Anarchism is unfeasible

As per Pro's request I'll relegate this round to opening arguments as well as to provide a few opening definitions.===Definitions===Anarchism: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished."[1] This is the most general definition of anarchism available. As can be expected from any political philosophy, anarchism has wide-spread variance in what it adds on to this definition; as Hess called them "hyphens" e.g. ANARCHO-capitalism, ANARCHO-syndicalism, etc. My purpose here is not to defend some single myopic conception of how best statelessness could be organized, but a comprehensive view of how statelessness itself is feasible.State: A State is defined as an institution holding a monopoly on provision of goods such as law, defense, roads, etc. States coercively prevent other competing institutions from arising within some defined geographical boundary. Another tenet of States is the ability to tax i.e., to extract wealth of its citizenry in order to pay for services provided as well as for other means.Feasible: Any political system can be defined as being feasible when it can be enacted and induced in a society without crumbling due to internal contradictions or inconsistencies. For instance, liberal democracy wouldn't be infeasible because of the conceivability of a foreign hostile army ten fold in size. Rather we must look at the institutional structure of the system being investigated to decide if it provides plausible mechanisms for dealing with social problems which plague every society. If a system being absolutely inpentrable to invasion of breakup is the standard for feasibility, than no social system, past or present, would pass the test.===Arguments===(1) Anarchism has existed and been sustained historically. We have several examples of relatively prosperous and free stateless societies to go on from history. Medieval Iceland is perhaps the best example of a stateless society beign maintained for a long period of time. David Friedman provides a comprehensive sketch[2], arguing that, "Whatever the correct judgment on the Icelandic legal system, we do know one thing: it worked--sufficiently well to survive for over three hundred years. In order to work, it had to solve, within its own institutional structure, the problems implicit in a system of private enforcement." To go off of that to anarchist societies which existed more within the left anarchist paradigm, we need only look to the early Israeli Kibbutz movement[3] which sustained itself for a long period of time based purely off of stateless principles.Note: this line of evidence is most likely incomplete. This comes as a difficulty in defending the feasibility of any non-enacted social system i.e., it's not in place yet so empirical evidence will necessarily be incomplete. My point here is merely to show that given the historical evidence, we may safely conclude that anarchism has no internal contradictions within it which necessarily evinces infeasibility as Pro suggests. On any further Con arguments, I'm having difficulty providing them without knowing what specific objections to the feasibility of anarchism that Pro wishes to hash out here. In light of that, I'll merely provide a cursory introduction to anarchism' institutional structures avabile as a means to organizing collectively.(2) Collective decision making need not include coercion or force. Anarchism as an ethical philosophy is wholly opposed to initiatory coercion regardless of the motives involved or the consequences expected. That being said, consequentialist reasoning seems to be the hallmark of political feasibility so I'll relegate ethical discussions to some other time. On feasibility though, it's unclear why coercion is a necessary mechanism for the provision of collective decision making. Not only can solutions be provided by private-contractual means (ex. via dominant assurance contracts[4]) but small scale communities delegating responsibility to federated respresentation also provides a plausible alternative to States. There doesn't seem to be any reason to conclude that coercion itself is the sole mechanism which makes collective decision making feasible.===Conclusion===This case is by no means comprehensive. We're left with working off of both incomplete historical analysis (owing to anarchism's place outside of the status-quo) and only theoretical argumentation. However, given the successful historical examples of anarchism, in conjunction with the theoretical validity of non-coerced collective action, a prima facie case in favor of anarchism being feasible is certainly possible and I believe I've provided that here.===Sources===[1] http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...[2] http://www.daviddfriedman.com...[3] http://theanarchistlibrary.org...[4] mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf