepted) or the NDA was a requisite to partake in movie night, buffet dinner, etc. Either way, those who signed NDAs did so with an acceptance of what would be offered in exchange.
Obviously, there's argument that most people don't really understand the contracts they sign and wouldn't agree to them if they understood what they were giving up. But Hef's inner circle? These are people who have been in the entertainment industry for years, if not decades; these are people who have money to hire a lawyer, if not already have a lawyer on speed-dial. I am skeptical that if Dickie Bann was handed an NDA before entering the mansion for movie night he would've just signed it blindly.
Let's also consider the fact that the value of one's ability to speak out is inherently subjective. The criticism of an NDA assumes that the right to speak on a matter is something otherwise desired by the person agreeing to the NDA. It's easy to wonder why a victim would ever agree to an NDA and be prevented from speaking out about their experience. Frankly, before MeToo and the rise of social media, most victims of traumatic experiences were more inclined to speak less about their abuse than to go public. If you're a victim, and you already have no reason to speak to the public about your trauma, getting a significant payout to remain silent is actually a pretty solid deal.
Hef's friends are not victims by any means. But they showed a great amount of loyalty to him and the Playboy brand for decades before his death. I am incredibly skeptical of the notion that Hef's friends, but for some NDA, would have otherwise planned on ratting him out and showing the world that his health was declining.
The value of silence is subjective. Someone signing an NDA does not necessarily mean they are now restricted from publicly communicating something major. It very well might mean they just now have a legal obligation to do the thing that they would have done otherwise.
If, somehow, Crystal had been able to get Hef's friends to sign NDAs, I do not think that it influenced their behavior enough from what would have otherwise been that anyone needs to be that concerned about it. If it did, great, they probably got a great payout from it.
Misunderstanding #2 - NDAs are counter-intuitive to free speech and Hef would have never stood for them
As I'm sure many of you are aware, the First Amendment protection of free speech refers to the government's ability to restrict speech. Someone choosing to sign an NDA is not the same as the government preventing your broadcast from reaching its desired audiences. Someone choosing to not enter a private preschool with an AR-47 has nothing to do with their Second Amendment rights. The free speech that Hef specifically was known for advocating for had to do with censorship at the hands of the government from the broadcast of "obscene" content.
Maybe Bridget meant just the general philosophical idea of "free speech," which you would hope her masters in communication would have taught her to clarify the difference between. Regardles, remember, NDAs require consideration. This is not just ruthless silencing of innocent people who'd love to speak out about how awful Crystal is. These are wealthy, if not also highly educated, people in Hef's inner circle who, if they signed an NDA, surely understand the gravity (or lack thereof) of what they're agreeing to.
Likewise, I don't think Hef was against the idea of an NDA. Holly speculated that Hef wouldn't have required NDAs for those going into the bedroom because it would have given them a second to think about their decision. There's probably truth to this, but courts are also -very- reluctant to enforce any contracts that seem as though they would implicitly be authorizing sex in exchange for money. Also keep in mind the limited opportunities for women at that time to "speak out" if they even wanted to share about what happened in the bedroom. Hef probably would've loved for the public to hear what happened. There wasn't social media or the same understanding of power dynamics as there are these days. Who is someone who went into the bedroom and didn't sign an NDA and had a horrible time going to go to?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Holly said she signed an NDA to work at the studio. This is perfectly reasonable. Anyone who is on a salary or signed a contract with an employer probably has signed off on an NDA clause and are currently bound by it. You couldn't keep something like who the Playmate of the Year was under wraps without some strict confidentiality provisions. The Playboy empire could not exist if there was some kind of blanket rule against NDAs.
Additionally, part of the allure of the mansion parties, per the podcast, were that no outside cameras were permitted inside. You're really gonna rag on someone not wanting a bunch of shitty iPhone shots of a man in his dying days, meanwhile you're singing the praises of exclusive parties that for decades wouldn't let people take and share photos of the event?
I am fully confident that Hef did not have issues with NDAs for business purposes, and certainly did not see that as contradicting his stance on free speech. In the podcast they said the mansion staff signed NDAs as part of their employment contracts There are countless examples of the Playboy company trying to silence people in Secrets of Playboy. Hef made it very clear that his stance was that free speech was important when it could help his bottom line. Anything else was negotiable.
Misunderstanding #3 - If someone signs an NDA it's automatically enforceable/If an NDA is unenforceable that will be obvious from the get go
To play devil's advocate to myself, I will say that whether an NDA is enforceable by a court of law and whether the parties abide by the terms are two separate issues. In many cases, a contract may not hold up in court if someone seeks to litigate over alleged violation of the terms. Most contracts don't get litigated over let alone actually get a final determination of their enforceability by a Court.
I will say that there's possibility that Crystal had people sign NDAs that were shotty but that the signers didn't understand that the NDAs weren't legitimate and so they still complied with the terms of the contract. (for example, often those waivers you sign for various activities wouldn't hold up in court, but people think they do, which precludes a lot of people from even considering bringing a claim) But this goes back to the type of people who would be signing these NDAs who otherwise might have access to sensitive information about Hef or the company. These are not girls coming out to do test shoots or the larger guest list at the mansion parties. These are people who are wealthy, powerful, and educated and would not be duped by the idea that merely signing an NDA with ridiculous terms would mean the contract is enforceable. Or perhaps they just didn't give a fuck enough about blabbing so there was no reason for them to even question the NDA that would stop them from saying something they weren't playing on saying.
Not a misunderstanding but one closing note in defense of these hypothetical NDAs - The power of speech for the average person has increased exponentially in the digital and social media age. HB acknowledge that the mansion parties were unique from anything currently because there weren't the same tools we have now to disseminate information. I think it's sort of an apples and oranges comparison in terms of confidentiality to compare the vibes of the buffet movie nights from the early 2000s to the 2010s, not even taking into account the nature of Hef's health.
I think Bridget talked about how a lot of screen contracts didn't allow for residuals from streaming services because they literally hadn't existed then. By the time smartphones and social media were ubiquotus I don't think Hef really gave that much of a care about protecting his or the brand's image. Hef never had a policy or strategy to address social media because it just wasn't even a problem for him to consider, not because he had some absolutely stance on letting anyone who came to the mansion say whatever they wanted about it to the masses.
Ok, I think that's all I have for now. Happy to talk about this or debate this more, but wanted to clear some things up since I feel like this drama with Crystal and allegations about NDAs is going to come up in the near future.

Synopsis:
Carlos was an ordinary software engineer on Earth, up until he died and found himself in a fantasy world of dungeons, magic, and adventure. This new world offers many fascinating possibilities, but it's unfortunate that the skills he spent much of his life developing will be useless because they don't have computers.
Wait, why does this spell incantation read like a computer program's source code? Magic is programming?
___
Here we go with book 2!
<< First < Previous Next > (RR) or Next > (Patreon)
Carlos lounged comfortably on one of the mayor's fancy sofas. At 23 years old with a healthy body he really didn't need cushioned upholstery, but he liked how it felt. Honestly, he was probably more comfortable with high quality furniture than someone of his relatively low-income background should be in this world. Spoiled by the mass production factories of modern Earth, I suppose. All of this stuff here is probably handmade. Er, make that definitely handmade. Unless they have magic factories I haven't heard about, or something. He mentally shrugged. There was no point trying to change his attitudes toward furniture now. While this world might have higher prices for a lot of things than he was used to, he was also a lot richer than he was used to thanks to having become a noble lord. People would expect him to treat fine furniture as cheap because of his station.
I might have the physical habits of a couch potato, but at least I don't look like one. Too skinny. Not as skinny as Amber, though. He smiled as he watched the young woman next to him on the sofa continue animatedly expounding on their recent adventures together. She was lanky, with few curves to speak of and spindly limbs, far from any conventional picture of feminine beauty. Her hair, a slightly lighter shade of brown than his own, was cropped short. He thought she was 18 or 19 years old, but wasn't sure. Have I really never asked her age before? ... Would that be a rude question here? Regardless of her age, she had grown her confidence a lot since their first meeting a few weeks ago. She'd found her footing in a new life that she'd seized with utter determination, and he saw no sign of the shyness that she'd first greeted him with. The way her potential was finally blooming was beautiful to watch.
Carlos turned his gaze to the sofa across from them and carefully held back from laughing at the expressions Trinlen was making as Amber wrapped up explaining the events and developments they'd gone through since their introduction to him at the Royal Mage Academy. Carlos had contributed a fair amount to the explanation at first, but Amber had taken to it with enthusiasm when she arrived, and he could tell she was enjoying it. The young man in front of them, newly graduated from said academy, was on the edge of his seat and leaning forward, hanging attentively on every word. His casual attire, plain and made of cheap materials, looked thoroughly out of place on the finely embroidered velvet of the sofa, but he'd shown no sign of even noticing the finery around him. Excitement warred for control of his face with surprise, disbelief, envy, and dismay.
Amber finished her impromptu monologue, and Trinlen slowly schooled his face into a neutral expression. His voice was tense and tightly controlled. "So... In short, you're telling me that in the mere two weeks since you met me, you discovered a mana-poaching conspiracy of nobles, were abducted right under the noses of two royal guards without them even noticing, absorbed mana so fast that you gained 6 levels in a day and a half - so unfair, by the way - somehow learned an obscure portal spell from just its name and description, found evidence of a conspiracy against the Crown, and personally met a princess." He paused, then threw his hands up as he wailed in frustration and disappointment. "And I missed it!?"
Carlos threw back his head and burst out laughing. He couldn't help it. Trinlen just sounded so much like a little kid who'd barely missed out on a candy store giving away its entire stock for free. It was such an incredible light-hearted contrast with how everyone else viewed these same events that the sheer ridiculousness of it was overwhelming. Amber joined the laughter a moment later, shaking her head in amused disbelief, and after a few more seconds Trinlen started chuckling too.
Carlos's laughter eventually trailed off, and he took a deep breath to settle down. "Thanks, Trinlen. It's been a very stressful two weeks, and laughing like that helped release a lot of it. Feels good. Anyway, what have you been up to? I thought you would take a whole month to graduate?"
"Technically I only said 'next month', not that it would be at the same point in the month. But yes, this is earlier than I expected. The normal graduation ceremony is still a week and a half away." Trinlen shrugged. "They didn't explain the reasons, but after what you said I'm guessing your meeting with the princess prompted her to do something. The vice headmaster called me to his office yesterday morning, a few teachers grilled me on my classwork, and they declared I'd passed my exams. Then they told me to pack because I'd be teleported to my new employers the next day, and here I am." He sighed. "Hmph. Now I won't get to humiliate Norla in front of the whole academy when she gives her speech." Then he perked up and grinned widely. "But it sounds like you two are going to be so much fun that I'll get over it in no time!"
"I'm not sure if I agree with your idea of fun, Trinlen, but if it motivates you to help us more then that's good enough for me." Carlos chuckled again. "Anyway, do you need some time to get settled in? You might need to think about lesson plans for us too. We don't need just catalogues of incantations to learn anymore, at least not for simple ones, but I believe you learned other things in the academy too. You mentioned creating your own spells, as I recall."
Trinlen nodded. "I did mention that, yes. I'm guessing your lack of need for a catalogue is because of your newfound ability to somehow pull entire incantations from thin air? You'll have to at least tell me about the limitations of that so I'll know what I still need to teach you, but yeah, there are other things. For one thing, there's your sloppy terminology! Why does no one outside of the academy care about properly distinguishing between the states of mana? Is it really that hard to understand that calling aether, mana, and essence all by the same term obscures your meaning and often causes confusion? Or are people so stupid that they can't even understand the difference?"
Carlos blinked and exchanged a look with Amber. His comprehension aid informed him about the distinction the instant Trinlen spoke the terms. That would have been nice to know earlier. The comprehension aid is a house secret, so we should let him explain. "At least for us, it's just ignorance. I don't think I've even heard the other two terms you mentioned, and certainly no one ever explained them. So, what is the difference?"
Trinlen paused, cocked his head for a moment, and slowly deflated after his impassioned rant. "Yeah, okay, that's fair. I don't think I ever heard about it before going to the academy either." He sat up straight. "Aether is what you've been calling ambient mana. It's thin like air, and it's everywhere. Its only use is converting it to mana or essence. Mana, using the term with proper precision, is thicker but still fluid like water. It exists primarily in people or creatures and is used as fuel to supply power for spells and magical effects. Essence is hard and solid. It is the material that soul structures are made of, as well as the forms of active spells and enchantments. Am I clear so far?"
Amber answered first. "Yes, I'm familiar with each of the forms you described. I have questions about more details - so many questions - but you should get properly settled in, and maybe eat lunch, before we really get down to it. Have you spoken with Mayor Stelras yet? Do you have lodging sorted out?"
"I went by his office first. He's having someone take my luggage to an inn. The Adventurer's Haven, I think? He said something about a 'low-value target' and having an empty suite already booked." Trinlen's eyes widened. "Waaait a minute. Is he putting me in the room you two were abducted from?"
Carlos shrugged. "Sounds like it."
"Nice! Think there'll be any evidence left of how it was done?"
"Haha! Probably not by this point, but you're welcome to look. Now go get unpacked, eat a meal, and start planning your lessons for us. I'm glad you're here, but we have some other things to do too."
Trinlen nodded and stood up. "Sure. I'll be back before you miss me."
Carlos waved as Trinlen sauntered out the door. He and Amber sat in companionable silence for a while as he felt the mana - or essence? - of Trinlen's soul moving off into the distance. "Well. That was interesting. It's good to have him, but I was expecting a bit more time to think and plan before he'd get here."
"Yeah." Amber stretched and then leaned back into the sofa's cushions, luxuriating in their soft firmness. "So, how much are we going to tell him? How useful will his knowledge even be for us, now that we have, what did you call it, the reference documentation? That bit about the states of mana is good to know, but is it really relevant and important, and how much more can there be that's not in the documentation?"
"Be careful talking about that out loud, remember?" Carlos relaxed and draped his arms across the sofa's back as he focused his mind on their mental bond through Purple, their friendly dungeon core. [On Earth, we made many languages similar to the language of incantations, and we had the reference documentation for all of them. We even published that documentation free for everyone to have. Teachers for those languages were still useful, and even critically important for many people. Having access to knowledge doesn't mean you automatically understand how to properly apply it. There may be related knowledge we have no idea even exists. There could be techniques and patterns for how to use the language that are simply outside the scope of the documentation. Perhaps most importantly, a teacher can use their experience to notice a student's mistakes and correct them before they become problems.]
[Hmm.] Amber bit her lip, thinking. [Like how I knew about making soul structures and synergies between them, but had no idea about the importance of being able to examine and fix them, I suppose.]
Carlos nodded. [Yeah. And that's a really simple example. I know some that are a lot more complex, though I'm not sure how many of them are even applicable for incantations. Inversion of control, dependency injection, factory patterns...] He shook his head. [Just the context knowledge needed to be able to fully understand those could take days or weeks to teach well enough for you to use them. I could maybe explain the basic ideas faster with some simplified analogies, but that would lose so many details that I doubt it would still be useful.]
Amber paused. [... Even my comprehension aid is baffled by the terms you just said. It translated the individual words that you said, but all I got for the phrases is a confusing jumble.] She chuckled. [Anyway, I concede the point. Trinlen will still be able to teach us important and useful things. We still need to decide what secrets to share with him.]
[A lot depends on how good he is at keeping secrets. We don't actually know him all that well yet. He's certainly fun, and he seems clever, but for assessing his integrity we're leaning pretty hard on just a janitor vouching for him.] Carlos frowned in thought. [In order for him to do his job, he needs to know that we can only "pull an entire incantation from thin air" if it's a simple one. He does not need to know the full details of help, however, and most certainly does not need to learn to use it himself. That secret is a very sensitive one, where even just letting too much knowledge of it spread would lose us a major advantage.]
[Definitely. No casting help where he can hear it, and don't say anything about it that's not directly relevant for his teaching, either. Not until he's earned our full trust.] Amber lapsed into silent consideration. [We should introduce him to Purple. We'll kind of have to at some point anyway, and the really valuable thing there is Purple himself, not just the knowledge of his existence.]
Carlos nodded. [True. I think that probably is the least sensitive of our house secrets, and being able to call him through a bond with Purple would be useful.] He chuckled. [And maybe his cleverness will end up producing some good ideas for Purple to use. See if he can find a more productive outlet than pranks for his creativity. And then... If he keeps that secret well enough for long enough, we can consider trusting him with more secrets.]
Amber sent back wordless agreement.
Carlos started sitting up, lifting himself out of the comfortable cushions. "Well, we should get some food ourselves, too. And maybe introduce Trinlen to everyone else along with Purple." He stood up and spotted a letter he'd set aside when Trinlen arrived. "Oh yeah, and what do you think we should do about Kindar?"
"Wait, what's this about Kindar?"
<< First < Previous Next > (RR) or Next > (Patreon)
Royal Road Patreon Discord
Royal Road and free Patreon posts are 1 chapter ahead.
Please rate the story on Royal Road!
Thank you to all my new patrons!
Special thanks to my Mythril patrons Scott Snyder and Barbar!
Patreon has 5+ advance chapters if you want to read more.

Contract negotiation is a fundamental process in business, crucial for establishing agreements that are mutually beneficial and legally sound. It involves two parties discussing, proposing, and fine-tuning the terms of a contract until a consensus is reached. This process is not just about reaching an agreement but about ensuring that the agreement aligns with the strategic objectives, legal requirements, and risk tolerance of all involved.
Effective contract negotiation requires a blend of skills: clear communication, a deep understanding of legal terms, strategic foresight, and the ability to align diverse interests. It's a delicate balancing act that seeks to create value for all parties, fostering long-term business relationships and minimizing potential conflicts.
The contract negotiation process is often supported by various tools designed to streamline and enhance different aspects of negotiation. Understanding the critical capabilities of these tools, their strengths and limitations, and how they align with the critical aspects of negotiation is key to choosing the right resources for successful contract negotiations.

Critical capabilities of contract negotiation tools

First and foremost, it's important to acknowledge that contract negotiation tools will not replace the strategic decision-making, legal acumen, and interpersonal skills that only human negotiators can provide. These tools are designed to support the negotiators, offering invaluable assistance in managing the logistical and administrative elements of the negotiation process. The ideal negotiation tools enhance these human capabilities, facilitating a more efficient and effective negotiation process.
Given this point of view, what are the critical capabilities of ideal contract negotiation tools, and why are they important?

• Trust-Building and Neutrality: The tool must create a neutral platform that does not favor any party, thereby facilitating trust and fairness in the negotiation process. A “neutral space” helps ensure that no party feels disadvantaged, fostering a sense of fairness which is crucial for building trust, an essential element of successful negotiations.
• Transparency Features: Fosters clear visibility of the negotiation process, including changes and decisions, which is essential for building mutual understanding and trust among all parties. Trust building is a key part of the contracts process, and tools that promote transparency aid in building mutual understanding and trust. It ensures that all parties are on the same page regarding changes and decisions made during the negotiation process.
• Ease of Use and Intuitive Interface: A tool that is easily navigable and user-friendly is crucial, as it ensures broader adoption and effective utilization across negotiators with varied technical expertise.
• Version Control and Document Management: Efficient management of documents, files, and their versions prevents confusion and errors in negotiations. It ensures that all parties are referencing the most current document and clearly understand the evolution of the contract terms.
• Security and Compliance: Given the sensitive nature of contractual discussions, tools must meet high standards of data security and comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
• Collaboration Features: Negotiations often involve multiple stakeholders. Tools that enable seamless collaboration and communication ensure that all parties can contribute effectively, regardless of their location. The tool should support both synchronous (e.g., Slack) and asynchronous collaboration (e.g., email).
• Mobile Accessibility: The ability to access negotiation tools and documents on mobile devices is increasingly crucial, ensuring flexibility and the ability to negotiate effectively from any location.

By integrating these capabilities, contract negotiation tools not only enhance the efficiency of the negotiation process but also support the critical human elements that drive successful outcomes.

Best Tools for Contract Negotiation

Various tools are available to professionals, each offering distinct advantages and addressing different aspects of the process. Among them, three types of tools stand out due to their widespread use and particular relevance to different stages and styles of negotiation: Email, Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) Platforms, and External Collaboration Tools. These tools have been selected for detailed analysis because they represent a broad spectrum of functionalities: from general communication (Email) to specialized contract management (CLM Tools), and enhanced external collaboration (External Collaboration Tools). Understanding their strengths and limitations is crucial for negotiators to choose the right tools that align with their specific requirements.

Email - “The Ubiquitous One”

Email is a fundamental tool in business communication, known for its widespread accessibility and ease of use. It is often the first tool of choice for initiating negotiations and exchanging basic information.

• Key Strength: Universally accessible and easy to use.
• Key Weakness: Lacks sophisticated version control and document management capabilities.
• Overall Evaluation: Email scores well in neutrality and mobile accessibility but is limited in transparency, security, collaboration features, and poor in version control and document management.

Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) Tools - “Inward Focus with a Hint of Outside”

CLM Tools are primarily geared toward efficient internal contract management within an organization, focusing on automating workflows, ensuring compliance, and managing contract databases. While they have some capacity for external interactions, it's limited and not their primary function.

• Key Strength: Their core strength lies in their robust internal management capabilities, including version control, compliance monitoring, and centralized contract storage.
• Key Weakness: Besides being less equipped for direct external negotiations and collaborations, a significant weakness of CLM tools is the potential loss of perceived neutrality when used in external settings. When one party's CLM system is used, it may give the impression of an uneven playing field, which can be a critical concern in negotiations.
• Overall Evaluation: In the realm of internal contract lifecycle management, CLM Tools are highly effective, excelling in security, compliance, and document management. However, for external engagement, they fall short in offering neutrality and flexibility in collaboration with outside parties. Additionally, their user-friendliness can vary, and mobile accessibility is not always a given feature across all such platforms.

External Collaboration Tools - “Bridging the gap”

Designed specifically for managing external collaborations, these tools offer structured communication channels, secure document sharing, and features that facilitate transparency and efficient negotiation with external parties.

• Key Strength: Strong capabilities for external collaboration and maintaining neutrality.
• Key Weakness: User experience and functionality can vary significantly across different tools.
• Overall Evaluation: External Collaboration Tools are strong in neutrality, transparency, external collaboration, and mobile accessibility, with good performance in version control and security and compliance. Ease of use can vary.

https://youtu.be/mSCr6T1OZBI

Detailed Analysis

The evaluation of each tool against critical capabilities—trust-building and neutrality, transparency, ease of use, version control and document management, security and compliance, collaboration features, and mobile accessibility—reveals their suitability for different negotiation scenarios. Email, while versatile and user-friendly, falls short in advanced negotiation requirements such as version control. CLM Tools offer robust internal management features but may not be as effective in external negotiations. In contrast, External Collaboration Tools excel in facilitating negotiations with external parties, though the effectiveness can vary based on the specific tool.

1. Trust-Building and Neutrality

- Email: Good - Email is inherently neutral, not favoring any party.
- CLM Tools: Limited - May be perceived as biased if one party's system is used.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Designed to be neutral, promoting fairness in negotiations.

2. Transparency Features

- Email: Limited - Provides a record of communication but can be disorganized for tracking detailed negotiation progress.
- CLM Tools: Good for Internal Use - Offers excellent internal transparency but may not extend effectively to external parties.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Excellent at fostering clear visibility and transparency in external negotiations.

3. Ease of Use and Intuitive Interface

- Email: Good - Widely used and familiar, email is accessible to most business professionals.
- CLM Tools: Limited - Often complex and may require training for effective use.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Generally user-friendly with intuitive interfaces.

4. Version Control and Document Management

- Email: Poor - Struggles with managing multiple document versions, leading to confusion.
- CLM Tools: Good - Robust in providing version tracking and document management.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Effectively manages document versions, especially useful in external negotiations.

5. Security and Compliance

- Email: Limited - Security varies, and compliance management is not automatic.
- CLM Tools: Good - Typically strong in security and designed for compliance.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Often feature strong security measures and adhere to legal standards.

6. Collaboration Features

- Email: Limited - Supports asynchronous communication but lacks real-time collaboration features.
- CLM Tools: Limited for External Use - Effective for internal collaboration but may not facilitate external collaboration seamlessly.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Specifically designed to facilitate both internal and external collaborations effectively.

7. Mobile Accessibility

- Email: Good - Highly accessible on mobile devices.
- CLM Tools: Limited - Mobile accessibility varies depending on the specific tool.
- External Collaboration Tools: Good - Most are accessible and functional on mobile devices.

Why External Collaboration Tools Should Be in Your Toolkit

External collaboration tools bridge the gap between the traditional email method and the more sophisticated but internally focused CLM systems. They offer a middle ground where the parties can negotiate more effectively and efficiently. These tools:

• Improve Communication: By providing structured and clear communication channels, external collaboration tools make it easier to track negotiation progress and changes.
• Enhance Security: They often come with enhanced security features for sharing sensitive contract details, which is a significant improvement over email.
• Facilitate Neutrality: Using an external collaboration tool can provide a neutral platform for negotiation, which is especially important when dealing with new or multiple counterparties.
• Save Time and Resources: By streamlining the negotiation process, these tools can reduce the time and resources spent on back-and-forth communications.
• Support Better Decision Making: With organized information and clear communication, decision-makers are better equipped to negotiate terms that align with their organization’s interests.

In conclusion, while email remains a standard tool for its simplicity and ubiquity, and CLM tools offer advanced features for internal contract management, external collaboration tools emerge as the ideal solution for the negotiation phase of contract lifecycle management. They complement the strengths of both email and CLM tools, addressing the limitations of each and providing a balanced, efficient approach to contract negotiation.

On Feb. 9, 2022, I officially became "Homeless" on state record and applied for rent and housing assistance in Knoxville through KCDC/Section 8.
Per today's date:
Zeitraum = 825 days aka 27.123 months. This is exactly the length of time I've been surviving homeless.
It wasn't until THIS YEAR that my name "officially" has gone from being on their "PRE-waiting list": aka the long-ass waiting list you're on BEFORE graduating to the "OFFICIAL" waiting list.
*Btw, no one informed me of this being their process. I waited for many hopeful months while living out of my car, waiting to be called that I contacted them to get the news of only being on the PRE-waiting list- List. Good shit...
So, I decided to visit KCDC in-person last week to speak to them about my still pending status and ask if there were any actions I could take to help my chances of having a place to call home...
FYI: The Broadway location is ONLY for applying to any of their listed complexes. Unfortunately, ALL their waiting lists are also completely full.
*The Harriet Tubman location is for applying or relating to receiving vouchers for financial rental assistance.
FYI: you can ONLY APPLY for a voucher between their generous hours of 8AM-3PM only on the 2nd WED of each month, just fyi for any new applicants.
All I was told at each location was to "continue waiting" and that I would one day be contacted whenever my name came up.
The housing costs in Knoxville, especially have risen quickly dramatically even since when I very first began applying and they'll continue this trend.
**BTW, they're SHUTTING DOWN our Homeless Shelter on Broadway due to a LACK OF FUNDING (good timing), so yet another option we can all cross off our lists of any places to lie our heads down at night.
Pretty ironic that TN is the FREAKING VOLUNTEER STATE, considering... "GO VOLS", am I right??
See news link here: https://www.wate.com/news/knox-county-news/the-foyer-a-low-barrier-knoxville-homeless-shelter-set-to-close-as-officials-seek-new-operato
Oh yeah, HOMELESSNESS IN TN is also now a CLASS E FELONY!
*You are automatically disqualified from receiving public assistance such as Section 8 and SNAP benefits unless you've fully paid off ALL FEES (up to $3,000 for being homeless) and have fully completed your probation period! *KEEPING THINGS REALLY CLASSY, TN! 😜 (Also, you can't sleep in your vehicle at any rest stops, either. Also illegal. You can sit there in your car for only 3hrs max.)
"In Tennessee, felonies are classified from A to E, with Class A being the most serious and Class E being the least severe. A Class E felony in Tennessee is the lowest level of felony. It includes offenses such as theft of property valued at $1,000 to $2,500, certain driving offenses like third or subsequent DUI offenses, stalking, and forgery. The typical punishments for Class E felonies in Tennessee include: 1. One to six years of imprisonment (PRISON TIME, not jail), and/or 2. Fines up to $3,000. (Also, just pointing out that with any Class E felonies, being the "least" serious felony, if any fines for the offense are deemed as "unspecified" in their books, they then have the capability to charge an offender up to $50,000.)
However, these punishments can vary based on a variety of factors such as the exact nature of the crime, whether or not the defendant has a prior criminal record, and other relevant factors considered by the court." See specifics here: https://codes.findlaw.com/tn/title-40-criminal-procedure/tn-code-sect-40-35-111/
Covertly, they've named this abomination as the:
"Equal Access to Public Property Act of 2012.” Makes it sound so helpful and positive for us, doesn't it? Thanks, guys! LOL!
See below what all is covered, including: **If they happen to search and find any of your stored belongings (likely being at times literally their entire life's possessions, including if they find you've stored your food somewhere) the police will immediately confiscate it, and then you will have a total of 90 days to go to them and claim all your belongings or else they'll consider it as "abandoned property". You must detail exactly where on the property that they found your items, so that they then will slap you with a Class E Felony, charge you a "holding fee" for whatever amount of time they "stored" it for you, also stating that "the court shall include an order of restitution for any property damage or loss incurred as a result" of you or your belongings being present on the state property. But hey, at least you get your items back!
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-39/chapter-14/part-4/section-39-14-414/#:~:text=It%20is%20an%20offense%20for,agency%20responsible%20for%20the%20land.
My Story: (if you've made it this far and give any shits about hearing it for the sake of context.)
Around 1 year-deep into the COVID-19 pandemic, I had been living in an expensive house centered in the North Knox Historic District, working FT at a job I'd spent the past few yrs diligently climbing their ladder, and splitting the house payment with my then, Fiancee of 5 1/2 yrs. He began dating a different girl, had moved her into our house, while stating that "If I didn't stop being depressed, he was going to kick me out". Unfortunately, the house had been put solely in his name when bought. You see, my grandmother had just passed from COVID-19, my childhood best friend had just passed away, and I had been informed suddenly that my 84yrs-old dementia-ridden Father was getting worse and also nearing his last days. Not long after, my older sister contacted me acting upset, stating that he now needed to be on continual watch for FT care, so I packed my things, left my fiancee and my then home and moved in to care for my late father. Eventually, I had to leave my job to fulfill my caretaking duties but I don't regret being there for my father but it grew to be very difficult times, as it was for many those yrs. Dad passed away Jan. 31, 2022. My mother immediately inherited the house at his death, per their messy divorce agreement many yrs before. She so graciously left no time after me literally watching him take his very last breath in the bedroom down the hall from my own for her to serve me immediate eviction papers, now forcing me to leave the home that I grew up with my father in, while being raised. This house, I had only 1 year previous, agreed to my mother and sister when they had requested this of me, quit my long-term, FT job, losing all my sources of income in order to live with and solitary care for my father. (Everyone else- meaning my mother and 3 sisters -were all "too busy" to help me out or give even short breaks. I'm informing you of this, so that anyone that ever says to themselves, "why don't they just go live with family", can comprehend how that's not an actual option for everyone, so when the systems are failing, ppl aren't always on the streets or living out of their cars bc of drug problems or laziness or whatever other common misconceptions I've heard from ppl that are limited in grasping these situations for others. That last month that he was still alive, they all "forbade" me from leaving the house at all nor having any visitors "for his health", despite my deep despair from watching his health ferociously decline, resulting in my very rapidly declining mental health and massive weight-loss and over-exhaustion. Upon receiving my eviction notice, I then immediately began applying for Section 8 assistance. I had no one left and nowhere to go. It's like this for a lot of people. Don't assume ppl always have any other options available, is my point of giving so much backstory. Not exactly trying to "victimize" myself here for pity. I'm strong, I've got this. Just trying to get some points across for when you judge another's situation that you don't know.
Ok, here's the last I'll say about all this. Just humor me and try to consider what I'm pointing out here.
Every single one of us local TN natives have seen through the years how various homeless individuals will bravely step into some of our favorite local diners, gas stations, retail stores, etc. Them, asking employees permissions for maybe utilizing a restroom, some cold water or a drink, often after them walking around most the day (shelter kicks everyone out once it's morning), often after being in our unforgiving weather or high temps. Sometimes, they're asking even for a small bite to eat or leftovers from the kitchen. SO MANY times throughout the years, we've all been standing by, as we witness some enraged employee or the manager angrily decline, followed with often loud threats of calling the cops on them, etc in an attempt to motivate them to not come back asking later, as now they see how many of their annoyed paying customers are actively shaking their heads and shaming their whole interaction with rotten looks of disgust.
I mean after all, our businesses ABSOLUTELY can't be taking any risks of "losing their dedicated customers, just BC some "lazy bums" keep showing up, "always asking for free handouts" and "scaring away our business".
Really, it's best to just not give them anything in the 1st place cus ya know, just like strays, they'll "just keep showing back up"...
Right?
Excluding sometimes a random kind individual's exception, for the most part this mindset I'm highlighting here has most often worked as an sorta unspoken "Golden Rule" when we're relating to how we'll decidedly "handle" our large and growing homeless population.
Now that our housing prices have fully skyrocketed, with increases markedly on the rise almost immediately after the COVID-19 Pandemic that left so many of us without income that was supporting our access to necessities. Many, many "middle-class" individuals who were previously working averaging their 5 days/week (ty past labor strikes enforcing our allowance of 2 days off) and living comfortably on their 40hrs/week paychecks are currently struggling to find availability and also afford even a 1br ran-down apartment in our "lower-class" neighborhoods. Most are now working multiple jobs trying to keep up, and childcare isn't offered for free, so it keeps everyone from having opportunities to not only spend time raising their children vs random strangers who are also overworked, but how can you save money when you're losing part of what you earn, just to be able to go to work and not be fully abandoning your children to fend for themselves if left home alone?
Often, homeless ppl can be seen all throughout our city, and guaranteed to be growing in mass numbers when inching closer toward that underpass leading up to the Historic Gay St./Downtown/UT campus/Cumberland Strip. *It's really fairly ironic I've thought, how so much of our income has always been made/spent here, however we're required each time, to first drive through the huge crowd of terribly unfortunate ppl left standing without their bare necessities, often left to sleep outside the packed shelter when it hits capacity, which is always a guarantee. They're not left outside strictly bc they're "on drugs", like a lot have been led to believe.
Lastly, but oh of such an amazing relevance-
**Here's some realism surrounding our cultures' universally pre-conceived (disconnected/egotistical and mis-informed), accepted stigma that states the following phrase:
"These ppl just won't get a job bc they're SO LAZY and just want to live off all us hard-working American's tax dollars...blah blah blah.." Employers won't hire if you don't have an address and the shelters fail to deliver anyone's incoming mail, nor do businesses want to hire a homeless person showing up without proper hygiene or attire or any kind of criminal record. Also, transportation is a bitch. KAT bus costs money, and is very limited on its area services. By walking such lengthy distances, not only can your safety be at risk (especially for Females or any shifts beginning or letting out after dark) but you're gonna be super sweaty and gross by the time you actually arrive to then work a full shift, if you can even somehow make it on time every day by walking for hours before and then after every single shift that you show for.
This isn't any kinda "new" issue for the poor, btw. Don't be such heartless fools, making someone else's situation about "you".
Life's realities can forcibly humble an individual, catching us off-guard for what we'll often end up facing. Always count your blessings and never assume you know anything about anyone else's struggles or how they got there. We're all just trying to survive in this place.
Thanks for reading and hopefully this info helps bring insight to whomever reads this. Good luck out there, I mean it. We got this. ❤️

Protected Sovereign States and Territories Bill

A
BILL
TO
provide greater protection for the recognition of certain nations’ independence, for certain nations’ sovereignty over disputed regions, and for connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

PART 1

PROTECTED INDEPENDENCE RECOGNITION

1 Protected independence recognition status
(1) A polity in Schedule 1 is considered to have protected independence recognition.
(2) In this Act, ‘protected independence recognition’ is recognition that a polity is a sovereign state as it is an independent political entity comprising a people from a defined territory that has the capacity to enter into relations with other states and requires protection.
2 Amending a polity’s protected independence recognition
(1) The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument amending Schedule 1 of this Act, determine that a polity does or does not have protected independence recognition and what the polity’s defined territorial boundaries are.
(2) Any statutory instrument made under subsection (1) is to be passed with affirmative procedure.
(3) The Secretary of State must consider adding a polity to Schedule 1 if—

(a) the polity in question has declared that it is an independent sovereign state;
(b) there is a dispute about the ownership of the territory that the polity claims sovereignty over; and
(c) the polity faces an active and serious threat to its existence.

(4) The Secretary of State must consider removing a polity from Schedule 1 if—

(a) the polity renounces its declaration of independence;
(b) the polity renounces its claim to their territory; or
(c) the polity no longer faces an active and serious threat to its existence.

3 Assistance in times of conflict
(1) The United Kingdom must assist a polity in Schedule 1 if another polity—

(a) declares war; or
(b) applies significant economic sanctions;

against that polity.
(2) The Secretary of State must consider whether it is appropriate and legitimate to provide the assistance requested or deemed to be necessary in regards to the assistance of a polity.
(3) If a polity in Schedule 1 engages in military action against another polity, the Secretary of State must consider—

(a) removing said polity from Schedule 1;
(b) making a determination about which polity has the valid claim to sovereignty over the territory; and
(c) diplomatic actions that can be taken to resolve the situation.

PART 2

PROTECTED SOVEREIGNTY RECOGNITION

4 Protected sovereignty recognition status
(1) A territory in Schedule 2 of this Act has protected sovereignty recognition.
(2) In this Act, ‘protected sovereignty recognition’ is recognition that a territory belongs to an existing sovereign state and needs protection.
5 Amending a territory’s protected sovereignty recognition
(1) The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument amending Schedule 2 of this Act, determine that a territory does or does not have protected sovereignty recognition and to which sovereign state it belongs to.
(2) Any statutory instrument made under subsection (1) is to be passed with affirmative procedure.
(3) The Secretary of State must consider adding a territory to Schedule 2 if—

(a) the territory in question is recognised as owned by a sovereign state;
(b) there is a dispute about the ownership of the territory; and
(c) the territory—

(i) is under military occupation;
(ii) is facing civil war or unrest; or
(iii) is facing a high risk of military action.

(4) The Secretary of State must consider removing a territory from Schedule 2 if the sovereign state it belongs to renounces its sovereign over that territory.

PART 3

UNPROTECTED STATUS RECOGNITION

1 Unprotected Status Recognition
(1) A polity in Schedule 3 is considered to have unprotected status recognition.
(2) In this Act, ‘unprotected status recognition’ is recognition that a polity who has lost control of its claimed territory is and continues to be a sovereign state as it is an independent political entity comprising a people from a defined territory that has the capacity to enter into relations with other states and requires protection.
(3) In this Act, ‘alternative claiming polity’ is the other entity that currently occupies or controls the land in which the polity with unprotected status recognition claims.
2 Amending a polity’s unprotected status recognition
(1) The Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument amending Schedule 1 of this Act, determine that a polity does or does not have unprotected status recognition and what the polity’s defined territorial boundaries are.
(2) Any statutory instrument made under subsection (1) is to be passed with affirmative procedure.
(3) The Secretary of State must consider adding a polity to Schedule 1 if—

(a) the polity in question has continued to declare that it is an independent sovereign state;
(b) there remains a dispute about the ownership of the territory that the polity claims sovereignty over;
(c) the polity in question continues to maintain diplomatic consultation with the United Kingdom;
(d) the polity in question makes a formal request to the United Kingdom for continued recognition
(e) the alternative claiming polity to the polity in which is in question for unprotected status recognition is considered a terrorist or extremist state.

(4) The Secretary of State must consider removing a polity from Schedule 1 if—

(a) the polity renounces its declaration of independence;
(b) the polity renounces its claim to their territory;
(c) the polity itself recognises the alternative polity claiming the formerly disputed land;
(d) the alternative claiming polity establishes formal relations with the United Kingdom, and meets human rights expectations; and
(e) it is considered by the Parliament through affirmative measure to no longer be in the interest of the United Kingdom to be involved in the continued recognition of the polity.

3 Requirements upon the Government
(1) The United Kingdom is not bound to assist the unprotected status recognition polity in any way, however may do so if such is the wish of the government, or by parliament through an affirmative measure.

PART 4

FINAL PROVISIONS

6 Definitions
In this Act—

’sovereign state’ is to be construed as “an independent political entity comprising a people from a defined territory that has the capacity to enter into relations with other states and requires protection.”
‘protected independence recognition’ is to be construed in accordance with subsection 1(2).
’protected sovereignty recognition’ is to be construed in accordance with subsection 4(2).
’defined territorial boundaries’ is to be construed as the territories outlined for a particular polity within Schedules 1 and 2

7 Extent, commencement, and short title
(1) This Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
(2) The provisions of this Act shall come into force the day this Act is passed.
(3) This Act may be cited as the Protected Sovereign States and Territories Act 2023.

SCHEDULE 1

PROTECTED INDEPENDENCE RECOGNITION POLITIES

State of Israel
1 (1) The State of Israel has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of the State of Israel is the territory under their name as defined by the demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between the nations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel known as the Green Line.
State of Palestine
2 (1) The State of Palestine has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of the State of Palestine is the territory under their name as defined by the demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between the nations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel known as the Green Line.
Republic of Kosovo
3 (1) The Republic of Kosovo has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of the Republic of Kosovo is the territory of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija as defined by the Constitution of the nation of Serbia on the commencement of this Act.
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
4 (1) The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the territory of Western Sahara as defined by the border of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the line at 27° 40’ N extending from the ocean to the border of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania.
Republic of Cyprus
5 (1) The Republic of Cyprus has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of the Republic of Cyprus is the entirety of the island of Cyprus excluding the sovereign base areas of—

(a) Akrotiri; and
(b) Dhekelia.

Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste
6 (1) The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste is the territory of East Timor as defined in the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.
Ukraine
7 (1) The nation of Ukraine has protected independence recognition as defined by this Act.
(2) The territory of Ukraine consists of the Cherkasy, Chernihiv, Chernivtsi, Crimea, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Khmelnytskyi, Kirovohrad, Kyiv Municipal, Kyiv, Luhansk, Lviv, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Rivne, Sevastopol, Sumy, Ternopil, Vinnytsia, Volyn, Zakarpattia, Zaporizhzhia, and Zhytomyr Oblasts.

SCHEDULE 2

PROTECTED SOVEREIGNTY RECOGNITION TERRITORIES

Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia
1 (1) The territories of Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia has protected sovereignty recognition as defined under this Act.
(2) The sovereign state of the territories of Crimea, Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia is the nation of Ukraine.
(3) (a) The territory of Crimea is the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city with special status of Sevastopol
(3) (b) The territory of Donetsk is the territory of the Donetsk Oblast as defined by Ukraine
(3) (c) The territory of Kherson is the territory of the Kherson Oblast as defined by Ukraine
(3) (d) The territory of Luhansk is the territory of the Luhansk Oblast as defined by Ukraine
(3) (e) The territory of Zaporizhzhia is the territory of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast as defined by Ukraine
Golan Heights
2 (1) The territory of Golan Heights has protected sovereignty recognition as defined under this Act.
(2) The sovereign state of the territory of Golan Heights is the Syrian Arab Republic.
(3) The territory of Golan Heights is the territory under their name as defined by the demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel known as the Green Line.

SCHEDULE 3

UNPROTECTED STATUS RECOGNITION POLITIES

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
1 (1) The polity of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has unprotected sovereignty recognition as defined under this Act.
(2) The territory of Afghanistan is the territory of the 34 divisions of Afghanistan.
This Bill was submitted by The Right Honourable Dame Youma, The Baroness of Motherwell, LT MBE PC MP as a Private Member's Bill.
Speaker,
Over the past few years, our nation has witnessed a wave of upheaval across the world, as nations returned to violent means as a method of the annexation of territory and people, a principle the world had thought was dismantled after the Second World War. As I said nearly two years ago, I shall repeat as I wish to cast reflection upon our role as a country across the global community with these matters in mind. Should we wallow in isolation, or should we stand for what is right?
When I stood at the Despatch box as Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, or any other role, I spoke of the need for active foreign policy. Speaker, these are not just words or slogans, active foreign policy requires the United Kingdom to recognise its own duty as the mother of parliaments to defend, protect, and promote democracy and human rights internationally. It is part of this task that I present the Protected Sovereign States and Territories Bill to the parliament again, reflective of what we have witnessed over the past few years, to bring the needed legislative changes required to ensure an active foreign policy is at the forefront of the mind of the government of the day.
The Protected Sovereign States and Territories Bill is fundamentally about ensuring the recognition of vulnerable nations, whose existence is at risk of extinction due to potential conflict or collapse, continues regardless of the government of the day. This legislation would prevent a government from unilaterally revoking the recognition of the nations within Schedule 1, and the ownership of the territories within Schedule 2. As an example, I will highlight Kosovo as a nation that should be uplifted to protected independence recognition status. Kosovo is a relatively new nation, whose Declaration of Independence was recognised by our nation on the 18th of February 2008. Kosovo’s very existence as a sovereign nation is under threat each day, as an active campaign continues attempting to undermine its recognition and sovereignty. This legislation ensures that parliament’s will to stand with the people of Kosovo in recognising their independence is protected, away from the unilateral statement of a rogue foreign minister.
To alleviate any concerns, I will address some matters raised within previous debates on this topic. This legislation will not prevent the future recognition of new nations, his Majesty’s government retains this power to ensure our nation may quickly respond to fast moving scenarios. This legislation will not require conflict as an automatic means of resolution, all that is required by this legislation is for something to be done, diplomatic support covers this sufficiently. This legislation will not cripple the Government's ability to conduct foreign affairs and policy, the Minister retains a large variety of powers even on matters subject to this act to ensure the flexibility of our nation's foreign policy is preserved, whilst protecting the recognition of vulnerable nations.
With all of this in mind, and what we have witnessed over the past few years in our hearts, I urge all members to see the good that this legislation will bring, to stand with these vulnerable nations, and vote yes to this legislation.
This reading shall end on the 17th May at 10PM

Quite a few months ago I did some searching and asked why my Chase credit card was not receiving any credit line increases. In fact it was getting denied when I would request them.
My credit score is in the 780s.
The card had a $1,600 limit.
Because it was so low, I would use it, pay it off, then use it again.
Like many pointed out on here I was using it as a debit card, and to Chase's eyes I didn't need an increase.
What they didn't see if I would use my other cards whenver the charge was over or came close to $1,600.
At the suggestion of this sub, I stopped using my card like a debit. I would only pay it off ONCE A MONTH, AFTER I received my monthly statement.
After 4-6 months of this, I received an automatic increase to over $10,000!
Didn't even have to ask. And it came quite quicker than I imagined.
Pretty happy I no longer have to swap cards around and worry about balances being at limit.

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 am NOT OOP, OOP is u/AdhesivenessMurky204
Originally posted to AITAH
AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?
Thanks to u/queenlegolas and u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for suggesting this BoRU
Editor’s Note: added paragraph breaks for readability
Trigger Warnings: PTSD, mentions of abortion, domestic abuse, verbal abuse, sexual assault, rape
Editor's Note: Please do NOT send me DMs or Chats. This is a reminder that I am NOT OOP. Remember the no brigading - Rule #7. Do not comment on the linked posts or contact OOP. Doing so will result into a permanent ban from the sub
Original Post: April 28, 2024
My husband (28M, who I will call Jack) and I (27F) have been together for 4 years, we have 2 young children and I am pregnant again. I have been pregnant for what feels like most of our relationship. I got pregnant 4 months into our relationship. We got married a month before our daughter’s 1st birthday and ended up with a honeymoon baby. After our son was born, I talked to my OB and she put me on birth control and I have been taking it militantly.
My daughter is now 3 and my son is 2. A little over a month ago I discovered I am pregnant again, despite taking my birth control religiously. Abortion is banned in my state, and the pregnancy was discovered too far along to attempt to obtain one out of state. While Jack and I were nervous, we also love being parents and decided that 3 young kids would be a challenge, but 3 was a good number for us. Then we went in for the first ultrasound and got some unexpected news - it’s twins.
Things have been tough financially, and while we were stressed but excited for a third child, we were not expecting a third and fourth child. Beyond the finances, I am the primary caretaker and I know that twins is going to be a lot, three children under 5 is already a lot, but 4 children under 5 is going to be really really difficult for me. Physically, I am tired of being pregnant. I’ve been pregnant or breastfeeding the majority of our relationship. It’s exhausting, it feels awful, and I don’t recognize my body anymore.
Four children is enough. I don’t want more. I told Jack that I was done with pregnancy, I’ve been pregnant enough, I’ve been experimenting with different types of birth control for over a decade and I still can’t stop getting pregnant, abortion isn’t a valid option where we live, we need something more permanent. He agreed, and suggested an IUD, I told him no - if it did fail then it could cause an ectopic pregnancy which could kill me, especially where we live. I’ve had both control fail me multiple times already and I’m not taking the chance, so I suggested a vasectomy. He was not open to the idea, and was even upset that I suggested it and told me I should get my tubes tied. I told him a tubal ligation is a much bigger surgery and I could be recovering for weeks during which time I wouldn’t be able to work or take care of our 4 young children, but he could ice his balls for a day or two and be done with it. He told me that not getting pregnant was ultimately my responsibility, and topped it off by saying “that’s what your body your choice means, YOUR body, so YOU choose.” That’s when it went from a discussion to a full blown fight.
See, when I was 19 I had another birth control failure with my boyfriend at the time (who I will call Tom). I wanted an abortion, Tom did not because he was opposed. I told him I was getting the abortion since it was my body and my choice, and Tom said some horrible things to me, including threatening me. I broke up with him and got the abortion. In response, Tom ended up following me one night and attacking me. I don’t want to go into detail but it was horrible, and he ended up going to prison for a number of charges related to the attack. Not only do I have a number of scars and some long lasting physical effects, but I have PTSD as well.
Jack knows about my history and diagnosis, and has known from the beginning. I have a pretty prominent facial scar so I was upfront about it early on in our dating. Jack always presented himself as very pro-choice, so I was shocked that he would say that. I got really emotional and started crying and shouting, and it turned into a full-blown fight.
Eventually I said that birth control is a two-way street and so far I’ve been the only one managing it and he said “and now we have 2 kids and 2 more coming, great job.” I told him he sounded like Tom and he got super pissed, basically said how dare you compare me to him, and maybe he might want kids one day with someone who doesn’t compare him to her felon ex-boyfriend. I was stunned and horrified. I said “well then let’s not waste any fucking time,”then packed up myself and the kids and drove to my parents place.
It’s been about a week since the fight. I’ve spoken with Jack a few times and he has since apologized and said he was out of line and was speaking from a place of anxiety after finding out about the twins, but also that I said things that were out of line and it was wrong of me to insist he undergo a medical procedure. He said that can move on from the things I said and that he wants to see his children and be a family again. I told him no, that I didn’t want to “move on” from the things he said to me. I can’t just get over that and I think we need space apart. Jack was upset by this and while we talked I brought up getting a separation agreement to manage custody and finances while we figure things out. He did not like this suggestion, said we didn’t need to pull the courts into this.
I haven’t told a lot of people about what’s happening but my family and a couple close friends. My sister and best friend both think I should throw the whole man away, but my brother (who is the only other one married with kids) thinks that I’m being extreme for what sums up to a fight between two scared people who both said nasty things. My mom is trying to be supportive but is occasionally reminding me that I “don’t want to be a single mother of 4” and telling me not to let my PTSD drive my decisions, while my dad is being completely unhelpful (he thinks jokes are helpful - like calling me Doorknob because I “can’t stop getting knocked up”, telling me to let the oven cool down, real knee-slappers). I don’t know what to do. My kids are happy to be at grandma and grandpas house but they miss their daddy, I’m 4 months pregnant and already uncomfortable as hell, I wish I could go back to being a happy little family but I’m so hung up on the things he said in that fight. Am I destroying my family over one bad night? Am I being unreasonable for asking my husband to get a vasectomy?
Edit: I've noticed a lot of people recommending condoms. I have gotten pregnant with condoms twice. Our second child and my first pregnancy were both conceived using condoms properly (correct fit, put on correctly, single use, not expired, no breaks, etc). I do not trust condoms enough to not fail a third time. I know the failure rate is supposedly small, but it's not personally small enough for me. Edit to the edit: I'm sorry, I didn't expect so many comments so fast and I can't keep up with them. By the first pregnancy I mean the pregnancy with Tom. With Jack I was on the patch when I got pregnant with our daughter, condoms with our son, and the pill with the twins. So far I haven't ever suspected that Jack has tampered with our birth control and always presumed that I'm a fertile Myrtle.
I recognize the comments and just want people to know I'm seeing the suggestion. I'm not dismissing it, but the thought of it is deeply upsetting and has provoked a lot of anxiety. I just wanted to make it clear that if the suggestion is only based on the condoms, that the condom pregnancies were with two different partners. While I know I always used condoms properly with Tom, I do believe that Tom could have been fully capable of sabotaging the condoms.
AITAH has no consensus bot, OOP received mixed reactions of NTAs and YTAs
Relevant Comments
deepsleepsheepmeep: NTA. Your husband is though. Your body has already been through A LOT. A tubal ligation is a serious surgery and you are right about being out of commission for a while when recovering. If he is more concerned with an imaginary future wife than he is for you, I don’t think there is much hope for this marriage.
We have 4 close friends who all got vasectomies. None of them bitched about it like your wimp of a husband. We actually had fun vasectomy themed parties for them.
On the off chance he does end up getting a vasectomy, make sure to do the follow up appointments. One of the vasectomy fab 4 did not follow through and ended up with a post-vasectomy baby.

OOP: Thank you, I feel like this is a lot of what has been so upsetting has been that he's thinking about some imaginary future wife when I'm right here, his actual wife, the mother of his children. It's like he's already imagining a future without me.

 
Update: AITAH for separating from my husband because he refused to get a vasectomy?: May 3, 2024
I didn’t expect so many comments and literally couldn’t go through them all. It seemed like the majority of people said I was NTA but I did get a lot of YTAs telling me I was trying to force him to get a medical procedure and telling me to get one instead. Besides already addressing my reasonings why I made my request in the original post (which I want you to read with real "per my last email" energy), I in no way am *forcing* him to have a medical procedure, but I am saying that I do not want to be with a partner who is not willing to be snipped. This is an issue of compatibility. The number of children you want, the methods of birth control you’re willing to use, those are issues of compatibility and a reason relationships end all the time. If he doesn’t want to be sterilized that’s fine, but then that means that we’re not compatible anymore, since it means he wants more children and I don’t. Beyond that there were some YTA comments and some DMs that were just nasty, calling me a murderer and saying my body is a cemetery. Sadly enough, I expected those types of comments, because I know there are a lot of Toms out in the world.
First I wanted to address a couple things that kept coming up, because last post turned into thousands of comments that all said about 5 different things, so to avoid my inbox becoming another echo chamber:

You’re 100% going to have a C-section anyway so just get a tubal while giving birth.

No, I’m not 100% going to have a C-section anyway. Twins are not an automatic C-section. With my birth history there is no reason to presume that a C-section is in my future. My OB agrees, and has discussed the possibility as doctors have to do but also said that based on my past two birth experiences, I'm a "perfect candidate" for vaginal delivery.
I also am not going to mince words: tubal ligations are *less* effective than vasectomies with a *much higher* likelihood of an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy can *kill me*. In fact I got a PM from a woman who is a fellow fertile Myrtle who had an ectopic after a tubal. I am rejecting birth control options that, if they fail, would lead to my likely death. I don’t want to be pregnant again but I also don’t want to die and leave my children motherless, and in no way should anyone assume that traveling to another state to obtain an emergency abortion will continue to be an option in the future - we live in scary times, and Gilead is a real possibility. The comments seemed to have the vibe that people think that ligations are magically more effective than vasectomies and vasectomies are more of a whisper of sterility than an actual sterilization method so for those in the back VASECTOMIES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN TUBAL LIGATIONS, FULL STOP. So I really need y’all to shut up about it.

Go to another state and obtain an abortion anyway.

I appreciate the personal offers to help I received in DMs deeply, but no. I’m in my 2nd trimester, which I know is still legal in some places, however I am at a point in my pregnancy where I personally as an individual do not feel comfortable obtaining an abortion, considering I would be *even farther* along by the time I could travel (which is not only finances, but logistics as well). I am 16 weeks pregnant now, these babies aren’t just clusters of cells to me anymore, and I’m not going to expand on that since it’s not up for debate.

Why not adoption?

With love and respect to everyone who has gone through adoption in all its aspects, adoption is absolutely not for me. This is a thought process I already went through 8 years ago, and now that I’m a mother and not a scared teenager I know it’s even less for me. I personally could not go through with it and come out the other side intact. Going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me.

Leave him and give him full custody of the twins

No. Because going through a full pregnancy, having my babies, and then being separated from them would break me. Jesus, some of y’all.

Just have a sexless marriage.

No. I love banging my husband, obviously lol. I don't want to be in a sexless marriage and anyone who has been to an abstinence-only high school knows that abstinence is not the way lol. There were a lot of comments assuming I would be perfectly fine withholding sex from my husband and having na dead bedroom, and I wouldn't. I have a sex drive. I'm going to want to bang my husband. Wanting to have sex with your spouse is *normal*.

What you would do about birth control if you divorced and dated in the future?

I’m not thinking of dating anyone else right now, because I’m thinking more about saving my actual marriage instead of an imaginary relationship. And if theoretically I did, I would probably seek out a partner who was snipped or was ready to be to be honestly, or a woman. I’m bisexual so there’s a very good chance that my future partner wouldn’t have the right parts to knock me up anyway lol.

Jack is sabotaging your birth control

I clarified my methods in the original post (as per my last email), but I did want to address this because it came up a LOT. I don’t have reason to believe that Jack sabotaged my birth control. A number of other fertile Myrtles showed up and brought up they or their family members repeated pregnancies in the face of birth control, including tubals. Accusing my husband of reproductive coercion for no reason other than I keep getting pregnant is a big leap and a weighty accusation. I am not the only fertile Myrtle out there, there's a reason there's a whole term for it.

Your husband is a narcissist, abuser, psychopath, and he does no childcare

My husband and I historically have a really healthy and loving relationship outside of this fight. In fact, this fight is the first time we’ve really had a fight, we’ve only ever had little arguments that we’ve been able to talk through. He’s an active father, the reason that I do the majority of childcare is due to circumstance between maternity leaves, our job schedules and the fact that I breastfed my babies. Someone also presumed I’m the breadwinner, which isn’t quite true. Jack makes more than me, but we do not have deeply significant differences in our incomes. When he is home he does his fair share of cleaning and cooking (arguably more than me at times), and parenting. That being said, the things he said in the heat of the moment were deeply concerning, and we’re addressing that together.
So to get down to the nitty gritty of the real update: since the last time I posted, Jack and I have sat down together and had a real come to Jesus talk. I’m not going to go through the whole breakdown, but it basically boiled down to this: it’s the vasectomy, but it’s more than the vasectomy. It was wrong of me to compare him to Tom but it was wronger of him to weaponize my trauma against me in a very malicious way. The way he intentionally used the same language my abuser used in an effort to hurt me was not acceptable and damaged the trust between us. He agreed it was not acceptable and said that in the aftermath he was horrified and ashamed his own words, and that he (as an explanation and not an excuse) kind of snapped under the stress. Oh and what he said about his “next wife” was not an indication of him not being committed to me but was because he felt hurt and wanted to hurt me back. He has apologized numerous times and seems to feel genuinely bad about it.
As for the separation, I am still going forward with it. I need space and time and I need to take that before the babies come. I am still staying with my parents who, for the record, are not sick of me or the kids. We’re a tight knit family, I only moved out when I moved in with Jack, and my sister moved out about a year ago so they have been empty nesting, and my mom doesn’t like that we live “too far” (an hour) away. What I have realized with space and time is how deeply triggering it was, in a way that I cannot explain to those without PTSD from DV, those who know will know. It’s deeply unsettled me and I’m having a hard time “getting over it” so to speak. There is now a lot of fear of my husband that was never there before and it’s going to take a lot to repair that trust and sense of safety. I cannot make a decision while I’m in this space, and I am addressing this with my personal therapist. Overall, I told him that if he wanted to stay married to me I needed two things from him: marriage counseling and a vasectomy, and even then I still cannot guarantee him anything. He understands, but I do not know what will happen with the vasectomy right now, we focused more on talking about the fight, but he is very aware that it's now a dealbreaker. And we have a marriage counseling appointment set up for next week. I'm hoping that counseling will bring some clarity to the situation, and in the mean time for the next couple months I'm focusing on giving my kids lots of cuddles and preparing myself for two new babies to come into my world, with or without Jack.
Additional information from OOP on her relationships

OOP: I've been through a trial to convict my ex-boyfriend of trying to kill me because of an abortion in a deep red, deeply religious area. I've definitely heard worse things, and I typically have pretty thick skin. That being said, I am pregnant and pretty emotional, so it's not the best experience. That being said, I do appreciate the level-headed comments when I see them through the sea of comments kind of saying the same stuff over and over. I'm not reading a lot of them if what I can see in the comment notification starts off nasty, so a lot of it is just inbox white noise. My favorites are the ones that start off with "I'm not going to read that BUT..." and I just think lol same. Like you don't want to read my post but expect me to read your comment that was made without even reading the situation? lol nope. And there are a lot of people conflating "providing someone with a hard choice" with "forcing someone into a medical procedure" and it just makes wading through for the actually helpful comments more tiring. Thank you though, I very much appreciate the kindness. Sorry, I've gotten so much of the same nonsense I guess I needed a little vent lol.

OOP on wanting her husband to make a decision and be on the same page

OOP: I want to be honest with him about where I am emotionally because I want him to make an informed decision. While the vasectomy is a deal breaker, it's really my secondary concern. My primary concern is the way he acted during the fight and his intention exploitation of my trauma because he was mad and scared. I think that telling him "get the snip to stay with me" and then deciding to leave anyway because there are deeper issues and/or I don't feel safe anymore would be cruel. He deserves to have the full picture before he makes a choice, doesn't he?
If he doesn't want the vasectomy, that's his choice. It's not what I want, but it is what it is. If he wants to call it quits at 4 kids, then it is what it is and if he secretly wants to be the next Nick Cannon then it is what it is he should be free to do that. That is part of why I don't know where he is on the vasectomy right now and we didn't really discuss it much when we talked, I'm focusing on discussing the bigger issue for me which is trust and safety within the relationship. The only way for him to make an informed decision about whether or not he get a vasectomy is for him to have all the information about the situation. If that makes him want a vasectomy less, then it is what it is. It's not about making him want to have a vasectomy. It's about being on the same page.

 

DO NOT COMMENT IN LINKED POSTS OR MESSAGE OOPs – BoRU Rule #7

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT OOP

A month or so ago I busted my phone, and it was a huge pain in the ass. Aside from some lost data which was minor, the biggest PIA was resetting MFA, getting in touch with my US banks, and any other services that were tied to my phone. The experience also made me take a step back and realize I am pretty lax with security, and if someone had gotten hold of my phone and somehow god-forbid gotten the passcode, then I'd be fucked. They could do so much damage with unlimited access to my email + MFA SMS, even in just a few hours.
As a result, I kind of went down the ADHD rabbit hole hyper-fixating on how best to "optimize" my iPhone and iCloud configuration for two things:

1. If it breaks, the transition to a new device will be relatively painless. I won't have to spend several days stressing and trying to find the right international customer support number for a myriad of institutions and services to get into my accounts.
   
2. If it gets stolen and compromised, then there will be enough barriers such that the I'll have enough time to lock down the device and/or my accounts remotely before the thief can get key data or move funds.
   

So I put together this guide and checklist that I thought I'd share with others. I am a programmer but by no means a security guru, and so if any IT, DevOps, or SecOps folks want to chime-in with suggestions or improvements, please do.

Requirements

• an iPhone XR, iPhone XS, iPhone 11, iPhone 12, iPhone 13, iPhone SE (2nd generation), and iPhone 14 or newer for eSIM compatibility.
• a US-based carrier with eSIM support + a pay-as-you-go model for international travel (I use Verizon)
• iOS 17 or above (may not be strictly necessary, but I know my setup works with iOS 17.4.1)
• a password manager. I personally use 1Password because it works, is reliable, has cross-device support, and is easy and intuitive. It's also only $3/month.

Dual Sim Setup

I have been rocking an iPhone 12 for the past few years, and it's served me very well. I know the newer iPhones (14 and up) no longer offer physical SIM card support, but carriers in most developing countries are behind the curve. Even if they offer eSIM support, it's been my experience that it's a major headache to get setup, there is a lack of customer support in English, and they may even require a local ID to register the eSIM. It's way easier to just head to a shop and pay $5 for a SIM card, load some funds onto it, and then you're good to go.
The eSIM has been very helpful for maintaining a US phone number for which I can receive SMS texts from my banks and other financial services as well as continue to use iMessage with all my US contacts since hardly anybody is on Whatsapp.
Most, if not all, carriers in the US support eSIMs now, and so you should try to find a carrier that offers an international pay-as-you-go plan. Verizon offers two international plans - one is a "Travel Pass" where it's a flat fee of $10/day anywhere outside the US or Canada (even for just one text message). The other is "pay for what you use" which has a rate per text, minute, and mb. For my US plan, I only care about receiving SMS texts from my banks and the occasional phone call to a service that doesn't have an international, toll-free number. Data will always be cheaper outside the US, so I disable cellular data switching for my US line.
The last time I was in the US was for the holidays and I bought 2 used iPhone 12's for about $200 each. They have some scuffs, but they're perfectly serviceable. In LATAM, it also doesn't attract nearly as much unwanted attention in the street as an iPhone 14 or 15.
I brought these with me as extra devices. When my phone busted last month, thankfully I had a backup in iCloud and everything was loaded in a few minutes as normal. This was before I was using the eSIM, but if I had the eSIM I could just go to Verizon support online via chat and they could help me switch the line to the new device easily.

Basic Configurations

• Always use the latest version of firmware
• Require a passcode that's unique to that device.
• Use FaceID instead of passcode when possible (a thief can't snipe your passcode from a distance if you unlock your phone with FaceID)
• Set auto-lock to 30 seconds (lowest possible)
• Erase data upon excessive passcode failures note, this is complemented in a later step with daily backups. The odds of you putting in the wrong passcode 10 times is low, but in the event you do and you wipe the device by accident, you should be able to easily load in a back-up from the previous day)
• Turn off "Ask to Join Networks"
• Forget unused networks so that you don't rejoin automatically (airports, hotels, etc.)

Creating Backups

• Set iCloud backups to run automatically every night. This will allow you to load your entire phone as is (contacts, call history, iMessages, apps, even your wallpaper) onto another device during setup. The iCloud backup usually runs at 2am while I'm sleeping.
• You may need to pay for a higher tier in iCloud if you have too much stored on your phone. It's $3/month for 200gb of iCloud storage, and I find it worth it. Though I know some people with tens of thousands of photos for which 200gb might not be enough.

Password Policy

• For any accounts that may contain sensitive data (payments, PII, etc), always generate a unique password with 1Password. Don't reuse passwords. Same goes for PIN codes.
• For core accounts, create a strong but memorable password and then memorize it. The odds of getting locked out of 1Password are low if you're diligent, but for 2 or 3 core accounts (where you access money, your primary recovery email, your iCloud, 1Password), it's worth it to create strong, unique passwords for each core service and memorize them.
• I try not to reuse passwords in general, but I still sometimes am lazy and use one of my handful of typical passwords if there's no sensitive data collected by the service and it's a service I don't use often.

MFA

Set up MFA with everything. Add multiple options if possible. My preferred MFA options are as follows:

1. One-time code that renews every 30 seconds. This is device agnostic and can be stored in 1Password. You could also use Microsoft Authenticator, Google Authenticator, Authy or similar, but there's just more overhead to now recover those accounts if your device becomes inaccessible.
2. One-time code to recovery email.
3. One-time code via SMS to my US phone number. On the pay-as-you-go Verizon plan, I only pay 5 cents per text message received. It's worth it to keep one consistent number.
4. List of recovery codes (stored in 1Password as an attached txt file for the given account)
5. Use another app for verification (Google does this a lot).

Lockdown your iCloud security

• Enable MFA.
• Create a strong, unique password.
• Remove any old or unused devices from the iCloud account (old phones, ipods, etc).
• Enable "Find My" for all of your devices.
• In Find My, configure all devices to send the last known location.
• In Find My, enable the configuration to remotely wipe a device.

In the event your phone is stolen, the idea is you could run back to any of your devices or even use a friend's device to log into iCloud on the web, go to Find My, and then in a single button click you can lock and wipe the stolen device. If the thief turned off the device or disabled wifi/cellular, then as soon as it comes back online it will be wiped.

Final Clean-Up

• Move any compromising photos to the "hidden" folder (which requires FaceID or passcode to unlock)
• Review the Files app for any documents containing sensitive info. If you need these documents to be accessible on mobile, then move them to 1Password and delete them from the Files app.
• Create a shortcut to trigger the lock screen (and thus require FaceID or passcode) when specific apps are opened (banking, email, photos, etc).
• Not sure if this is best practice, but I just keep everything in 1P and turn off apple keychain and the apple built-in password manager. I also don't save passwords in Chrome or Safari.

Extra tips

These aren't really iPhone tips but general tips. They are probably obvious to you if you aren't as scatterbrained as me, but I figured that I'd drop them here in case they help someone.

• Add thorough security measures to iCloud, primary email, and any banking or financial services. Review each account and make sure you have a strong, unique password as well as a unique PIN, MFA configured, login alerts, recovery codes, and an international, 24-hour toll-free phone number stored somewhere to contact the service in the event of a crisis. For banking services, add withdrawal limits, regional restrictions (if you bounce between the same few countries), and SMS notifications for charges over a certain threshold. Open up a second checking account with a separate debit card for trips to the ATM.
• Consolidate and close any unused bank accounts. I realized that on my phone I had Revolut, Venmo, Paypal, Nequi, plus 4 US banking institutions. I took this time to close my Discover account (which is pretty much useless outside the US anyway), close my Revolut account since I'm hardly ever in the UK/EU, and consolidate investment accounts from different institutions into just a handful that's easier to monitor.

Source: Options Application Agreements Charles Schwab
The provided document has a section titled 'Writing Uncovered Options' on page 1, which states:
'Before placing an order to sell uncovered options on equities and narrow-based indexes, $25,000 in equity must be on deposit, and before placing an order to sell uncovered options on broad-based indexes, $25,000 in equity must be on deposit in your Schwab Account. In calculating equity, the market value of any security, bond, or stock may be included and any existing debit balance must be subtracted. Premiums obtained from option writing will be applied against Schwab's equity requirements. The total equity requirement must be in the Account prior to entering the order.'
I contacted support for clarification, and they confirmed that the account must have $25,000 in equity (settled cash or assets) to write a naked options trade. If not, the system will not execute the trade. If any of this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me, I am relaying what support told me.

For those of you that didn't get the automatic popup questionnaire in order to enable Real-Time Quotes; Schwab failed to provide any instructions on how to manually get there in the email.
In Schwab.com search, type "professional subscriber" (without quotes)
select "Most Relevant Results" which is "Professional/Non-Professional Subscriber Agreement Charles Schwab" fill it out, click "I agree" and you all set.
https://preview.redd.it/ta2adoksy70d1.png?width=1029&format=png&auto=webp&s=7aff4994785d02a4a08e49283b21fbd6ec8e7b19
Save you from being on the phone for ever, and them not knowing what to do to fix it.