There are no compelling objections to anarchism

==Pro==Public ChoiceMy opponent makes a few assumptions and plain false claims. First, he assumes that centralization is a negative thing, while providing no reasoning. This is easily understood to be false by understanding how any company that actually hires people is structured, and what structures work and which do not. As a company grows (we will address why the free market does not limit it in a moment), the owner is not able to micro-manage the company, as doing so will usually cause a company to fail [1][2] and so must delegate authority and responsibility to managers, while also maintaining ultimate authority to control the company, through centralization and a well organized chain of command.My opponent then states, also without evidence that companies will naturally be limited in size. This is false under any basic business understanding. Several key reasons are the ability to buy in bulk (saves money), ability to afford advertising, vendor leverage (if your business is a large portion of their business, they have to kiss your bum), wide spread locations (when people travel, they will like to eat somewhere familiar, that is one reason starbucks does so well), and many more.Monopoly(i) My opponent ignores how votes are no different in pressure to a government as customers to a business. So long as there are votes, there is pressure.(ii) My opponent strawmans democracy, seemingly implying that the US version of democracy is the only possible version. A democracy may only have two, it may have ten. It is no different than only having two or ten choices for a business. My opponent also says that each vote matters very little. That depends on the size of the nation, which could be only a few hundred, in which each vote is very important. My opponent also ignores the obvious comparison to a large company, where a single customer makes very little difference to the bottom line of the company.==Con==Free Rider ProblemMy opponent's option does not refute the free rider problem. Even under his possibility (which he provides no reason to believe that will happen, only that it could, of which he cannot force, only market forces can), the FRP still exists. If the insurance companies only charge if X number of people sign up, then everyone beyond X is still getting the benefits without paying for them, and so they are still enjoying the costs of others.My opponent's example also fails because no company is going to invest in such a sunken cost without a long term contract. If enough people want a dam and are willing to pay monthly for it, an insurance company is not going to build it unless they have a contract to ensure that they keep getting paid (basically like a loan to the people). The risk is just too great for any business to risk without long term contracts (which only amplifies the FRP).InsurancePro is simply wrong. When it comes to efficiency, private companies can not match medicare's efficiency [3]. Even when anti-medicare groups add what they call "hidden costs" the overhead is still only 5.2%, while the private sector is 16.7%. Pro also falsely assumes that the market drives to the more efficient levels. The market drives to the most profitable levels, not the most efficient. While the two are often linked very heavily, they are not the same, and to group them is a humpty dumpty fallacy.Private ArbitrationPro starts off with a horrible double standard. While you go with one company, you are locked into one arbitrator. However, Pro believes that this is okay, since you can choose a different company which may or may not be locked into a different arbitrator. That is the same as saying that while living in the US you are stuck with the US laws, but that is okay, because you can go to any other country and be stuck with their laws, so you always have a choice (and thus, he is refuting his own "the state is a monopoly" argument that he presented earlier).Pro also fails to understand that it doesn't matter if you can choose different companies, because for each and every one, whatever arbitrator they lock you into, that arbitrator has an extremely high incentive to side with the company that hires them. Pro continues to assume that people would simply wise up and choose a company that did not do this. However, he never addresses that they will always have that massive incentive. He also fails to realize that this is what is currently going on with private arbitrators. Because there is too much information in the world for people to process it all, much of it has to be ignored, and arbitration tends to be one of them [4][5]. Pro also assumes that markets will react to what is better for the consumer. A clear case that this is not always true was when a phone company raised their termination fees on smart phones, one might think that this would push competitors to take some market share. Instead, all major companies quickly followed suit [6], giving the people no real alternative in choice as far termination fees go. This is the same with the arbitration, even though it is better for the customers for them to be fair, it is better for the companies for them to not be fair, and so long as the companies do what is best for them (as the market drives them to do) they will continue.Sub-streetsMy opponent fails to realize several things and ultimately, actually begins arguing against anarchism by the end.First, companies can, and often do, work under many multiple names that are not often known to be tied together. The company I work for only has a few hundred employees and does business under 3 different names. Many of our customers are not actually aware that we are owned by a different company in Japan. This would allow companies to build roads under one name, then operate it under another. This also ignores a corporations favorite legal phrase, "prices may change at any time without notice." This allows companies to lure people in with temporary deals (just like Dish Network giving a low rate for the first year, or credit being offered with 0% and no payments for X months).Pro finally goes on to basically create a government as a solution to the problem. While he has not presented any reasoning that such issues would not arise under anarchy (only that something else may rise as well), he says that "we could expect sub-streets to be more organized along neighborhood community control." This is just a long phrase for a small state, namely a community state.If we go back to Pro's R1 where he provides definitions, here is his definition of anarchism, "form of social organization without a territorial monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, or any other services." Neightborhood community control is a territorial monopoly on roads (in that community), and so is not anarchy as defined for this debate.I would like to thank my opponent as we move to our final round.[1] http://www.ncmahq.org...[2] http://www.joanlloyd.com...[3] http://www.cahi.org...[4] http://www.arbitration-icca.org...[5] http://www.arbitralwomen.org...[6] http://www.computerworld.com...