Aggression

Yes. "Voluntary Aggression" is a contradiction.

21 (77.8%)

No. Aggression has nothing to do with consent.

6 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[markuzick]

To be honest, I don't agree that competition is aggression. Doing your best for yourself has no aggression involved. And the competition is the result of the pursuit is compared between more than one person. If you were the only person making Gnub-Gnubs, and you did them the best quality as possible, are you in competition? No.

I don't either.  Aggression mixes with intelligence, resourcefulness, and creativity in a winner; lack of aggression, however, most certainly is an earmark of a loser.  Again, I dispute a nuclear or superlative definition of aggression, so, if you must, substitute my use of aggression with aggressiveness.  To do the best for yourself you must be aggressive, unless you consider sitting on the couch collecting welfare as the best you can do for yourself.

Are you writing about this word? 

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ag·gres·sion      /əˈgrɛʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-gresh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.   the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.
2.   any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.
3.   the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.
4.   Psychiatry. overt or suppressed hostility, either innate or resulting from continued frustration and directed outward or against oneself.

[markuzick]

Whether or not aggression has taken place (force has been initiated) is an objective observation that holds whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2 without permission to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.


If you like, you may use these equivalent definitions (with the axiom that external reality exists and is unchanged by thought alone): objective observations are independent of one's premises, and subjective ones are not.

That's a good start to describing aggression, I think it's not complete. What if those two conditions both are true, but the actions of E2 are either accidental, or they mistakenly believed they had a right to those actions? I would write condition #1 this way:

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.

[markuzick]

An assessment of someone's rationality is subjective, because of the possibility that a person could be rationally acting upon false premises.

That means they are irrational if they operate under false premises, gibson, you seem not to grasp that point. So again, the assessment is still objective. Haven't you figured this out already?


I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another.  Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) observations.

Why did you concede that? Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational. Only the person who, when shown his error, rejects logic or evidence is irrational. If he's unable to grasp them, then he's non-rational.

[MobileDigit]

That's the general definition. "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.

I suppose we fundamentally disagree then.

Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational.

Is a person that lies once a liar?

[gibson042]

Whether or not aggression has taken place (force has been initiated) is an objective observation that holds whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2 without permission to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.


If you like, you may use these equivalent definitions (with the axiom that external reality exists and is unchanged by thought alone): objective observations are independent of one's premises, and subjective ones are not.

That's a good start to describing aggression, I think it's not complete. What if those two conditions both are true, but the actions of E2 are either accidental, or they mistakenly believed they had a right to those actions? I would write condition #1 this way:

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.

It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression.  If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it.  If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs.  If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar).  Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).

That being said, I do feel that retribution (anything beyond simple restitution) is uncalled for in aggression excluded from your definition.  Actually, in some cases even full restitution is not necessary (in the last example, noticing the error after a minute or two and returning the vehicle would probably be enough; one need not also leave money for the consumed fuel).  Intent, while not used in assessing aggression, should be paramount in determining the response to it.

An assessment of someone's rationality is subjective, because of the possibility that a person could be rationally acting upon false premises.

That means they are irrational if they operate under false premises, gibson, you seem not to grasp that point. So again, the assessment is still objective. Haven't you figured this out already?

I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another.  Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) observations.

(quote tree corrected)

Why did you concede that? Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational. Only the person who, when shown his error, rejects logic or evidence is irrational. If he's unable to grasp them, then he's non-rational.

To be honest, I wrestled with the original statement before committing to it.  "Irrational" is really being used in two different ways here (at least by me), one to describe people and one to describe actions.  Regarding people, you are absolutely correct.  Regarding actions, I conceded the point that a behavior is irrational if it is based on flawed premises.  But I do not have a great deal of confidence in that, and could be swayed back by a good argument.

[markuzick]

That's the general definition. "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution." The political definition is but a specific instance of this more general definition.

I suppose we fundamentally disagree then.

The definition I quoted is from the American Heritage Dictionary.

When you speak of the government of a business, are you speaking of a State?

When you speak of self government, are you speaking of a State?

Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational.

Is a person that lies once a liar?

Did I write anything about liars?

[markuzick]

Whether or not aggression has taken place (force has been initiated) is an objective observation that holds whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2 without permission to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.


If you like, you may use these equivalent definitions (with the axiom that external reality exists and is unchanged by thought alone): objective observations are independent of one's premises, and subjective ones are not.

That's a good start to describing aggression, I think it's not complete. What if those two conditions both are true, but the actions of E2 are either accidental, or they mistakenly believed they had a right to those actions? I would write condition #1 this way:

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.

It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression.  If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it.  If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs.  If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar).  Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).

Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.

An assessment of someone's rationality is subjective, because of the possibility that a person could be rationally acting upon false premises.

That means they are irrational if they operate under false premises, gibson, you seem not to grasp that point. So again, the assessment is still objective. Haven't you figured this out already?

I will concede this, but my point remains valid because different people can reach different conclusions about the rationality of another.  Such disagreement would render the NAP useless, but fortunately everyone but you applies it as I do, referencing only objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) observations.

(quote tree corrected)

Why did you concede that? Making an error in logic, or believing a mistaken premise, does not mean you are irrational. Only the person who, when shown his error, rejects logic or evidence is irrational. If he's unable to grasp them, then he's non-rational.

To be honest, I wrestled with the original statement before committing to it.  "Irrational" is really being used in two different ways here (at least by me), one to describe people and one to describe actions.  Regarding people, you are absolutely correct.  Regarding actions, I conceded the point that a behavior is irrational if it is based on flawed premises.  But I do not have a great deal of confidence in that, and could be swayed back by a good argument.

Behavior is rational if it is logically based upon one's premises. Behavior, even if it is correct, if it is not in logical accordance with one's premises, (doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) is not rational.

[gibson042]

It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression.  If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it.  If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs.  If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar).  Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).

Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.

Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression".  I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why).  My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me.  What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?

Behavior is rational if it is logically based upon one's premises. Behavior, even if it is correct, if it is not in logical accordance with one's premises, (doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) is not rational.

That's what I was going for in my original post, but premises are not inborn, they are developed by processing sensory input.  Someone who develops a bad premise and then acts on it may not be acting irrationally, but they're doing something damn close to it.

[markuzick]

It seems to me that intention is not a necessary component of aggression.  If I end up on someone's land after getting lost, they still have the right to order me off of it.  If my car slides on a patch of ice, anyone I run into can demand payment for the repairs.  If I try to shoot a burglar and miss, hitting my neighbor, I owe him or her restitution (which is in turn owed to me by the burglar).  Likewise if I drive off a parking lot with someone else's car because the model, color, and key were all identical to mine (this actually happened to one of my co-workers).

Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.

Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression".  I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why).  My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me.  What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?

I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.

Behavior is rational if it is logically based upon one's premises. Behavior, even if it is correct, if it is not in logical accordance with one's premises, (doing the right thing for the wrong reasons) is not rational.

That's what I was going for in my original post, but premises are not inborn, they are developed by processing sensory input.  Someone who develops a bad premise and then acts on it may not be acting irrationally, but they're doing something damn close to it.

The best anyone can do is to act logically within the limits of their knowledge. There's nothing irrational about it, as long as their beliefs are not dogmatic (That is, subject to further knowledge and improved understanding.).

[gibson042]

Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression".  I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why).  My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me.  What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?

I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.

Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration.  How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?

By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration.  Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more.  Why don't you want to use it as proposed?

The best anyone can do is to act logically within the limits of their knowledge. There's nothing irrational about it, as long as their beliefs are not dogmatic (That is, subject to further knowledge and improved understanding.).

I was not-so-subtly alluding to dogma as "bad premises".  I think we agree on this issue.

[markuzick]

Perhaps there is a better word than "aggression".  I assume you agree that the victims in all of my examples would be within their rights to force my behavior as described (if you don't, please let me know why).  My initial definition captures this, but if you make intent a necessary ingredient then they would be in the wrong for coming after me.  What would you think of a "non-violation principle" or a "non-infringement principle"?

I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.

Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration.  How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?

1. If you refuse to pay for what you take, then you are a thief. Stealing is a form of aggression.

2. If I claim that you are in violation of my rights, I must give objective evidence and reasons to back my claim. You must either stop the claimed violation and pay restitution, or demonstrate how my claim is invalid. If you refuse to defend you actions, then I can only assume that you cannot do so. You have then lost your case by default, and since you still continue to violate my rights, then you are an aggressor.

By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration.  Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more.  Why don't you want to use it as proposed?

Using force against someone who has not been proven guilty of aggression is not even nearly the same, nor would it produce the same result, as making a claim against him, deciding who's right, and settling your differences with him in a civilized manner. It would be tantamount to aggression.

[gibson042]

I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.

Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration.  How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?

1. If you refuse to pay for what you take, then you are a thief. Stealing is a form of aggression.

2. If I claim that you are in violation of my rights, I must give objective evidence and reasons to back my claim. You must either stop the claimed violation and pay restitution, or demonstrate how my claim is invalid. If you refuse to defend you actions, then I can only assume that you cannot do so. You have then lost your case by default, and since you still continue to violate my rights, then you are an aggressor.

I think you misunderstand.  My two-part definition of "aggression" includes accidents (they directly affect, without permission, the body or property of another entity that has not previously done the same to them).  Your modified definition requires intent.  I am asking you to show me how my refusal is aggression, given your modified definition, when the initial damage is not.

By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration.  Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more.  Why don't you want to use it as proposed?

Using force against someone who has not been proven guilty of aggression is not even nearly the same, nor would it produce the same result, as making a claim against him, deciding who's right, and settling your differences with him in a civilized manner. It would be tantamount to aggression.

Shooting a burglar is using force without proof of aggression.  Catching a shoplifter and taking back the stolen goods is using force without proof of aggression.  Ordering someone off my farm is using force without proof of aggression.  Compelling someone to either pay retribution or submit to arbitration is using force without proof of aggression.  You agree that force can be used without prior arbitration, you just think it should be limited in degree and nature (so that differences can be settled "in a civilized manner").  I agree with you; from my original response: "Intent, while not used in assessing aggression, should be paramount in determining the response to it.".

Consider it a secondary principle that in responding to aggression (violation/infringement/etc.), no more force should be used than the minimum necessary to rectify it.  There, I now subscribe to the non-infringement, minimal response principle.  All hail the NIMRP!

[markuzick]

I don't believe your victims may come after you with force and here's why. You only have the right to retaliate with force against aggressors. In the case of accidents and misunderstandings that lead to disputes, you will voluntarily pay restitution, or agree to arbitration. To refuse to do either would only then be aggression and only then would justify force being used against you.

Okay, assume I refuse to pay restitution and refuse to accept arbitration.  How does that make me an aggressor, given your modified version of my proposed definition?

1. If you refuse to pay for what you take, then you are a thief. Stealing is a form of aggression.

2. If I claim that you are in violation of my rights, I must give objective evidence and reasons to back my claim. You must either stop the claimed violation and pay restitution, or demonstrate how my claim is invalid. If you refuse to defend you actions, then I can only assume that you cannot do so. You have then lost your case by default, and since you still continue to violate my rights, then you are an aggressor.

I think you misunderstand.  My two-part definition of "aggression" includes accidents (they directly affect, without permission, the body or property of another entity that has not previously done the same to them).  Your modified definition requires intent.  I am asking you to show me how my refusal is aggression, given your modified definition, when the initial damage is not.

I don't believe your definition of aggression is an acceptable one, as I previously pointed out:

Aggression requires some form of attack. I don't see these examples that you give as being attacks. Sometimes an accident or a difference of opinion over who has the right to do something may be falsely construed as an attack, but they are, nevertheless, misunderstandings and accidents, not attacks.

You can create a new definition, if you want to, but, in this case, I don't see any value in doing that. In fact, I believe that your idiosyncratic definition has led to confusion, on your part, about when you have the right to use force against someone. I will elaborate on this in the next part of this post.

By my definition, the original transgression, however accidental, was the initiation of force that allows them to retaliate by compelling either restitution or arbitration.  Either way, the victim has a rightful claim and our systems seem to produce identical results, assuming you can tweak the definition a little more.  Why don't you want to use it as proposed?

Using force against someone who has not been proven guilty of aggression is not even nearly the same, nor would it produce the same result, as making a claim against him, deciding who's right, and settling your differences with him in a civilized manner. It would be tantamount to aggression.

Shooting a burglar is using force without proof of aggression.  Catching a shoplifter and taking back the stolen goods is using force without proof of aggression.  Ordering someone off my farm is using force without proof of aggression.  Compelling someone to either pay retribution or submit to arbitration is using force without proof of aggression.  You agree that force can be used without prior arbitration, you just think it should be limited in degree and nature (so that differences can be settled "in a civilized manner").  I agree with you; from my original response: "Intent, while not used in assessing aggression, should be paramount in determining the response to it.".

You have the right to use force in self defence, but only if you can reasonably consider yourself to be in imminent danger.

1. If you shoot a burglar, you had better be sure it's really a burglar and not a lost or confused person or a small child.

2. You may not use force against a suspected shoplifter, or any other suspected thief. If you believe they have taken something, with the intention of not paying for it, you may ask them if they are going to purchase the item/s and, if not, to remember to put them back before they leave. Only if they deny that they have the item/s, or attempt to run, may you arrest them, or have them arrested and if you're proven to be wrong in doing so, they may sue you for false arrest. In many cases, it would be best to simply ban them from entering your store.

3. You may only ask, not force, someone to leave particular parts of your farm where you have clear reason to believe that their presence is causing harm to your property or interfering with with your ability to use your property, your property being the farming operation, not the land itself.
If there is a disagreement over his right to be there, you can discuss your reasons with each other. Failing to find agreement, you will both agree to arbitration. Only if he refuses to defend his actions, you can then  assume that he cannot do so. He has then lost his case by default, and if he still continues to violate your rights, then he should be considered an aggressor.

4. You may not compel someone to either pay retribution or submit to arbitration, without proof of aggression. First you must present him with a claim and if he disagrees with your claim, you can explain your reasons to each other. One of you may admit the other is correct, or you may agree that you both have some valid claims and then come to a settlement. If you cannot come to some agreement then you will both agree to arbitration. Only if he refuses to defend his actions, you can then  assume that he cannot do so. He has then lost his case by default, and if he still continues to violate your rights, then he should be considered an aggressor.


Points 1 through 4 are based on two principles:

You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.

You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.

Consider it a secondary principle that in responding to aggression (violation/infringement/etc.), no more force should be used than the minimum necessary to rectify it.  There, I now subscribe to the non-infringement, minimal response principle.  All hail the NIMRP!

I can agree with that statement, but only on the condition that the (violation/infringement/etc.) is really aggression (in the form of an attack).

[gibson042]

Points 1 through 4 are based on two principles:

You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.

You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.

See, here's the crux of it.  I'll repost our competing definitions of aggression for convenience, referring to mine as A_g and yours as A_m.

Whether or not aggression has taken place (force has been initiated) is an objective observation that holds whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2 without permission to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.

Let's say my car slides on a patch of ice and hits someone else's (a nice brand new Porsche, so coming after me is worth their while).  This is A_g but not A_m.  The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse.  They ask for arbitration, and I refuse.  This is still A_g but not A_m.  They get a default judgment against me, and I still refuse to pay them.  Still A_g but not A_m.  Eventually, they either come after me directly or have men with guns do it.  Now things get interesting.  The assault on me is not A_g because of point 2, nor is it A_m because of your "belief in [the] right to do so" modification.  So we have violence being "rightfully" used without any instance of aggression.  Seems to me that your definition is the idiosyncratic one.

Now that I think of it, allowing force if it comes with a "belief in [the] right to do so" is a pretty big loophole.  A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person.  A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else.  Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.  None of these are A_m.

I find it hard to debate with you on this because your answers are right, and in each example you describe the minimal response (which almost always begins with talking things out) to what I would call aggression.  We agree completely on how disputes should be handled.  But I think your definition is fundamentally flawed, and I am not comfortable with its gray area where force is neither aggression nor a response to it.  Especially because you seem to have not realized its existence.  After thinking about it for a while, I am confident that my system and yours really do produce identical results.  But between them, the NIMRP is more clear and precise.

[markuzick]

Points 1 through 4 are based on two principles:

You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.

You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.

See, here's the crux of it.  I'll repost our competing definitions of aggression for convenience, referring to mine as A_g and yours as A_m.

Whether or not aggression has taken place (force has been initiated) is an objective observation that holds whenever both of the following are true:
1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2 without permission to do so.
2. E1 has not previously done the same to E2, or to any other entity that has delegated its defense to E2.

1. The body or property of an entity E1 is directly affected by the actions of an entity E2, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right to do so.

Let's say my car slides on a patch of ice and hits someone else's (a nice brand new Porsche, so coming after me is worth their while).  This is A_g but not A_m.

So far correct, but you must admit that your definition isn't used by anyone else,( check the dictionary ) so you need a good reason to make up a new one.

  The victim asks for restitution, and I refuse.  They ask for arbitration, and I refuse.  This is still A_g but not A_m.

 

No, this is also A_M. You are responsible for your actions, even if they are not aggressive. Evading responsibility for your actions is tantamount to theft. They can skip the arbitration, as you have defaulted on your right to enter into it, by refusing it. They can now force restitution.

Now that I think of it, allowing force if it comes with a "belief in [the] right to do so" is a pretty big loophole.  A mix-up could result in judgment being rendered against the wrong person.  A girl could throw a rock through the window of her boyfriend's house because he broke his promise not to sleep with anyone else.  Or someone could just snap and start killing all the "children of Satan" in the world.  None of these are A_m.

These are all A_M. In fact, that is my whole premise. Everything about A_M is based on these Two principles:

You may not use force on someone except in response to aggression.

You must presume a person's innocence, unless he's proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be guilty.

It's A_G that neglects this and leads to the kind of problems that you brought up.

I find it hard to debate with you on this because your answers are right, and in each example you describe the minimal response (which almost always begins with talking things out) to what I would call aggression.  We agree completely on how disputes should be handled.  But I think your definition is fundamentally flawed, and I am not comfortable with its gray area where force is neither aggression nor a response to it.  Especially because you seem to have not realized its existence.  After thinking about it for a while, I am confident that my system and yours really do produce identical results.  But between them, the NIMRP is more clear and precise.

In an accident or in a misunderstanding, although there may ( as in a crash ) or may not be violent physical forces involved, there is no use of force and hence, no aggression.

NIMRP can be added on to both your system or mine. In my system, it adds an extra layer of courtesy. In your system, it's an absolute necessity, in order to minimise the damage done by a very confusing definition of aggression.