There are no compelling objections to anarchism

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, thankyou for putting time into reading this debate!Let's get this started shall we?I saw this debate, and after having several questions to SocialPinko's theories on anarchism and volunteer parties, I can finally put those questions into a good debate to hopefully help better my understanding, and perhaps influence his through the complex divine nature of learning. What a wonderful concept yes? We debate to put forth our opinions and standby them to win; or do we? But I am not ignorant enough to say that I know everything, and that I will not learn anything from this debate. And depending on how this goes, my opinion may very well change which is partially why I want to debate this with SocialPinko's. Every part of knowledge I possess about anarchy, my brain detests, and I find a majority of complexities that would be involved in an anarchist system. I crave to understand an anarchists mind, and hope that if I do not get convinced by my very bright opponent, that I will at least gain a better respect and understanding for his philosophy.Anyone who knows SocialPinko's knows he is of strong opinion that Anarchy can work, in a certain way. Though he has not said anything yet in this debate, I have had experiences with him in the forums sections with his philosophies, so I will start this debate by addressing what I already know SocialPinko's stands by as far as anarchism goes, and my general description of his particular philosophy. Before we begin, I do agree to my opponents rules and framework.OBJECTIONSBefore I begin my Objections, let me make my opponents stand point a little bit more clear for the viewers, based solely off my best interpretations of his philosophies. The pro in this debate, believes that A system of anarchy can work when a government "monopoly" is not interjected. My opponent believes that certain parties belonging to an anarchist lifestyle can simply offer up their services and cooperatively work together to build a neutral self sustaining community with no single unit of power.A1: A hypocritical systemIn order for the pro to sustain his position that there are no compelling objections to anarchism, he is virtually sustaining that it is a flawless mechanic of government operations, in that it satisfies more good than it's counter parts. Given that I am American, and most of you who will read this debate are American citizens as well, I will be referring a lot to the democratic government system we currently have in place, to show more adequate benefits, however, I do understand and recognize other governments that may work out better than the pre-supposed democracy. In direct contention with my opponent's own statute on anarchism, Volunteer services is a form of implementing a monopoly. Now I like that my opponent uses this word,"monopoly". I think the general understanding of the word is known amongst the audience here, however let me source the definition I feel portrays itself most prominent from the word."the exclusive possession or control of something."also"a company or group that has such control."http://dictionary.reference.com... Now the idea of a volunteer group of people emitting any type of control over others, is what directly makes it a monopoly in and of itself. If you want to think about America's Democratic system that's in place, we can compare apples to apples.We have a police force, that directly co-ordinates itself against stopping and protecting human values. The common goal is to stop thievery, violence, and harmful intent to other human beings.In coagulation with a Volunteer force, we have a group of people doing essentially the same thing according to their standards of protecting human values. What's wrong with this you might ask yourself?Here's the kicker.IF there is no specific standard set in place, where a minority might feel different than a Majority of people on justice, the majority can instantly deteriorated, as they no longer have control. Remember that word control? That's the one we found in the dictionary definition of monopoly. So here we have a single group of vigilantes, doing what they think is right, though it may be harmful to proportionate amount of people, defying any stance on utility. The only way to prevent this is to add a standard, or a specific set of rules, a code of conduct, if you will, for a volunteer police force to live by.The purpose of my opponents ideas on Anarchy, all suddenly seems to be lost, when a volunteer group is forced to unintentionally become a "monopoly" in order to serve the greatest amount of people, and in order to be fair. But can Pro honestly sustain an argument for Anarchy in a system where no rules are placed on law enforcement? If not, then pro must accept that a monopoly is needed in order to provide the correct amount of justice, and morality into his own system. Is a monopoly in law enforcement such a bad thing however? While the Democratic system America has in place is far from perfect, does it not serve it purpose in superiority at protecting justice, than a band of volunteers who think they know what's best for others, until rebellion comes towards mass dis-agreement of ideals of force?In a criminal justice system, it can be impossible to be 100% flawless, but realistically, the justice system does do it's part in protecting the people's rights, the victims, and the potential acquirees of harm.C2: Other Aspects of a failing anarchy systemThis argument doesn't just go for law enforcement, and can easily be expanded towards that of a market system. In Pros world, if Bob is in desperate need of something to survive on, Joe can offer up this item to bob as trade. Pro is volunteering his services to others, while gaining a profit himself, in some way or another, that he can self substantiate his own needs. Let's throw a realistic scenario into the equation. Carl sees Joe doing well in his services, and owning the same product as Joe, decides to enter his volunteer services into the market as well. Unfortunately, people know Joe, and have been loyal to him, thus continuing through his services. Carl now lacks the substantive product required to help his own survival. He sees one option, which is to beat the system that Joe already has in place. Carl lowers his prices for the much needed item, such as to attract others to his dealings as well. Eventually people see the benefits of investing with Carl, and leave Joe's services for Carl's. Now Joe is hurt, and can no longer sustain himself and his family. The market system comes into place, and a monopoly on prices and products is introduced no different form than the market system we currently have in place as a "Monopoly". In order for people to best serve themselves, and protect theirselves, Monopolies inevitably become introduced into this category.The point is, that no matter how my opponents form of anarchy is attempted, it inevitably is a failing attempt at government reform. No matter what the scenario, volunteer services introduced into an anarchy system, automatically becomes a failed system, as it is pre-destined to fail.****WRAP UP****Pro asked me in Round 1 to also expand on objections to Anarchy, which I will go on to outline in little detail, as to give my opponent an understanding of my standpoint. Objections to Anarchy, outlined: - Anarchy is ultimately chaotic, un-stable, and results in more harms than goods. A stable form of government and law is required in order to effectively sustain a stable society. - A stable society is required in protecting the virtues and basic human god given rights. A democracy like the one we have in place with laws in place to protect that which all humans deserve (life, liberty, and happiness). Such cannot be guaranteed in an anarchy society, thus is not beneficial.-Benefits to controlled societies, far outweigh that of the anarchist society, nulling the idea of anarchy.Look forward to your response.