There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Pro Case===Argumentation ethics.Any argument for a State necessitates argument for the existence of an institution designated to employ aggression[1](either direct or through threat). This coercion comes in the form of taxation and, more conceptually, in the arrogation of compulsive monopoly on the provision of a given service. In doing this, States coerce otherwise non-aggressive market actors into not providing those services which States designate to be their sole jurisdiction (historically services such as defense, law, and roads). No State, properly defined, can exist without the employment of some level of aggression. This presents problems for any argumentative justification of States since in even making an argument , one presupposes the non-aggression principle[2]. The purpose of argumentative appeal lies in convincing one's opponent. But convincing me to let you steal my things is incoherent, given that if I were convinced it wouldn't be stealing, but simply a gift bestowed. The initiation of violence/force is thus among the things that cannot be rationally defended argumentatively (that and solipsism). Any argument for the State is thus self-contradicting since the conditions requisite for argumentation (free consent, non-aggression) in the first place are what are specifically being argued against. From the lack of a rational foundation for State action, one thus defaults to anarchism, literally lack of a State.===Negation of Con Case===Clarification.The first clarification necessary to make stems from Con's first description of the anarchist position. He writes: "parties belonging to an anarchist lifestyle can.... work together to build a neutral self sustaining community with no single unit of power." This last part, "single unit of power" is troublesome. "Power" isn't a good word here since it can also include things like social (popularity) or economic (wealth) power which market anarchists don't take prima facie issue with. The term would better be replaced by "aggression", defined as "the initiation of physical force against other persons or their property, the threat of such, or fraud upon other persons or their property."[1]Hypocritical system.First, a re-statement of Con's position will help keep confusion to a minimum. Con's contention is that "Volunteer services" are a mechanism by which monopolization is facilitated. His argument is that defense service providers under anarchism would have a "monopoly" in forcing their own standards of interpersonal relations on others. This contention, as I intend to show, is filled with definitional confusion and what appears to be a lack of understanding on my opponent's part concerning the theoretical functioning of an anarchistic society.(1) Con's first problem lies in, what I understand to be, his definition of a "volunteer force". Con's arguments imply that this simply consists of a group of "vigilantes" who take it upon themselves to protect members of their society. Con is essentially re-stating the function of a State (a group/institution arrogating for themselves a compulsive monopoly on the provision of law/defense), minus the small element of popular control allowed for by liberal democracy. This is a fallacious representation of anarchist politico-legal theory however. Anarchism (of the market variety defended here) proposes freely competing providers of defense against invasion of property, not an unrestricted group of aggressors who think themselves the only ones capable of providing said service (you're thinking of a State).(2) Con's next problem has to do with his treatment of what we may call the "universal standards problem". Re-stated, the problem lies in how a polycentric (anarchist) legal system handles the supposedly inevitable existence of multiple, quite possibly incompatible, legal standards in existence within a single area. The standard State response is to aggressively establish a single, uniform standard across a given area. Anarchism, being diametrically opposed to such means, is thus supposed to be ineffective at effecting a solution to the problem.This need not be the case though and there are several problems with Con's theoretical analysis in the first place. First, mutually incompatible legal/social systems are already in existence on a global scale. Just as different people might have different conceptions of justice under anarchism, so different countries do so under the current State paradigm. Thus, the only way to escape this "problem" is via the formation of a compulsory world government with ultimate jurisdiction. It would seem thus that Con's own solution to the problem doesn't even function as such. On the off chance that Con actually defends world government, it still wouldn't amount to much since utilitarian considerations can certainly be shown to favor multiple legal systems over a single-State system. I'll save that argument depending on Con's response here.(3) Con's third problem here doesn't require as much attention since I don't think it was meant exactly as an argument in itself, more it seemed like a weak justification of why States aren't as bad as anarchists think. One may look at instances of liberal democracy and think they seem to function relatively well. Utilitarian considerations needs not always be present however. Natural rights anarchists may still be hostile to the State due to the existence of institutionalized theft (taxation), aggression (in keeping a compulsory monopoly over the provision of the State's respective services). (see the Pro case for more exposition) Furthermore, even utilitarian considerations support statelessness as a viable alternative. The inefficiency of political choice (found in public choice theory considerations[3]) as opposed to market choice (embodied in market laws such as supply and demand as well as the possibility of resource allocation) serves as powerful utilitarian reasoning to anarchism.Market objections.(1) Con's first problem he runs into is a simple misunderstanding of how markets work. Con first jumps from a contingent set of events (which Con never shows to be necessary, much less likely) to a supposed universal law of social interaction which is itself an untenable methodology. Next, Con completely ignores the existence of multiple producers in the market before the advent of things like anti-trust while also employing an incredibly superfluous account of market processes. On the latter, Con has yet to show why (a) 100% of consumers must necessarily always go to a single producer (different preferences lends to multiple producers), (b) why low prices are the end all (juxtaposed with quality, consumer loyalty, etc.), or (c) why simply lowering them necessitates a full switch of most consumers to another product. Con's example if far from "realistic".(2) The second error in Con's analysis lies in his equivocation of all monopolies.. A single producer A voluntarily (meaning because consumers voluntarily choose to associate with A and not B) coming into monopoly for a various service isn't the same as a State. Therefore, Con's equivocation ("...a monopoly on prices and products is introduced no different form than the market system we currently have in place as a "Monopoly".) doesn't prove anything. The anarchist political project is in conflict not with sole producers per se , but with aggressive producers (i.e., a producer that arrogates to itself a monopoly on the provision of a given service by force of threat of force). Con's scenario, even if successful in its unlikely conclusion (i.e., a sole producer) doesn't even prove what Con thinks it does.===Sources===[1] http://wiki.mises.org... [2] http://wiki.mises.org... [3] http://www.econlib.org...