Then you are admitting a number of unfortunate empirical facts into your analysis of the necessity of a state for our practical purposes, which kind of go without saying and muddy up the core of the message of classical liberalism if permitted to make us shy away from the logical conclusions of our normative stance.

Aggression is bad. Simple as that. You are taking the stance that attempts to behold things one can only behold if one is omniscient, of "well, it may be necessary for this thing to be here in an ultimate sense." I do that a lot of the time too, I try to think of things from a very holistic perspective. But regardless of whether the conclusions you are drawing from that necessitate some uncertainty regarding the technical or ultimate necessity of the state within that narrow subset of possible future particulars, our goal is to generally reduce aggression.

You probably agree that we want to do that as one of our top goals, through means consistent with our principles and in light of our own epistemological uncertainty, so the strategy of working to eliminate - or educate reasonable people about - state aggression within these bounds, and the ontological truth that aggression is always bad, are things we should agree on and perhaps be more clear about when presenting our desire for freedom and our practicable solutions toward that end. It helps us communicate to others who may join us on this journey or who would be amenable to alternatives to the authoritarian nightmare normies have been leaning into.