There are no compelling objections to anarchism

My opponents conduct in the last round was very dis-appointing, I must say. While the BOP for this debate is shared, I feel I have added more against Anarchism, then he has added for Anarchism. The point of this debate was for me to find "compelling" arguments against Anarchism, which I have more than met to such a standard thus far. However, the most vexing part is this: Pro claims that I have an incomplete understanding of his philosophy on anarchy (this is untrue, but I digress). The problem is, pro consistently evades putting forth a proper plan into supporting his untraditional views on Anarchism. My job is to prove how benefits to Democracy outweighs those of Anarchism, that I have done. While Pro consistently argues that democracy is a flawed system (I never said it was perfect, in fact, all I intend to do is prove that Anarchism is more flawed than Democracy). Pro has supported very little of his case for anarchism for this debate. Pro in the rebuttal said anarchy can have a plan (I agree, my statement meant that some anarchists believe it cannot), and that's what I want to hear from the Pro, that we we can REALLY get this debate started. So for the following round, I strongly urge the Pro to do this if he has any hope for winning this debate. Onto the arguments. PRO's CASE ARGUMENTATION ETHICS Pro is stating I have dropped his point on theft, however, I assure you that this is his mis-understanding of my argument. In fact my argument was, and stands as the Democratic system not committing theft, as I explained in the previous round. The Pro obvious realizes that, as he brought up a point conflicting with my argument that the Democratic system has a beneficial reasons for taxing. So this is proof that the whole "My opponent dropped this therefore concedes it" is a very saddening attempt at manipulating the audience into a quick vote. Since I am on this point anyway, however, I will explain how this is NOT theft. The pro states that we do not have a choice to opt into taxes. This is blatantly FALSE. You feel like you have to get a social security number, for better job security, protection from the government, and involvement in anything in adjusting leadership positions, IE voting, all privileges of citizenship etc. These are the benefits of paying taxes, and again, we do have a choice to opt out. http://askville.amazon.com... Opting out is not a very wise idea, however, it defeats the purpose of the theft point. Also I don't even care about this point anyway. Despite my opponents complaints on supposed theft, it doesn't matter. My question is how does anarchism create a better solution? Without protection (your form of 'protection is malleable, flawed, and systemless, thus failing; more on that later), financial security, and freedoms guaranteed through leadership, what benefit is there to anarchism? There's a reason, such a great amount of people choose to become citizens. http://www.cnn.com... Finally, though, is paying taxes so bad that it justifies anarchy? Given this is your only contention, it seems that this is the what justifies the extreme unknown of anarchism. Unknown, because you have failed to accurately define how your system would: 1. Work, providing the same, or better benefits Democracy does. (Also notes that pro agrees that there are benefits to paying taxes in the previous round) 2. Fix the solution with Anarchy. Con's point on aggression fails, as well given I have proven that 'theft' doesn't actually occur. MY CASE HYPOCRISY Another "dropped point" accusation huh? Let me explain again, how false this is. You defining your volunteer groups is irrelevant. It's your definition of them, that I am arguing is hypocritical, IE not anarchism. Since you still don't understand me, let me say this simply. 1. You are adopting a police force into a society of people who are supposed to detest leadership, and fend for them selves. 2. Trying to provide a justice system into anarchism is pointless. Without adopting a system similar to the one a Democracy owns, justice will be completely subjective, and dictated by the leaders of the association, which violates the justice of individuals in said anarchist society. 3. If you believe in systemed policing, and adopting moral utility, serving justice to the means of all individuals, as it seems you do, then you have un-intentionally agreed that a Democracy is better (you have been doing this the whole time, which is the point of this contention). Pro's suggestion in the one world government ideals, are irrelevant for the following reasons. Yes, I believe the current system we have in place. Yes, I also believe other systems are still BETTER than anarchism. Yes, my purpose in this debate is to do nothing more, than to find compelling objections against Anarchism, not other governments. So this entire point is meaningless, regardless of my belief in one world governing. Next, what I am talking about with the instability is, that any stability in this force again, is hypocrisy, as the stability needed to sustain a society, leads back into Democracy. Anarchism is self defeating, I am literally just repeating myself now. MARKET OBJECTIONS "And like I also said earlier, a monopoly forming as a result of free trade/contract isn't opposed to this." I thought monopolies were the problem? You claim it's only government involved monopolies on taxes, etc. I have proven that the monopoly is beneficial, and opted into. You are now saying the same thing for market monopolies. This is you agreeing that Monopolies are guaranteed to happen, even in an anarchist society. If these are okay, and have just as much control as government monopolies if not worse, and even have more control, then what's so wrong with "government monopolies"? BENEFITS OBJECTIONS As I said Earlier, my statement on planning in anarchism is derived from the popular belief of such a principle (Cody Franklin also said this in the same forum I debated you about it). No I am not saying anarchism cannot have a plan, I am saying the opposite. I am saying that it needs one, and I am saying that YOU need to provide it in order to support your case. I am going to ignore the rest of that paragraph, as it is a mis-conception of what I actually said. "On democracy, Con fallaciously assumes that he can just theorize into existence his ideal State. If he can do this then why can't I." Not at all. In fact, For this debate, and my stance on Democracy, I don't have t theorize it into existence. All I have to do is sustain why what we already have in existence is better than your alternative: Anarchism. Your burden is to prove the opposite. You have failed to do this, continue to prove how anarchism solves the problems propose, and further continue to show a lacking of ability to prove anarchism's overall superiority to Democracy. Thus I object to anarchism, if Democracy is more successful. ANARCHY ILLUSIONS In this, Pro just repeats himself the previous point (quite peeving actually). Again, in order for pro to substantiate his objection to my statement he needs to proportionate a better response for benefits to anarchy, and also define how Anarchy supersedes Democracy. I would like to remind the audience, that Pro has literally only 1 point against Democracy, 1 that I even proved false. This leaves him with literally nothing to argue with against anarchy being the illusion it is. Without proper support to back up his claim, this point stands. Good luck to my opponent in the final round.