Anarchism is unfeasible

===Definitions===Pro has taken issue with my definition of the State. He first alleges a difference between 'States' and 'governments'. For the purposes of this debate though we can safely assume the two are synonyms. At least that's what I did in defining a 'State'. Pro gives us some idea of what he would supplant in place of my definition ("a governing body with authority to act and make decisions on behalf of the population.") but I don't see wherein it contradicts my own. In fact, an institution monopolizing and delegating the provision of law and defense would seem to fit in perfectly well with his own definition. The only problem I see is with "on behalf of the population". Nowhere should it be presumed that States (or governments) must act benevolently. It's perfectly conceivable to speak of a State which acts against its citizens interests.Now I'll move on to my refutations of Pro's arguments before defending my own.===Pro Case===Pro's argument is essential that government (or States) is an inevitability. He undertakes to show this by recourse to what appears to be an insanely cursory generalization of humanity. His argument is that in large scale decision making (presumably being binding over the populace?), inefficiency inevitably erupts as to the issue of consent. In order to work past this inefficiency, coercion is necessary on Pro's argument. There are a few major problems with his analysis though.(1) He presupposes the historical "Statist" view of human decision making. That is, he presumes that decisions need to be made in a public square binding to all. But is this really the case? Anarcho-capitalists and private law anarchists would argue not. In order to defend myself and my property I need not delegate how someone else does so so long as they don't aggress against me. Pro has failed to justify his social decision making context.(2) Pro outlines a possible solution to the problem in social pressures. This is in line with anarchism as anarchists only oppose aggression and coercion i.e., physical domination of someone else. Pro has therefore defeated his own case.(3) Pro has also failed to refute the idea of dominant assurance contracts as a method of large scale decision making. He summarizes it incorrectly in describing it as merely an entrepreneurial mechanism. Perhaps that was my mistake in how I described it. In short, dominant assurance contracts function in such a way that people pay into a good with the expressed condition that they are only held to their payment in the event that enough parties sign (how ever many it would take to actually produce the good). If not enough people sign up, their money is refunded. This eliminates the commonly held notion that public goods (like defense for instance) cannot be provided for by free consent. More information can be found here (www.stanford.edu/~jacobt/writing/dac.pdf)===Con Case===(1) Pro has taken his time to point out why my examples were not pure anarchist societies. But that was not my claim exactly. My claim was that they more or less (to an extent) exhibited anarchist principles and didn't devolve into chaos. That Medieval Iceland technically had a government is a moot issue since the problems of arbitration and retribution/restitution were largely carried out privately. The Kibbutz movement, while now by and large relinquishing it's anarchist principles, did for a long time function more or less anarchistically. A private community rejecting others or delegating rules (as a pretext for joining said *voluntary* community is also not evidence of a State. If Pro's only attack is that they weren't fully anarchist (while entirely failing to show why it was the elements of Statism that made the societies stable and workable) than my point remains.(2) As I dealt with dominant assurance contracts above I'll spend some time defending my conception of libertarians socialism/anarcho-communism as distinct from States as Pro has implied otherwise. States and non-States are here differentiated in their means not by their internal organization. In my house I might act as a King would over his kingdom but my house is not a State. Why? Because I don't use coercion or aggression to control my house. I bought it legitimately and hence my "rule" over it is so. States on the other hand (from the definition I provided) coercively monopolize decision making and delegation of the rule of law and defense over their territories. This form of aggression is what makes it a State rather than simply a community or a business. Under libertarian socialism, people come together voluntarily to delegate some decision making to representatives. This is distinct from a State in that this committee doesn't employ aggression or coercion as a means to power. Rather people voluntarily will them to make some decisions. The difference lies in the means by which they act, though the internal organization of the two institutions may be similar.