Anarchism is unfeasible

Since Con forfeited round 2, the debate has been shortened to two rounds. This is frustrating because there's no point presenting further arguments as Con has no reply (he agreed not to do a round 4 to make it even).Even so, thank you to Con for his two rounds. He has obviously done a lot of research on anarchism and given it a lot of thought and his opinions and arguments are valuable. On coercion According to Con, an anarchist society is defined by its lack of coercion. In particular, Con says:"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...coercively monopolize decision making and delegation of the rule of law and defense over their territories." coercion (noun): the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats (1) force (noun): coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence (2)Con argues that "social pressures" are not a form of coercion and are therefore in line with anarchism. Of course at other times and in other societies, social pressures are indeed a devastating form of coercion. Because with very rare exceptions, individuals cannot live independently of society. If an individual is rejected by the group and forced to live alone in the wilderness, say, then they will die or at best suffer harsh deprivation.Note that the two societies Con highlighted as being closish to anarchism both featured banishment as a solution for non-conformers. In Con's Iceland example, when someone became an outlaw it meant that people could be prosecuted for offering her shelter, and she could be killed with impunity. It's true that the Icelandic government had no executive arm. But it's absurd to suggest that the "social pressure" of outlawing people is not coercive.But in our society today, "social pressure" does seem trivial. Why? Because we live in the context of strong government. We cannot be banished even if people loathe us. Resources we need to survive will not be withheld. Worst case, we can move to another part of the country, collect welfare if needs be, and start afresh. All this because the government provides all its citizens with certain living standards. Without this security, we would go back to relying on our network of relationships for survival and social pressure would once more become coercive.Note also that Con's best example of a non-coercive society his himself, alone, wandering around his house. One person in a house is not an example of a society, of course. But with this example, Con seems to recognize, as I do, that coercion is inherent in human interaction.governments are inevitableCon argues "that [the early Kibbutz movement and Medieval Iceland] more or less (to an extent) exhibited anarchist principles and didn't devolve into chaos."I have never suggested that anarchy would mean chaos. Quite the opposite. I believe that human societies inevitably organize and form governments. My evidence for this is every single human society that has ever existed. Con cannot provide a single successful example of anarchism because there have been none.Clearly, anarchism doesn't occur spontaneously. Even if it got set up, there would need to be a mechanism to prevent government forming. This mechanism would be coercive and so immediately we have a paradox.Con would no doubt try to argue that the mechanism needn't be coercive. Perhaps he would bring out his dominant assurance contracts again (3). Even these would require a coercive mechanism. According to Con's source, dominant assurance contracts work by people pledging a certain amount of money to a project, which only goes ahead if a target sum is reached. If it doesn't go ahead, those people get their money back plus a little bit extra. The extra bit is supposed to motivate people to pledge. However. Suppose the person who proposed the project decided not to pay the extra bit? After all, why should they? They put all the work in setting up the project and are disappointed it fell through. It's a bit much to have to pay as well. Defaults would be commonplace. There would need to be some mechanism to force people to comply. Otherwise, the system of dominant assurance contracts would fail because people would know it to be unreliable.on large group decision-makingCon complains that "[Pro] presumes that decisions need to be made in a public square binding to all. But is this really the case?...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." It's true, of course, that decisions don't need to be made in a public square and my example was rather naff. I was trying to present the most pared down example I could to show the inevitability of conflict and the consequent imposing of authority.It seems as if Con is arguing that cooperation is unnecessary. Again, we're going back to the man alone in the house argument. No. People need to live together in societies, to share work, knowledge and resources, and to do that they need to make cooperative decisions.ConclusionGovernment in some form is an inevitable consequence of human society. As a theory, anarchism sheds light on the status quo in an interesting way, but it is not workable. A large number of men each in his own house, each defending his own property, never making group decisions is not a society. It's a prison. When people start working together, they inevitably create authoritative groups and coercive situations. This has been the case in every society at every point in history.Anarchism is unfeasible.(1) http://oxforddictionaries.com...(2) http://oxforddictionaries.com...(3) www.stanford.edu/~jacobt/writing/dac.pdf