There are no compelling objections to anarchism

My opening argument will not be comprehensive. I only plan on introducing a framework, not anything insanely specific. I'll tailor my arguments next round depending on Con's R2.Institutional Analysis.There are two types of political setups (speaking in hugely broad terms), States and non-States. States run into a number of seemingly insurmountable difficulties. One major problem is that which has been developed by workers in public choice theory. Public choice theory analyzes the various incentives laid out by various institutions, notably States. In a State we have three basic archetypes, the voter (everyday citizen), the politician, and the special interest. Special interests can be from corporations, individual political movements. etc. Their defining characteristic though (as far as being relevant to this debate) is that they are part of an organized group attempting to procure benefits upon themselves from the government. Public choice offers up a poor picture of the way States work, especially the more centralized or higher up they are (i..e, Federal as opposed to state governments). A set of perverse incentives is offered to each major group of political actors, turning individually rational actions into collectively detrimental outcomes. For instance, the cost for the Federal government to subsidize a given corporation might be $20,000. Divided by the number of tax-paying citizens, this equals out to a very small amount, almost unnoticeable at that. Now given the fact that costs are spread apart so widely , the average person is incentivized economically (as the subsidy cost him or her next to nothing) not to concern themselves with the issue.The major point to be made thus, is that States simply act as a middleman, and more. Besides simply handling transactions from consumers (citizens/tax payers) to the actual producers of given services, the State creates a system whereby it becomes impossible to rationally gauge cost-benefits. Now in a normal setup, someone can perform a cost-benefit analysis since they are the only ones paying and receiving the good. Where States are concerned though, paying and receiving become highly separated. My tax rate remains relatively constant in relation to what I receive. Therefore I have a financial incentive to receive as much as I can. This creates a sort of tragedy of the commons and largely explains why gross Federal spending in the U.S. has continued to increase seemingly exponentially even while deficits skyrocket.Obviously I can't *just* show the institutional flaws of Statism. After all, my opponent can simply argue that anarchism would be worse. But the reason institutional analysis of a non-State system would appear to be superior relies on a few reasons. (A) Individual cost-benefits are better related to individual preference and (B) non-monopolized markets (even in defense/protection) produce better services at better prices.(A) Cost-benefits under markets.In a market economy, one gets what one pays for. This seems relatively simple but it carries with some very important conclusions. In relation to the tragedy of the commons under Statism, anarchism would allow for one to have more control over how much of a particular service conforms to their individual preference, unhampered by something of a mad dash to absorb resources before someone else does. An example will be helpful to explain. Consider protection services. Under States, protection is broadly similar. Someone who might greatly value security will (all things being equal) pay the same rate as someone who values security very little. The reason the anarchist (market) program best solves this problem is that it allows individuals to tailor their services specifically to their preferences. This specific aspect works against the mono-standardization of State services. State create a situation where individual preference is threatened. When defense and protection is catered by markes, individual preference reigns supreme, when States do it standardization does. (B) Monopolization vs. Competition.Basic economic theory shows us that when more producers are at work in a given field, price will tend to be lower and quality will tend to be higher than in a market monopolized by a single firm. This is owing to the fact that price and quality are to a large extent determined by supply and demand. Consider a town with only one grocery as opposed to one containing five or ten. In the first town, the producer is in an extremely strong position bargaining wise which allows for the raising of price as well as the ability to be more lax on quality. Competition is a strong counter to this as when a producer is vulnerable to competition, it must change its price to more reflect the relative supply and demand (with similar effects in regards to quality) lest it lose customers to another firm. Markets on an a priori analysis so much more socially beneficial incentives than do monopolized institutions (States), making them preferable. Anarchism means meaningful competition in the field of defense and protection while States are more or less just geographical monopolies.