There are no compelling objections to anarchism

Pro claims that a "polycentric" law would be viable, and possibly superior to, a "monocentric" law. The argument fails for two reasons: (1) it assumes free competition would produce a "maximum reduction of price," and (2) it relies on the freedom of labor, trade, and competition, neither of which can be guaranteed within a polycentric legal system. The cost of a polycentric law would far surpass that of a monocentric law for two reasons: a) no single set of moral, theological, or ideological beliefs is held and affirmed by everyone; b) there is no neutral or independent mechanism for evaluating and establishing one person's doctrinal allegiances as better or more true than another person's doctrinal allegiances. Therefore, a polycentric law would produce a multitude of conflicting legal systems to represent the different moral, theological, and ideological beliefs in society. The result would be twofold: at once an increase in the cost of law and a society in which wealth and money determine the governing moral, theological, and ideological doctrine of the day. If two persons with conflicting beliefs cannot agree to use the same legal system, the dispute would inevitably reduce to an issue of legal enforcement: the victor in any dispute would be determined by the power of each side to enforce their particular legal doctrine, making it impossible to ensure equality or fairness of legal representation for everyone (this is the moral issue at stake here). Thus, the ability to pay for mercenaries to defend and fight for specific legal doctrines (i.e. wealth) would dictate the governing moral, theological, or ideological doctrine. Furthermore, since the cost of law would include legal enforcement, competition among conflicting legal systems would require an ever greater economic investment in enforcement, dramatically increasing the cost of law. There is therefore a dangerous moral and economic cost to having a polycentric law. Pro says, "If competition is a favorable condition, it must apply to any other service, even law." The theoretical framework Pro requires for this claim is unsustainable and incoherent. There are many conditions that are favorable in some situations and not favorable in others. What reason is there to believe a favorable condition in textile industry would remain a favorable condition in law? It is necessary to have exceptions to every general principle, not only as a matter of practical application, but as a matter of theoretical consistency. If there is no stable (i.e. non-competitive) mechanism to prevent the creation of a monopoly, there is no way to guarantee that competition continues. The idea that competition can be applied to "any other service" is theoretically incoherent in the same way that toleration of any religious practice is theoretically incoherent: both allow mechanisms to emerge from within their framework that undermine and collapse the framework itself. Pro's framework is not sufficient to establish the theoretical or practical viability of anarchism. What would prevent people from committing murder? What would prevent the wealthy from dictating the governing morality, theology, and ideology? What would protect the fundamental human rights of minority groups? How would religious freedoms be protected? Pro's framework cannot provide an acceptable answer to any of these questions, since it does not provide an incentive for the wealthy to refrain from bribery, theft, or murder. The lack of an independent mechanism of accountability suggests an anarchist society would ultimately reduce to either an unstable oligarchy or a military dictatorship.