Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

C1. Delegation of Power: Small vs. Large Scale DelegationCon 's points from both "Small vs. Large-Scale" and "Delegation of Power" will be summarized and refuted here since they're largely the same. First, in "Small vs. Large-Scale", Con doesn't actually argue for the optimality of large-scale decision making over small-scale (in whatever area he thinks pertinent). Instead he merely chooses to describe how small-scale public decisions are made and "alludes" to this being streamlined in large scale, Federal decision making. Of course, Con never justifies why this streamlining to upper level, centralized institutions is necessary in the first place and never shows how it is actually accomplished in any efficient or optimal way. Con then goes on to argue that he's shown that "should large-scale decisions be made (which they obviously will be), a representative democracy will be far more effective than anarchy." The whole point of my decentralization argument however has been that such decisions need not be made in the first place. Con has thus completely missed the point of my contention and failed to defend the necessity of centralized, large scale institutions entrusted with public decision making.C2: Peace and OrderAnarchists do not oppose the existence of defensive institutions. They merely argue against the delegation of such services to the State (since it is founded on initiatory aggression). Anarchist legal theory absolutely does not posit defense as being situated in people's personal defense of themselves. Community watch groups, polycentric defense agencies, locally delegated defense institutions, etc. would all be justified under anarchist ethics. I'm at a loss as to why Con thinks that opposition to aggressive actions and institutions necessitates opposition to institutions entrusted with performing defensive functions (functions which anarchists explicitly support). Of course since this is simply a concluding round I can't go into too much detail. I should simply say that anarchism doesn't preclude official defensive institutions and Con hasn't shown why it would. C3: Justice(1) Con hasn't shown consent of the State. While a large percentage of people don't detect explicit injustice in taxation (or the State itself), the fact remains that the State as an institution is something that is essentially forced (in that there's no contractual basis where one explicitly consents to be under its rule). To make the point a bit clearer, I'll take an actual contractual relationship as an example. Take one's choice of a cell phone company. One isn't born into a "contract" with it. One chooses which company to go with based off of perceived benefit. Being born into rule by the State doesn't match the account of a contract which is accepted in every other case. Furthermore, Con's imploring of dissenters to simply leave is an implicit admission that consent of the State is not universal. While this point was only shortly argued on, it can at least be shown that Con has failed in defending (or even initially arguing for) the idea that Statism is voluntary.(2) Second, not leaving the geographical boundary which the State assumes control over doesn't necessitate consent unless we presuppose that the State has some right to exert control over that territory. Con has yet to attempt to show why the granting of a special right to a coerced geographical monopoly is justified. Furthermore since new arguments aren't allowed in R4, Con won't be able to; thus his point fails.(3) Moreover, Con does not responded AT ALL to Hoppe's argumentation ethics argument. He doesn't point to a problem in the logical flow in the argument or why any of it's premises are unsupported. He literally ONLY says that "it is merely based off of Hoppe’s argument." Con has lost the debate already if we are to assume that this "refutation" doesn't follow since Hoppe's AE shows essentially that any State (or institution predicated on force) is necessarily predicated on large-scale injustice. The argument can be seen here: "since one relies on the free exercise of one's own volition to justify claims/axioms of action/etc. any philosophy which denies the right to free volition contradicts the presuppositions of their own argument. (Hoppe termed such an instance, a performative contradiction because the content of the proposition is out of line with the necessary actions taken in order to forward it's truth.)". Con hasn't seriously attempted to refute the argumentation ethics argument, thus it is essentially conceded.(4) Lastly, Con merely reiterates the "good" things the State does (roads, etc.) without responding to my R3 where I implored him to show why these kinds of services could not be funded in a non-coercive manner. There's no reason why roads, hospitals, etc. cannot be funded voluntarily through the efforts of voluntary, decentralized institutions (in any event, Con hasn't attempted to argue why not). Also, in arguing that the injustice perpetuated by the State has beneficial consequences, Con is (a) presupposing consequentialism as the standard for justice (undefended-- and in conflict with the standard of justice I forwarded which Con never seriously argued against) and (b) implicitly admitting that coercion is in some way unjust (if it wasn't than "special exemptions" wouldn't be necessary in the first place-- of course the exemption argument doesn't follow since Con never showed why the services needed to be funded in a 'coercive' manner in the first place).===Conclusion===The most disappointing point of this debate was with the amount of time and energy put into defending anarchism from strawmenn (eye-for-an-eye, lack of defensive institutions). After these clarifications though, Con's arguments were still ultimately refuted. For instance, Con never provides an argument as to why streamlining decision making power upwards is necessary or efficient and moreover never responded to my R2 argument in showing why the political nature of such institutions is detrimental to the interests of communities and lower-level groups (R2- "Delegation of Power: Direct vs. Indirect"). Then with my ethical argument against the foundation of the State, Con never attempts to refute it; choosing instead to argue that it is after all "just an argument". Con also failed to defend the existence of a special right to geographical monopoly, simply presumed consequentialism without any reason as to why, and ignored my imploring of him to present an argument for why certain goods that the State funds could not be funded alternatively by voluntary community institutions. Con's arguments were largely predicated on a lack of understanding regarding anarchist philosophy (a point I genuinely tried to pre-emptively stop in the beginning of my R2) and a host of simple presuppositions. Conversely, I showed why anarchist ethics were justifiable, provided arguments for why public decision making should be entrusted in the hands of communities, and showed why Statism is incompatible with these arguments.