There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Pro Case===Public Choice.Con is claiming that various economic considerations favor the centralization of business while failing to refute my points showing that centralization can in many ways be explained corporate favouritism by the State. Furthermore, Con is again mistaking a trend for a universal law. Just because there are instances in which larger firms may be more efficient than smaller ones doesn't mean that centralism is always > to decentralism. Con is mistaking a trend for a universal economic law and his points fail to refute the point that markets have a natural limiting factor i.e., that centralized growth is only efficient to a point. Con has completely failed to show why centralized growth is efficient forever or can never become inefficient. Monopolization/Competition.(i) Prices. Con's price counter is essentially a concession since this debate is not of the type "anarchism vs. statism" but simply on whether there are compelling objections to anarchism. If votes are essentially the same as consumer pressure than at best this makes anarchism and statism prima facie similar and isn't a legitimate criticism.(ii) Democracy. This contention is essentially the same as the above "Prices" contention. Con is arguing that size is a relevant consideration. Democracy may small in size, but so may States. It's also vulnerable to the same point as above. Con's claim that States and businesses are similar in this respect in no way forwards the Con position but works in favor of the Pro since this debate is on the existence of compelling objections to anarchism, not superiority of one system over another. ===Con Case===Free Rider Problem.Con's first counter is that I allegedly provide no reason to show that assurance contracts would exist, because I cannot force them to. However, the problem with this refutation is that it puts into place a burden of proof which only an explicit threat of force can fulfill. Con argues that we don't know that mutual assurance contracts would be put into place. Okay, we don't really know that Walmart will respond to economic incentives, but we can say it's probable. Con's next criticism is that anyone beyond whatever number of people necessary is still a free rider since they still wouldn't have to pay for the service. However, Con fails to show why this alleged problem carries with it the same problems as a normal FRP. If enough people have paid for the service, it doesn't matter what other people do, since the service is fulfilled regardless. The only reason the FPR is a problem in the first place is because it makes the provision of services impossible. If they're provided, it ceases to become a problem.Thirdly, Con for some reason presupposes that mutual assurance contracts couldn't conceptually be long term. Without substantiation though there's no reason to even take this into consideration. Furthermore I have no idea where he got the idea that mutual assurance contracts don't insure payment since that's basically the entire idea behind them.Insurance.Con's only claim is that Medicare is more efficient than private companies. Of course the term private companies is a hollow one since there is no free market in actual existence. Things like intellectual property rights, government regulations, externalized transportation costs, and a plethora of other government infringements on the market make any attempt to call "private" companies private in any real sense simple false. Furthermore the idea by Con that showing a single State service to be a mere 11.5% more efficient than private industry hardly counts as a compelling objection to anarchism as a whole (or even anarchism in that service only). Lastly, Con has completely dropped my rational allocation point.Private Arbitration.Con has attempted to equivocate being locked in to a contract with a single arbiter as the same as being locked into a single country's set of laws. There are numerous problems with this but let's get into just a few of them. (i) You don't have an original choice in which country you're born into, you do choose whichever cell phone company (or whatever service you choose) you contract yourself with. (ii) There's a much larger existential problem with relocating countries, relocating companies is (while at some times annoying) infinitely easier and less trouble. Con is trying to argue that basically everything can be considered a reasonable "choice", irrespective of any outstanding factors like geography or original choice. This was never my position and Con's attempt to group them all in together is frankly misleading.Con's next point deals with the alleged incentive for arbitration services to always side with the company hiring them. He claims that I never addressed the incentive problem. However, if one reads my R3 one can see that I surely did. "I would find it at least somewhat likely that when phone company X's private arbitration service that it contracts out weights in it's favor a substantial percent of the time, that consumers would follow suit and switch to a more reliable service." Arbitration services literally only work based off of reputation (since the quality of their only service relies on it) therefore I fail to see how consumers would be likely to just shrug this off.Sub-street Monopoly.Con's claims that the neighborhood State is utterly fallacious and is routinely expected in debates on the subject. It arises from a flawed sense of what a State actually is, ironic since Con's entire counter here rests on definitions. A territorial monopoly is not as thinly defined as Con would have you think it is. It's not simply a single company or institution controlling a service in a specific place. Otherwise McDonalds would be a State since it controls fast food inside the restaurant. Con conveniently ignores what a State actually is. As defined in R1, it holds an "aggressive monopoly" i.e., one held up by force or threat of force. This is what separates mere businesses or community organizations from States. If I theorized any use of force in R3 I'm certainly ignorant of it and invite Con to point this out. Taxation (i.e., forced payment) is also a tenet of the State, however the voluntary nature of the above described community rules this out as well. Con also concedes his pure conjecture in regards to crossing roads going up to one's driveway (since he didn't provide an R3 refutation) as well as the contention that road companies can simply charge whatever they want. His example that Dish Network changes their rates at some points completely ignores my point. I didn't argue that prices were always stable, only that companies don't usually have the kind of control over prices that Con claims i.e., being able to charge literally whatever they want. It's also unclear what the "name change" point actually means in the scope of this contention.