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

Many thanks to my opponent for his participation in this debate. I will now present my final arguments.After looking over his arguments I think that Pro misunderstood the purpose of the debate. The resolution is not about whether or not the Non-Aggression principle is morally valid but rather if a society could function by it. The question of whether such a society would be immoral or just is irrelevent.I'm also having trouble comprehending his point about humanity becoming a moral civilization. If I am not mistaken, Pro is arguing that as humans progress, we become more and more moral. Therefore, (assuming that the NAP is indeed moral), he concludes that human society will draw closer and closer to the ideal of the NAP.There are two basic objections to be made here: 1. Pro appears to commit the association fallacy when he assumes that the desirability of the NAP is inherently synonymous with human progress. It could easily be argued that human progress is good, but not all "good" ends are necessarily conterminous. For instance, if it was found that a nanotech grey goo or an ultra-stable vacuum could be created easily with home materials, it would certainly be desirable that the government put society under an Orwellian leash and monitor every person as thoroughly as possible. It's an extreme example, but it serves to disprove my opponent's point.2. Again, Pro is guilty of the post hoc fallacy with his comparisons of modern life to prehistoric life. Merely because humans appear to have more ability to function along the principles of the NAP than in the past does not suggest that this is an inherent trend to human advancement. Pro has the full burden to prove that his seemingly teleological framework is valid, and this he has not done. His examples (the absence of boundaries in prehistory, the modern upsurge in digital pirating, etc) do not establish his argument any more than the success of the British empire proves the invariable historical superiority of Anglo-Saxons. A few arbitrary confirmations do not prove the rule, and it's easy to come up with perfectly realistic scenarios in which the opposite occurs, as I did for the previous point.___Pro's response."This ignores the free will of the 'honest fisherman,' to simply set the price a little lower again."Indeed, although remember that the vast majority of the fishermen are in on the scheme. They collectively can absorb far more losses than the honest fishermen and will drive them out of business long before they would be forced out as well. This is known as 'predatory pricing.' In practice large corporations can use this to prevent new competition from ever getting off the ground."But will this work? Remember, the 'honest fisherman' is now selling his product at a lower price. The conspirators must convince the others of their totally invented story about the 'honest fishermen,' while they themselves must have quite a bad reputation by this point."The analogy is not perfect; it's an example of how corporations target small businesses, which occurs behind the scenes in real life."So at this point, the people are totally aware of the conspiring fishermen's unfair tactics. It's 'perfectly obvious,' that their defamation of the honest fisherman's character is just a devious tactic, and that their claims are not true. The people are offended by the bad fishermen's activities, so they refuse to buy from them. There are also many more fishermen entering the market because of the increased demand for fish, so the conspirators must constantly lower their price."Nope! Recall that the fishing grounds at the oasis was the only source of fish the tribe had, and that the corrupt fishermen own all of it. This is meant to emulate a real-life monopoly."Just because this society is based on the NAP does not mean they believe any claim that is made,"I didn't say that such a thing would be the case. How did you get the impression?"This is not a 'fundamental flaw' so much as a description. If 'enforcable' implies initiation of force, then of course a moral principle stating initiation of force is wrong is 'unenforcable.'"My argument is that it would require enforcement in order to maintain a functioning society. Since the NAP obviously couldn't involve any kind of initiation of force, but cannot survive through voluntary action, it would never be sustainable in society and the resolution is thereby negated.I'll conclude here and I look forward for my opponent's rebuttal. Thanks to Pro for this entertaining, if rather odd, debate and thanks to the audience for voting!