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

Con brings up some good points, but unfortunately fails to address the bulk of my point, instead only mentioning the few examples which I provided near the end, which were mainly only meant to illustrate my main point. His dismissal of the bulk of my argument seems to hinge on this statement: "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.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." Keep in mind what the NAP is. It is a moral principle. The only statement it makes is one of morality. The relevance, as I argued in my previous post, of the moral principle to practice in reality, depends entirely on it's moral accuracy. This was the purpose of the order of logic; it attempted to prove this. What it comes down to is this; Is the moral validity of a moral statement important? If it is important, then it can be put into practice. If putting it into practice would deteriorate society, it is immoral. If putting it into practice would improve society, then it is moral. The reverse is also true: If it is moral, then putting it into practice would improve society. Any time force is executed from one person to another, it is always undesirable for the person it is being executed toward. The important factor with the NAP is that is only disallows initial force, meaning that this force is probably not necessary for the continuing life of the aggressor. Another away to explain why the NAP is moral is in the form of a math-like equation, looking at 'value.' Person A has a certain amount of value. Person B takes some of that value by force. Person A now has less value, and person B has gained value. However, the amount of value B has gained is less than the amount person A has lost, because of the energy necessary for the process of actually taking that value. An example of this is Government: it takes money from some people, giving to others, however, money is also used in the actual upholding of Government. In a voluntary exchange, no such value is lost, because it is all exchanged between parties. On top of that, in an involuntary exchange, we can count the free will of each person as being a value, which is being reduced, while in a voluntary exchange it is being maximised. The fact that initiation of force is inherently undesirable, which I have argued, and which Con has dismissed as irrelevant, then relates to the fact that as society progresses, it will, if actually progressing, move toward the more desirable. For example: why did society move from monarchy to democracy, even though it was undesirable for the people in charge, who also happened to have a monopoly on violence? Because as society progressed, it realised that Democracy was more in line with moral principles, meaning it allowed the maximum amount of happiness to the largest amount of people. Another example which I have used before: Why did society go from using slavery, to banning it, even though it was much less practical to do so? It could even have been argued, that slavery was a 'necessary evil,' because the labour the slaves provided was more valuable than the pain it caused them. It's because the decision wasn't based on practicality; it was based on morality. The machines and methods which came about to replace slavery came about afterwards, and were much more efficient at getting the job done. It could also be argued that we are already maintaining society in line with the NAP, since it is all a matter of degrees. Today's society is far more in line with NAP than almost any before, especially comparing to pre-civilisation.