There are no compelling objections to anarchism

Pro case: Argumentation Ethics (AE).First it should be noted that Con hasn't countered the conclusions of AE at all. Therefore I take it that he concedes the fact that arguments in favor of coercion/theft/et al are argumentatively contradicting and incoherent. Con's problem isn't with AE, it's with the notion that States are coercive in the first place. Let's deal with that here.Con first claims that people opt in to paying taxes. The only problem with this assertion is that it is blatantly false in that taxes are simply levied over people. No one ever actually contract the State for its services, in fact, it's not even an option since people are simply coerced into doing so as a result of their geographical location. Opting into something implies that one has a choice to do otherwise. This choice is non-existent in the case of the State. I'm also assuming Con will run the social contract as a counter to this so I'll respond to it now. No one alive actually signed any social contract. The quasi-real contracts found in things like the Constitution weren't signed by anyone currently living, therefore it can't be binding on them. Statists are special pleading in designating special considerations for "social contracts" that would be absurd when applied to anything else (ex. everyone has to buy groceries from the same store because a group of now-dead people signed them up to without their consent).Con's second claim (that taxes are used for useful purposes) is furthermore irrelevant since the purpose of AE is to show that taxation and other forms of coercion are a priori unjustifiable, not that they can't be put to good use. I can take your wallet and go feed homeless children but it doesn't change the fact that the act of aggression in itself was wrong.It should be noted also that Con has no room to argue for the State being non-coercive or non-aggressive since that's specifically what is rooted into the agreed upon definition in R1. A "State" was defined as: "An institution which holds an aggressive monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, and in most instance other services (such as roads or mail delivery)." States are definitionally aggressive. Whether one thinks that aggression is justified is another matter (that claim being subject to the AE point).Con Case: (A) Hypocrisy.(1) Con seems to drop my counter that his definition of "volunteer groups" is flawed, yet he continue to operate as if that was the correct definition. Let me explain again in a bit more detail then. Anarchists don't support random groups of vigilantes going around stopping criminals. Under AnCap, people are free to contract private organizations for defense services and arbitration. Due to space constraints (and me not wanting this debate to turn into me simply explaining the whole time as opposed to actually debating), I offer some articles that go into more detail[1][2][3]. So far, most of Con's points only deal with anarchist defense as if it was roaming groups of vigilantes, something far from what is theoretically conceived of under anarchist legal theory.(2) Con just seems to drop my one world government reductio. All he says is that that's not what he supports. That wasn't really the point I had in mind though. The point was to show that States can't be a solution to Con's point unless he admits that freely competing standards of justice are a workable solution. Just throwing in this problem and than ignoring the fact that it's applicable to anything short of a one world government isn't an argument.(3) Con's new "instability" point is a bit confusing on my end due to the fact that he just seems to throw the word around without substantiation. I'll respond to this along with his also ambiguous "moral code" point. First, it's not clear why freely competing defense/arbitration services is a priori more unstable than freely competing States. The only difference is that the former doesn't violate AE and that holds no coercive monopoly on location. Con has so far completely failed to show why exactly this leads to instability. On moral codes, again Con has failed to explain why non-monopolies mean no one holds to a moral code and furthermore why this makes defense and arbitration impossible. It just seems like Con is mistaking anarchism for a lack of order.Con Case: (B) Market objections.Con has refused to add further justification for his supposed law of monopolist economics. When pressed, he simply claims that his example leads into a larger picture of how corporations attain monopolies. Okay, but Con hasn't responded to my contingency vs. law point, my point regarding how dropping prices doesn't necessitate monopolies, and my point regarding the mere presupposition on Con's part regarding whether any corporation who attracts customers must for some reason attract all of them. Con's question of how monopolies can be avoided in anarchy is a loaded one since anarchists don't claim that they never could form. The anarchist political program as I said earlier is one opposed to violence and coercion. And like I also said earlier, a monopoly forming as a result of free trade/contract isn't opposed to this. Con Case: (C) Cost/Benefit Analysis.Con's first point is that there can be no planning in anarchism. First, this is blatantly false. See the definition of anarchism provided in R1 or anything I've been saying throughout this entire debate for further proof of this. His next point is just as flawed wherein he argues that anarchism means "relying on themselves for survival". Okay I'm sure Con hasn't been reading the debate if he takes this to be the case. Anarchism doesn't mean we live like hermits in our houses. It means that the roles currently arrogated to the State (those non-coercive in theory at least) are taken over by voluntary groups of people cooperating for their mutual benefit. Con's conception of statelessness is thus completely unwarranted. People can surely rely on other people and organizations of people, just not organizations or people that use coercion as a means to their end. For any example of this type of relationship, see charities, churches, businesses, etc. On democracy, Con fallaciously assumes that he can just theorize into existence his ideal State. If he can do this then why can't I. Con is simply ignoring the empirical reality of States and brushing them off as not what he supports. According to this flawed methodology, I can simply brush off bad examples of statelessness and only support good examples. But obviously no one would allow this. Con's other claims as to people only depending on how well they can survive, the unsupported supposition that everyone is left voiceless, and the also unsupported supposition that anarchism equates to unplanned chaos all evince Con's lack of understanding of what he's arguing against.Con Case: (D) Anarchy Illusions.Con not only presents a non-argument (that anarchists aren't influential) but his point that democracies can fulfill everything anarchists want is simply false in that States are themselves coercive, the entire thing anarchists don't want. Furthermore, Con's utter confusion as to what anarchist support is surprising. An example of this is when Con claims that planning defeats the purpose of anarchy. Um, what? Not only is that not at all a part of the definition of anarchism and anarchist theory that I provided in R1 (and have thus far supported) but it's striking that Con seems to think that one can't plan anything without a State doing so. Perhaps Con means overarching, coercive social planning in which case he'd at least have a coherent point. In that case though I just refer him to AE (showing that his argument is itself incoherent) and the fact that he hasn't alluded to anything specifically showing monocentric, coercive control to be necessary for the existence of society.===Sources===http://debate.org...