There are no compelling objections to anarchism

I will spend only a little time addressing my opponent's previous round before offering up my arguments. I would also like to point out that since most of what we are talking about is theoretic situations, there are not likely going to be many sources. A) Public choice theory. My opponent correctly points out the three main archetypes, however, he completely ignores that these three archetypes also exist in the private market with only two small differences. Rather than "the voter" they have "the customer" and rather than "the politician" they have "the manager" (which is usually the owner(s), however really applies to anyone that has the authority to make management decisions). But the same flaws exist, in that special interest will corrupt the system for benefits and have the cost of the benefits passed on to the customers at a heavily diluted rate. Both the state and non-state have methods of attempting to deal with this, which are actually very similar. The voters can vote for different politicians and the customers can go to a different store with different managers. The main differences are that the customers are basically voting with their money, so customers with less money, have less of a voice to change the corruption. The other difference is the cost associated with physically going to a difference store. Continuing off of my opponent's example of grocery stores, I have 1 store that is only a block away, the next closest is 2 miles. This means if I'm just going to get a gallon of milk and food for dinner, my bill may only be $10, but the gas to get to the second store option will be about $1. That raises the cost of my choice by 10% (the third choice is 5 miles away, which only raises the cost of travel). That means that the close store can raise their prices through corruption to be 10% higher than the next closest store. With politicians, there is no increased cost of voting for one person over another. B) Monopolization vs Competition. This is actually a poor reason. This is because Monopolization can be bad because the monopoly controller can jack up prices (or lower quality, but both are to jack up revenue and income) and leave people with no choices. However, a state has no reason to jack up prices because any revenue that they make goes to the owners, which are the people. If the government runs a $500 billion surplus, that surplus does not go into the president's or congress's pocket. So while a private company may be tempted to bringing in more money for their owners, there is no such incentive for a government entity. There is also no real monopoly so long as there is a democracy to vote in new people, or at least vote in new bosses for others (not every position is voted on, but those that are not have their bosses voted on). Moving on to my arguments, we can break them down into 4 distinct arguments. While there are many more, we will focus on these three, due to time and character limits. 1) Free Rider Problem The FRP is most commonly associated with national defense, but really applies to anything that cannot effect only individuals, such as flood protection. Usually, market anarchists suggest that insurance companies would run private defense (people would voluntarily pay an insurance company to protect them from potential foreign invaders). If my opponent wishes to argue something different, he is free to do so. If you are living in a house in the middle of a community that is paying the defense insurance, then there is no benefit for you to pay as well. Invasions do not target only uninsured homes, but the entire community, so a defense company is not able to only defend the paying customers, but either the entire community or none of the community. This also applies to the construction of anything that is designed for preventing (or limiting the damage of) natural disasters, like levees and flood walls. Since they can only prevent or limit damage for everyone or no one, there is no incentive for any individual to voluntarily pay for the service. 2) Insurance This can really be applied to most business structures, however we will focus primarily upon insurance because it is one of the simplest when it comes to the net income equation, and the "quality" is not based on any design, but on the service of employees (of which either state or non-state would have access to). The revenues are simply the monthly premiums of customers, no more no less. The other side of the equation is the expenses, which are your overhead and payouts. A private company, competing in the free market must attempt to make a profit (else have investors pull their funds out for other alternatives). A state company does not, since any profit goes back to its "shareholders" with are the customers. This means that a state company can take that "profit" and apply it to any of the three different places, lower premiums, higher payouts, or better paychecks for employees (usually it would be a balance of the three). These will mean that a state insurance is naturally more efficient and effective than a private company. Of course, just like with companies, depending on how they are run, they can do well or poorly and it is no different with a state run. A bad manager and make the company less effective, but the basic layout shows that the state run is naturally better. 3) Private Arbitration This basically ties back to private court systems. The first thing to know is that the state does not have, nor does it need to have, a monopoly on this. While the state does have the ultimate authority should people choose not to agree to arbitration, arbitration is actually a popular option for disputes. However, we do see a number of issues arise that come from a conflict of interest within these arbitration which we will look into. If you take a moment to look at any contract that you are in (phone, TV, internet, rent, loans, etc) you'll most likely find an arbitration clause [1]. This is basically a section of the contract that says if you want to take something to arbitration, you must go through a particular arbitration group. You don't get to choose. Now, arbitration groups have two conflicting interests. One, to be as fair as possible, and two, to be as generous to their customer as possible. If we are honest, we will know that the company that drafted the contract is the real customer, they are the ones bringing the arbitration to that arbitration company. What inevitably ends up happening, is that the arbitration companies begin siding unjustly with the companies that are bringing them the cases since if they don't, those companies will start taking their business else where. 4) Sub-street monopoly One of the biggest monopolies that will form under market anarchy is the roads. I'm not talking about toll roads on the highways, but the sub-streets. The roads that lead into business parking lots, or the street that your house is on, or the street that a thousand homes in suburbia all exit to, will all be privately owned by different entities. The biggest problem is that it is not physically possible to have a number of roads that connect to your driveway so that you actually have a choice to create competition. There is only one road, period. There is only one piece of land, which holds the rights to charge whatever it sees fit, for you to use, either by car, bike, or foot. This is the very monopoly risk that my opponent attacked in his round, part (B). We know this is not an issue for a state, for the reason that regardless of the monopoly, you can always vote different people in that will not act that way, so your choice cannot be taken away. We also reference back that there is no incentive for the state to make a profit, since the profit goes back to the people anyway. Thank you [1] . http://www.usam.com...