There are no compelling objections to anarchism

(A)- Con here fallaciously conflates two separate concepts, underlying general singularity in social convention and the existence of a single monolithic institution to carry out these conventions. Just because social convention generally lends itself to a singular set of norms (a fact which Con has not disputed), doesn't mean that this necessitates the carrying out of those norms by a single institution inasmuch as the simple fact that most retail chains sell more or less similar diapers doesn't necessitate that one mega-chain solely be responsible for diaper distribution. Furthermore there are other factors in play, for instance the beneficial checks of competition to take one example.(B)- I'm honestly not sure where Con's logic is behind his point here. He argues that since conflicting doctrines exist prior to a legal system, they would lend themselves to a dominant monolithic legal system (i.e., a government). But this runs contrary to my previous point which Con conceded, that is, that a dominant set of legal and social norms generally arise in a given society, lending itself to a more singular set of legal norms. Again, this does not mean a singular institution to carry out those norms (singular set of social/legal norms =/= singular institution charges with upholding them) would be necessitated, it simply refutes Con's supposition that without a monolithic legal system, a disorienting array of conflicting customs would be thrown into the picture.(C) Con's claim is essentially that "in anarchism, the wealthy would be able to rule through an unchecked ability to influence every aspect of life." My opponent is again making the mistake of simply throwing claims at anarchism without substantiation. It's true that anarchism wouldn't have concrete legal barriers to the wealthy influencing decisions (a claim which completely backfires against statism given the public choice problems which Con hasn't even attempted to deny). But that doesn't mean there wouldn't be barriers nonetheless i.e., in relation to alternatives like statism. I've already shown that statism itself isn't a barrier, but a key to the unfair control by the wealthy, so on that note anarchism is preferable by default.-On the claim that whoever spent the most money on legal enforcement would become the victor in legal disputes is false (or at least unsubstantiated) since Con is essentially dismissing the entire idea of judicial arbitration and going straight to whoever has the biggest guns. Therefore his conclusion from this that "cost of law" would go up is unwarranted. I addressed this argument in R3 by showing that Con's related points of chaotically conflicting legal norms and non-possibility of neutral arbitration were flawed.(C) On the problem of non-agreement in judicial arbitration, Con argues that in the case that disputants can't agree to arbitration, whoever has the most money or highest recourse to force would be the "legal victor", giving unfair advantage to the wealthy and driving up legal enforcement costs. I don't deny that in some instances agreement won't be possible. However, Con's point inevitably proves too much. For in instances of legal disagreement between parties in different nations, there would technically be no singular legal code which everyone would by default be forced to agree to. Therefore, if Con's point were to be brought to it's logical conclusion, it wouldn't so much justify the existence of states as it would justify the existence of a world State. I don't see why Con decides to draw the line between mono- and poly-centrism at nation-states when the supposed problem he finds in legal competition applies just as well to inter-state disputes.(D) Con's claim here is that since anarchism rests on an anti-monopoly premise, it collapses in on itself since it possesses no legal mechanism to stop the formation of monopolies. Con then goes on to argue that the burden of proof rests on the Pro to prove that markets would not produce legal monopolies. Of course, this is completely contrary to how a burden of proof actually works. If Con actually thinks that legal monopolies would form under anarchism, I invite him to inject empirical evidence or logical reasoning to substantiate such a position. But it's certainly not my burden to disprove the possibility of legal monopolies just as much as it isn't Mitt Romney's burden to disprove the claim that he hasn't paid taxes in 10 years just because Harry Reid makes such a claim without evidence of his own (topical I know but it enforces the principle I'm getting at).(E) Con next claims that my quoting of Mises was an appeal to authority. First, it doesn't matter even if it since it's not my burden in the first place to prove markets wouldn't lend themselves to legal monopolies seeing as it's Con's claim to defend. And second, the quote itself doesn't just say "Markets don't make monopolies- Mises". It actually provides concise reasoning. But on to Con's restatement of his more general argument for the efficiency of monocentric law, it runs into several distinct problems. (i) It makes the mistake of conflating incentive structures between private and public organizations. When nations have disputes they go to war, therefore, supposedly, private organizations must do the same. There's no reason to think though that an organization funded entirely by voluntary contributions for services (and one vulnerable to competition) would possess the same incentive structures as an organization funded the same regardless of service (through taxation) and open to no geographical competition. We see that when one is forced to pay the cost of violent conflict, one becomes more open to peaceful resolution. Con has certainly given us no reason to think otherwise.(ii) I have already refuted this above but it deserves mention again. Con is conflating the existence of multiple organizations with the purpose of enforcing social/legal norms with chaotically different co-existing social/legal norms. Again, the latter doesn't follow from the former and Con has never provided any reason to think so. So there might be institution A and B charged with mutually enforcing dominant social norms X, but that doesn't mean there must necessarily (or even plausibly) be other dominant social norms Y, Z, ....etc. ===Conclusion===Con's refutations runs along fallacious reasoning. Con claims that anarchism would lead to rule of the wealthy but ignores both the empirical evidence suggesting States are even worse off in this department as well as the theoretical reasoning which seemingly necessitates this trend among States. Furthermore Con claims that the costs of legal enforcement would increase under anarchism, ignoring both the economic results of monopoly (in legal enforcement) which turn against Statism as well as the fact that applying public incentives to private organizations is non-analogical and misleading. Con's other claims, that multiple institutions charged to defend legal norms somehow means the same thing as multiple dominant legal systems, that I am somehow charged with positively refuting Con's own unbacked claim about monopolies, along with Con's unwitting justification of world government by means of his disagreement in legal enforcement fail to offer any compelling objections to anarchism or polycentric systems of governance. Therefore I urge a Pro vote. Thank you to Fourtrouble for doing this debate with me, as always it was a pleasure.