There are no compelling objections to anarchism

1. In Round 2, Pro claims that a polycentric law is superior to a monocentric law. Yet in Round 3, Pro claims that "societies generally favor singular underlying social conventions." The problem with Pro's argument in Round 3 is that it undermines his argument from Round 2: why would societies favor a polycentric law if they favor a singular underlying social convention? 2. Pro claims that social convention is prior to any given legal system. I never argued otherwise. I argued that the "prior" existence of conflicting moral, theological, and ideological doctrines will inevitably produce ("posterior") conflicting legal systems. Pro therefore concedes that the existence of conflicting moral, theological, and ideological doctrines would produce conflicting legal systems. 3. Pro claims that the wealthy have an unfair control over policy in statism. The wealthy, however, have more power in anarchism than statism. This means the wealthy exert a greater degree of unfair control over policy in anarchism than statism. In anarchism, there are no laws in place to prevent the formation of monopolies; no laws to prevent the wealthy from establishing dominant legal systems by hiring better legal enforcement; no laws to prevent the wealthy from hiring military contractors and establishing themselves as dictators. The point I'm making here is very simple and straight-forward: in anarchism, the wealthy would be able to rule through an unchecked ability to influence every aspect of life. The reason statism is preferable to anarchism, then, is because statism can create laws and institutions to prevent or inhibit the power of the wealthy. Pro claims that the wealthy would nonetheless be able to influence politics unfairly through campaign contributions. Pro's argument is fallacious because it relies on false assumptions: Pro assumes that political leaders must be elected (they could be chosen in other ways that are fair, such as a lottery). Pro's argument, in effect, relies on the false assumption that statism cannot create laws that treat all people fairly and equally. The problem with anarchism is that there is no way to prevent the wealthy from creating unfair legal systems. In anarchism, there is no way to prevent the wealthy from enforcing their chosen legal system on the poor (since the only people paying for legal enforcement would inevitably be the wealthy). The basic civil rights of the poor would be lost entirely in an anarchist society. 4. Pro claims that polycentric law ensures neutrality because it allows for third party arbitration. The problem with Pro's argument is that it does not account for the many cases where third party arbitration cannot be agreed to by the two parties. If person X and person Y cannot agree to use the same legal system, there is no way for X to force Y to use X's legal system, and there is no way for Y to force X to use Y's legal system. The victor of such legal disputes would be whoever has the stronger legal enforcement. In other words, whichever legal system is better able to enforce its laws on people who do not accept it as a legal system would do best. The best legal systems would inevitably be those supported by the wealthy, since the wealthy would fund better legal enforcement. The other outcome of a polycentric law is that the costs of law would go up, since decisions would be rendered through legal enforcement. Whichever legal system spent the most money on legal enforcement would typically become the victor of all legal disputes. This would make the cost of winning disputes go up, since the competition between different legal systems would drive the demand for legal enforcement up. The price would inevitably go up as well. Pro does not address this argument, even though I made it in Round 2. 5. Pro misrepresents my argument. I did not say that monopolies are inherently bad. I said that anarchism (not statism, but anarchism) rests on the assumption that monopolies are inherently bad. The problem with anarchism is that it would become statism the moment a monopoly forms over the law. Pro must prove that a market would not produce dominant monopolies that undermine anarchism itself. I argue this cannot be guaranteed in an anarchist society because there is no mechanism to prevent the formation of monopolies. I myself am not arguing that monopolies are bad. Pro completely misrepresents my argument. I maintain that anarchism is theoretically incoherent because its framework undermines itself. 6. Pro claims that free markets do not produce monopolies. Pro says monopolies are "state-born," and quotes Ludwig von Mises, as if that somehow proves monopolies are not produces through markets. I'll counter with a quote from economist Milton Friedman: "Monopoly arises to some extent because technical considerations make it more efficient or economical to have a single enterprise rather than many." [1] Pro claims that markets do not tend to create monopolies. Milton Friedman claims otherwise. Pro does not offer an argument other than an appeal to authority to prove markets do not produce monopolies. I also make an appeal to authority, but in my case, it is supported by a better authority (Milton Friedman was more of an expert on free markets than Ludwig von Mises) and an actual argument (monopolies arise because they are more efficient and economical). I've already explained why a monocentric law would emerge because it is more efficient and economical, but I'll reiterate the argument: the resolution of disputes between parties who operate within distinct legal systems would become a dispute between the ability of each legal system to enforce its laws on others. The problem of resolving disputes is the same problem we witness between two nations with distinct legal systems who cannot resolve their dispute through third party arbitration: they go to war. The same thing would happen on a mass-scale in anarchism, and the wealthy would always emerge victorious since they would be the ones who can afford the best military contractors. The result of the competition among distinct legal systems would be a dramatic increase in the cost of law. Why? Well, think about it: if I pay X amount for legal enforcement, then someone else would have to pay X+1 amount if they wanted to win a legal dispute against me. This would force me to pay X+2. The demand for legal enforcement would drive the price of the law up. At some point, it would become clear that a monopoly over the law would be preferable, since it would offer not only more fair and equal representation for everyone, but it would also be more economical solely in terms of the market. Pro must prove that anarchism would not lead to monopolies (since Pro justifies polycentric law by arguing that monopolies are inherently bad). Pro must also prove that a polycentric law offers more fair and equal representation for people, and that it would cost less than monocentric law. Pro also has the burden to prove that polycentric law would lead to less bloodshed and war than monocentric law. As of yet, none of these points have been proven. 7. Pro claims I am "ignoring the harsh realities which we actually see." I would argue that Pro is ignoring the "harsh realities" that would inevitably emerge in anarchism. Pro does not explain how a polycentric law would prevent murder, rule of the wealthy, or subjugation of minority rights... Pro offers no defense for anarchism. Instead, Pro offers empirical evidence that states are bad. Pro ignores the large amount of evidence that states are good. There are many states that have limited some evils through constitutional governments. These governments are ruled by principles that the wealthy cannot influence, principles which themselves protect the basic civil rights of everyone (including minorities), and principles which prevent murder by categorically criminalizing it. Anarchism does not limit evils, statism does. [1] Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom