Government is a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals.

If there is one thing PRO doesn't respond to, it is that corporations rely on voluntary contracts. Consumers are free to sign up, switch contracts, or leave, all without the threat or use of violence against them. This is individual liberty. PRO suggests that DROs are panarchy, and that panarchy is government. This is not true. I showed in R1 that taxation is a necessary corollary of the definition of government, and as DROs do not collect money by force, they cannot be governments. Sure, they might fit the "authority" part, but they are not "compulsory". Nor do they have court systems, which is also part of the definition of government! PRO is right that I don't defend private courts, I defend private alternatives to courts - mediation, negotiation, and information distribution. Justice is not synonymous to courts. eBay's information system making frauds into failures is certainly justice. eBay is certainly a good example of a DRO today, but it's odd for PRO to say that since eBay can't solve theft, therefore DROs won't work - eBay isn't TRYING to solve theft, it's trying to solve fraud! If there was a perfect real world example of the DRO system I was talking about, I would surely use it, just as I would use empirics on an anarchy defending itself from an invasion. But there isn't, so asking for it is patently ridiculous. As for domestic tyranny, you must remember that watchdog companies would not be necessary. The DROs themselves would be transparent, so the tyranny problem would already be solved. If DROs let their customers watch them directly for free, of course watchdogs would have free riders - but it's IRRELEVANT. If the police watch your neighborhood and one of your neighbors also does a neighborhood watch, will everyone give him gifts? No, but it doesn't matter. "The final result would be no defense against the potential establishment of tyranny by crime organizations such as the mafia or, perhaps more likely, a foreign government." The mafia would not work, as shown by my refutation to CAA1 in R1. They'd have to set up a company to get money, and to be successful they'd have to be trustworthy - which would mean transparency of transactions. If they took to arms, the DRO system would alert everyone to stop interacting with the Mafioso, and they'd be screwed. Remember, everything is owned: they have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Nobody will help them, because then THEY'd be screwed. And remember, this is all voluntary. DROs are not pointing guns at their customers, they are simply saying "if you help the mafia, you will be penalized". Individual liberty is preserved by the anarchy's DRO system, all while deterring others from infringing on individual liberty. As for governments, PRO has conceded that DROs would be able to successfully defend the anarchy. On the topic of national defense, PRO said anarchies will either 1) have the free rider problem or 2) have a DRO system, which is a panarchy and involves governments. As I chose the second path and have shown repeatedly how a DRO is not a government, I win this point as well. It is of no consequence that Wiki's article on panarchy mentions "regularly competing governments", as Wiki's definition of government is not the same as the one in this debate. Concerning monopolies... When PRO quoted Friedman in R2, I wasn't sure what "economics of scale" meant. So I gave an example, hoping that PRO would explain what this idea from Friedman would show how I was wrong. However my argument still stands true, as he did not show how Friedman is provenby that example. If the theory is true, then the instances MUST show that the theory is true. I did not drop Friedman, I refuted him with an example. As for merging being beneficial to both parties, it would only happen if the customers desired it. Remember, PRO never refutes the fact that all companies in an anarchy rely on subscriptions/payments from their customers. If the customers do not want a merge, then they can send a letter to the corporation, negotiate, or leave if they'd like. They can even start up their own company! But if the company does merge and customers do stay with it, then clearly they consent to what is going on. Nobody is keeping them bound to that company - they are free to leave at any time. There is no threat or use of violence. >>> National Defense: If you are worried about the free rider problem, please refer to CAA3 part 1 from my R2 for the solution that PRO conceded. As for whether or not an anarchy's defense would be effective, please see CAA3 from my R1, which has also since been conceded. Justice system: Straw man, as I have been advocating a justice system (not court system) that fully respects individual liberties. Coercion: It is true that it would be impossible for a slave to escape due to new technology, and if there's slavery in an anarchy then there'd definitely be slave catching companies. So let's say there's Bob and his slave Stan, whom he somehow acquired. What does everyone else do? Well, slavery reduces customers for DROs, so as a whole so they wouldn't contract with slave owners. The system would then be against slave owners, and slave owners would be screwed like the Mafia trying to take over. Sure, there could be slavery - but nobody would want to do it, for economic reasons. I mean they could, if they want. But those who would do such a thing wouldn't be stopped by a state system anyways, so it's nonunique. Crimes of passion are a problem to both systems, but for crimes of motive, an anarchist solution does the job without infringing on individual liberties. >>> Conclusion: I have shown that an anarchist DRO system is not hindered by the free rider problem, and that it does not use a coercive justice system. Such a system would be collectively owned by the people, as PRO pointed out, and it would be entirely voluntary. Though a government is also a collectively owned system, the state constantly violates individual liberty through forced collection of fees (taxation). The point of this debate was to show which was the lesser evil - an anarchy, or a minarchy - this is shown clearly by the wording of the resolution. Through 12 arguments (6 presented in R1, 6 in R2), PRO attempted to show areas in which an anarchy would result in more infringement upon liberties than an anarchy. However, as I have shown how an anarchy would be successful in every one of those points, there is no offense left against an anarchy. However, PRO never refuted that part of a definition of a government is taxation - and taxation is violence. This is an obvious violation of individual liberties that is unique to governments. Remember, in an anarchy, corporations are funded through voluntary contracts: no violence is involved, people are free to come and go as they please. No government can ever achieve individual liberty, as it is based on attacking individual liberty. The anarchy I propose is not based on attacking individual liberty, but respecting it. I have sufficiently addressed each of PRO's concerns, and shown in each of those concerns, an anarchy's answer is either equivalent or superior to statist solutions. Add that to the definitive difference between an anarchy and a state, which is the government's constant infringement of individual liberties through taxation, and you get: 1) Government is evil, but it's definitely not necessary. 2) Anarchy infringes less on individual liberties - it doesn't at all, in fact! I negate, "Government is not a necessary evil to protect the freedoms of human individuals". Vote CON. >>>>>>>>> This was my first time defending anarchism in a formal debate, but the workout was great. There are some arguments I would've loved to deliver, but the length restriction prevents me from using what I believe are the strongest ones - though I'm sure it's the same for you! Thank you for the debate too, Wjm.