A functioning society can be maintained along the Non-aggression principle.

I may have phrased a few things poorly; I agree with his clarification of the BOP. Now how exactly would the Non-Aggression principle work or fail? To find out, let's follow a large tribe, led by their chief through the desert. After weeks of searching, our bone-weary travelers at last spot a cluster of trees on the horizon. They begin traveling in that direction and within hours they come to a large oasis; replenished by a spring and more than prosperous to support all of them. The travelers are so happy they throw off their belongings and begin dancing in the sand. But lo! The chief immediately demands that sole ownership of the oasis be given to him, to dispense as he pleases, and that the rest of the tribe become his slaves. The people reluctantly agree because the chief has a group of strong, fanatical supporters willing to enforce his rule, but rage simmers. The chief demands the largest share fruit for himself and his followers, and the slaves are barely able to eat at all. He forces them build him a huge dwelling, but the slaves themselves suffer in the heat all day. Even the goods from other tribes and trade routes is confiscated and monopolized. At last the people of the tribe have had enough. In the middle of the night they ambush the strongmen and exile their greedy chief. To prevent a monopoly from ever being taken again, they decide to adopt a principle of non-aggression and abandon the tribal structure. The newly-freed people divide up ownership of the trees, livestock, oasis, and resources, and agree that no one should have power to coerce others. Rather, everyone will have to work through a series of voluntary exchanges in order the get what they want. The salt-miners will have to give some of his salt to the fisherman is he wants fish. The produce-grower will have to enter into a voluntary exchange with a craftsman if he wants tools. Those who wish to be protected will need to buy spears or daggers in order to chase thieves away, and the thieves that are caught are forced to recompensate their victims. Everyone who is willing to work is able to have their place in a truly free society, and charity is given willingly to those who are too old or sick to work. This blissful era lasts for a few months. But slowly, a shift takes place. Fish, even when cured, cannot be transported through the desert, and no other tribes have a body of water large enough to support them. The fishermen are the only source of fish the group has, and thus their skills are more valuable than anyone else's. They have the biggest dwellings, they are the most well-fed, and they all have the highest quality weapons. When they realize just how much everybody depends on them, they make contact with each other and agree to set their prices much higher than the value of their product. However, two fishermen refuse to cooperate with the rest and continue setting their prices according the market value. The other fishermen are flummoxed. Could they not see how much they stand to gain? Either way, the plan cannot succeed if even one fisherman destroys their monopoly. Fustrated, the conspirators hatch a devious plan. Temporarily, they all set their prices lower than the honest fishermen, driving one of them out of business. But the the second one is still able to sell his fish at a profit, and they cannot move forward with the plan if he is allowed to do so. So they pool their influence and frame him, tarnishing his name and causing him to go out of business as well. Finally they own the entire fishing ground, and being the only producers of fish accessable to the tribe, sell it at a hugely inflated rate. The people are shocked. It's perfectly obvious that the fishermen aren't being fair, but what can they do? Alas, the only avenue of fixing the problem is forbidden by the Non-Aggression principle! They cannot take preemptive action because it would be aggression. The fishermen have not aggressed against them and everything that they have done is perfectly within the bounds of the NAP. One of two things happens:1. The people break the NAP and force the fishermen to sell their produce at a more moderate rate, while anti-competitive practices are banned. They accomplish this either by creating an organization strong enough to enforce the rule of law, and is governed either by direct democracy or through electing lawmakers that promise to help them. While this does cause a distortion from a perfectly free market, it prevents it from becoming exploitative and causing much more harm otherwise. The lawmakers, however, cannot easily oppress the people because they rely on their support to remain in power.2. The fishermen instantly gain a monopoly and live as a much richer class, transforming the free market into a plutocracy. Eventually the disparity becomes so large and the people so dependent on them that the fishermen abolish the NAP and take power for themselves and their families. They also form their own system of property rights, but one that applies among themselves rather than among everyone. To serve this end they elect a king to be their lawmaker, and a noble republic is born. What went wrong? The fundamental flaw in the NAP is that it is unenforceable. The employer might realize of his workers that all of their freedoms and prosperity will be maximised if he acts fairly and gives them wages based on the value of their work. But he also realizes that he himself stands more to gain if he doesn't. Without a larger power representing the people, anti-competitive corporations and richer classes have no threat hanging over their heads if they decide to exploit their employees or blackmail smaller businesses that could harm their monopoly. What is needed is preemptive action against those who wish to sieze monopolies "fair and square", and that by definition requires coercion. It seems, therefore, that a society could never really maintain itself and function without open and often large-scale aggression. I am finished and await Pro's response.