There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Pro Case===Public Choice.Con's first claims that private and public institutions generally deal with the problem of public choice the same. This is correct in a sense, but in the specifics, private institutions differ widely. First, Con fails to take into account centralization/decentralization. Nation-states are strongly centralized in regards to the most important policies, those that are nationwide. Private firms (while are sometimes nationwide) we could expect to be smaller and more decentralized under anarchism. The free market has a natural mechanism limiting the size and scope of private institutions which is only bypassed through State policies like enforcement of intellectual property, outright subsidization, and cartelization via higher regulatory overheads. Under a free market (one without State policies such as the above), private firms would be smaller and thus more vulnerable to consumer pressures.Monopolization/Competition.(i) Prices. The incentive to pocket surplus proceeds isn't the only price problem under monopoly. There's also the fact that monopolies are less open to market pressures, hence prices (taxes under states) are more or less determined by a combination of the political climate than they are a reflection of market forces. The State has no way of rationally allocating its resources, therefore taxes transfer this burden on to consumers (tax-payers).(ii) Democracy. Con also claims that democracy somehow wipes away this problem since bad governments can simply be voted out. However, Con fails to take into account both the fact that nation States have a very small output of possible replacements (ex. the current Presidential election has only two more or less similar viable candidates) and the fact that most voters are incentivized into ignorance under statism. It's certainly possible that a larger pool of replacements could come up, however this requires large scale action. And given the individual uselessness of a single vote and the subsequent rational ignorance it entails, this is an unlikely occurrence save extreme circumstances.===Con Case===Free Rider Problem.Con's case isn't that private communities or organizations are unable to fund collective goods, only that a certain kind of individual subscription mechanism is untenable. I don't wish to deny this. However, that doesn't mean bundling is impossible under anarchism (something critics tend to presuppose). One way to incentivize bundling for public goods under anarchism is by mutual assurance contracts. Under such a contract, possible subscribers contract themselves out to pay a rate for a given good if and only if some necessary amount of other subscribers also follow suit. This switches the incentives from not paying to paying since the good is (a) certainly possible to produce and (b) one isn't vulnerable to free riders choosing to just let others fund the service. Apply this to the natural disaster insurance point as well.Insurance.Furthermore this objection in itself has hardly been substantiated and rests on severely flawed premises. For instance, Con fails to take into account the profit/loss method of economic calculation. A state-run insurance agency wouldn't have any way to decide whether or not it's services are actually working at the most efficient level. This owes to the fact that markets coordinate relative supply/demand by the profit metric. If a firm is losing money, there's something they're doing wrong and they can adjust to fit this. State run institutions don't run on a profit/loss metric. Instead, they generally run on legislative fiat i.e., mandates from legislatures. In this sense ex ante, private institutions are actually more efficient than state run, contrary to Con's counter.Private Arbitration.Con makes the point that (a) people generally don't have a choice in which arbitration firm they go to and (b) that some private arbitration service would be more likely to be biased in favor of the firm hiring them. The first point is false and is merely an example of bundling. It doesn't mean that one doesn't have a choice in which arbitration service one can go to. It just means there exist incompatibilities i.e., choice isn't infinite. If one goes with phone company X they might have to go to with private arbitration service Y. But that doesn't mean arbitration service Y is the only option. Phone company A might contract to private arbitration service B or C. There are still numerous options available, more so than the singular final authority of the State judicial system surely. On Con's second claim (that private arbitration services would err on the side of firms hiring them), this lacks real substantiation. Con is assuming a general lack of consumer service on the part of private institutions. I would find it at least somewhat likely that when phone company X's private arbitration service that it contracts out weights in it's favor a substantial percent of the time, that consumers would follow suit and switch to a more reliable service. Furthermore, Con is extrapolating some sort of universal way that private arbitration would work based on the case of how private arbitration works under statism, an unjustified leap on his part.Sub-street Monopoly.(i) Con is making an unsubstantiated assumption regarding possible anarchist legal procedure. First, he conjures up the false image of private institutions as omnipotent robber barons who can do literally whatever they want I they don't have a State watching them. This is not true. Private firms must always balance short term losses for long term gains. Road company X charging anyone $1,000 every time they want to get out of their driveway would run into a few too large problems. One of these has to do with the fact that no one's going to contract a company to build roads if they're prone to financial abuse of their consumers. The second has to do with the fact that we could expect sub-streets to be more organized along neighborhood community control. Roads are a collective good. This doesn't mean individual subscription is completely untenable (we could see a lot of that for highways), only that roads could be better managed by bundling. The problem lies in the fact that people presuppose States are the only possible way of doing this. But as we can see with things like gated communities, private bundling isn't implausible under anarchism.(ii) Con's claim that states aren't vulnerable to this problem because they can "vote difference people in" and hence "your choice cannot be taken away" is also false. For the full refutation of this point, see back to my public choice point. Voters have little actual choice in regards to state and Federal elections. As pertaining to localized government, this is true but it applies just as well to anarchism given my point just above regarding things like home owners organizations, condo communities, neighborhood organizations, etc.