Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

C1: Representative Democracy and the Nation-State.Con argues that representative democracy is optimal because it provides a mechanism for making large-scale decisions i.e., decisions which would be used to administer laws and regulations across a nation-state. I use the term nation-state here to describe a large geographical boundary superior in size and scope to neighborhoods, towns, cities, or regions. The problem in this argument is that Con unduly presupposes that public deliberation should be made on such a large scale to begin with. Small scale community deliberation allows both for an efficient method of taking the public interest into account as well as a way of allowing for greater individual influence upon decision making given that there is no separation (or rather, very little if recallable delegation is put into effect) between those who make decisions and those who are affected by them. Given that anarchism makes it a point of contention that the size of public decision making institutions should be as decentralized as possible, Con has left out a crucial point of justification for his case by merely presuming that public decisions should be made on the scale of a nation-state.C2: Peace and Order in Representative Democracy.Con's next argument is that a representative democracy would be better suited to maintain peace and order than an anarchist society. However, the argument he presents is rather scarce. Given that his negation won't be up until the next round (i.e., his argument showing why his method is superior to the anarchic one), I'll content myself with pointing out some problems in his argument. First, it's unclear why an anarchic society would be incapable of carrying out the same service (defense). While anarchists present issues with certain forms of State violence, protecting citizens is not one of them. As laid out in R2, anarchists see problems with initiatory aggression, not with defensive force. (Of course since negations as to why Con sees anarchism as unable to carry out such functions isn't up until R3 this is only a tentative refutation.) Furthermore Con's defense isn't unique even to representative democracy. Defense of citizens is a normative principle of nearly every political setup. Con is tasked therefore to show why representative democracy would carry out it's function in the best and most moral way. Con hasn't attempted to do this; therefore it's a moot point. C3: Justice, Eye-for-Eye, Key Services.This point mainly just draws on (a) a large ambiguity regarding the basis and justification for whatever viewpoint on justice it is that Con is forwarding and (b) several strawmenn of anarchist theory.(A) First, Con is wildly ambiguous in his point on justice within a representative democracy. While I presented an argument for the view on justice defended by anarchists, Con says simply that the State in a representative democracy is "responsible for administering justice and deciding the appropriate punishments for crimes" and that the State can lend to "the creation of schools, roads, and public services" which "we all benefit from". Con never attempts to show why taxation (force) is justifiable simply because he perceives good to come out of it (while there might be prima facie reason to presume such, my own negation of this presents Con with a burden of refutation) or why a representative democracy would be an optimal method of appropriating punishments for "crimes" (or even to define what is and isn't such). Lastly, Con forwards no reason why public services could not be funded without recourse to aggression. (B) Con's second mistake is a blatant strawmann of both the moral basis of anarchist justice and the conclusions predicated on such. Anarchists don't forward an "eye-for-an-eye" theory of justice and Con's description is confusing given that in R2 I explicitly provided for what that view actually was. The anarchist view of justice argues that initiatory aggression is never ethically justified and that the proper use of force lies in defending innocents, applying restitution (in civil cases of aggression), or applying retribution or punishment (in cases of more serious aggression). Next, Con argues for the need of "a permanent body" to carry out such functions which is confusing given that anarchism doesn't argue that these institutions ought necessarily be only temporary. Con is attempting to describe a false difference between his setup and those forwarded by his opponent.