There are no compelling objections to anarchism

****FRAMEWORK**** I am going to start my case in this round, but first I will briefly cover my opponents responses to my objections to his ideas on Anarchy. ****QUICK RESPONSES**** ETHICS (my opponents case) First off my opponent makes some assertions about power, and state theft through taxation etc. In the same statement my opponent said that government hide theft through taxes. I find this statement highly un-warranted however. To start, paying taxes is not required. However, to be able to hold a job, buy merchandise that's essential to our living, we opt into paying taxes. While most people have a problem with taxes though, they do hold their purposes. Many people rely on government for security, financial help, and education purposes. Taxation can be a pocket pain, but overall is not a compelling enough argument to lead into anarchy. Also I would prefer a better explanation on how use of force is given from a governmental standpoint, un-fairly given I am defending democracy government operations (as I made clear in R1). It seems Con is equating Democracy with communism, in which there is a vast and noticeable difference. Also I am confused as to where you are going with the "power" explanation, and failed to see how it helped the point you are supposed to be making in your case. Nonetheless, I will continue. HYPOCRITICAL SYSTEM This is an easy one, as Con never really answered the problem, or provided a solution to the method of hypocrisy I explained. "Anarchism proposes freely competing providers of defense against invasion of property, not an unrestricted group of aggressors who think themselves the only ones capable of providing said service." What I want to know is how this system will work? You never answer the important problems. My main question, is that in order for this legal system to be put in place, there must be a standard for determining what is right, and what is wrong, is there not? Or is that standard to be made freely by the composers of Justice? That's why I associate your volunteer group with "vigilantes". Here's the thing; you really that a code of justice must be utilized in order to sustain the benefits of justice, and protection of human rights. The problem is you have a hard time tying that into making anarchism works, as monopolies are commonly associated with organized groups. So when you respond without a proposal or plan of action, it seems as if you are making a statement that simply carries no weight, or warrant. So we agree a means of keeping justice in place is required. If you detest your volunteer group be associated as vigilantes, then you must believe in some sort of moral code that needs to be sustained in their duties. That's where the problem lies. In fact your volunteer group is more dangerous than any legal system America has in place, due to un-stability. In order to manufacture a system that can be equally fair, and upholding of every one's values, a system of order needs to be effective. A leaderless group of people hoping to do right, just make a mess of things, and violate people's freedom. A standard needs to be set. The standard in our government is not perfect, but it is effective in stopping crime, and protecting human rights, and thus meets the qualifications as a benefit to law enforcement. All your volunteer group can ever accomplish is vigilantism. Again, A system and explanation for your pre-supposed planned would be appreciated. Also @ the one world government argument. No I am not arguing for one world government. I never said other systems work perfectly either. I am talking about a system where a majority can reach a conclusion on the fairness of enforcement (democracy). What exactly do you do in a situation where there is no standard of agreement? The Democracy is the most effective solution with law enforcement as it accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, where a systemless rag tag group of volunteering anarchists, can never compare. MARKET OBJECTIONS My opponent seems to think that my example is failing of how a monopoly in the market industry is formed, however, my example was a minor example that leads into how big corporations are established, that are often associated with being Monopolies. Pro also still fails to answer this problem. When people require social trade to live, what's to stop a society into building business, systems that can easily be formed into monopolies? I understand your point is strictly talking about threat of force. While I don't know what specific circumstance you equate this too, I must ask how this can be prevented in an anarchy system. ****MY CASE**** COMPELLING ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANARCHY C1: Societies existing outside of anarchism have more benefits. Today it is my job to prove how systems opposing anarchism are better, and point out the flaws in anarchism. While in the objections to anarchy I have provided reasons as to in-effectively, and hypocrisy of anarchism, during my case today I will be aiming at proving the negatives to Anarchy. In anarchism, there can never really be a plan, as having a plan to stabilize anarchism defeats the point. That's where most of my enthusiasm at the hypocrisy of the Instigators ideals on reform anarchism comes in so deeply. Democracy has benefits that Anarchism couldn't hope to do. In a Democracy, people have the power to vote on any politician, with various issues that take effect on societal well being. The fate of the country lies then, inside of the hands of a majority of like minded people who find fairness actions taken. This cannot hope to be accomplished in an anarchist society. Lives cannot be influenced, helped, or sustained through the lack of a system. Anarchism relies on people relying on themselves for survival. Then comes the problem of integrating Anarchism into a society, where no one knows how to live outside of reliance on other people, and organizations. (http://benefitsandadvantages.com...) Anything that an anarchy system could hope to achieve can be achieved through Democracy. In a democracy all citizens are free before the law. All citizens have equal right to power, and freedom. In an anarchist environment, freedom and power can easily be taken away or effected by other. A volunteer legal system is un-effective, in regards that they very well be the effecting factor of such privileges. No one gets a word in how anything is operated, thus making life dependent on survivability. This is dangerous, and benefitless to any human being without a fail proof plan such things. (http://benefitof.net...) C2: Anarchy illusions.There are many illusions that anarchists see in an established environment."Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role." Other great info in this source (http://libcom.org...) Anarchy ensues vision of freedom, stress, and oppression. It doesn't take a lot to realize that all can be pursued inside a controlled systematically Democracy. that promises us that freedom, and protection. Anarchy is filled with lack of proper plans to commit to these same values. Any implementation of planning defeats the purpose of anarchy. So how could a system that is played by ear ever work? How can everyone benefit mutually, and how can those benefits secede that of a Democracy?I had more I want to add in the next round, but am out of characters for now. Look forward to my opponents response.