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.
It is an explicit refinement of standing definitions. I believe that many people already use it implicitly. My reason for the clarification is to ensure an objective (Merriam-Webster 1b) basis.
Here's your M.W. definition:
Main Entry: ag·gres·sion
Pronunciation: &-'gre-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin aggression-,
aggressio attack, from aggredi to attack, from ad- + gradi to step, go -- more at GRADE
1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2 : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration
This is clearly A_M, not A_G.
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.
You defined aggression (A_m) to have taken place 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, both knowingly and intentionally, without permission, or the belief in its right 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.
Please show me, step-by-step, how refusing arbitration is A_m.
1. Someone claims that you are infringing their rights or have damaged their person or property.
2. You deny his claim and then refuse arbitration, or you ignore him altogether.
3. Your refusal shows lack of good faith, similar to an alleged thief, who, when confronted, runs away.
4. This amounts to admitting responsibility though default.( analogous to not showing up for a trial, in the first case, or leaving the scene of an accident, in the second case )
5. It also amounts to refusal to pay for what you've taken, which is theft, hence A_M.
Do the same for these examples:
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.
These are examples of someone intentionally attacking other people. Those other people are innocent until proven guilty, so the attackers cannot think they have a right to do so, unless they believe they have a "right to aggression", but the right I'm referring to in the definition must be a natural right, for a right to aggression would make the word aggression meaningless.
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.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear enough. The "gray area" force is men with guns taking money that I refused to offer as restitution. I did not aggress (A_m) because the damage was accidental. They are not aggressing (A_m) because they believe they have the right to directly affect my body and property by way of a judgment rendered against me in absentia.
I was just trying to explain why the only conceivable reason I could think of for calling an accident or honest misunderstanding an aggression was not valid.
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.
What's confusing about taking responsibility for your actions?
Your actions do not need to be aggressive for you to be responsible for them. Malfeasance is not a requirement for liability.
When someone does damage, whether accidental or not, it places an onus on them to undo the harm. Minimal response gives them the explicit chance to voluntarily make things right, which everyone deserves.
It isn't right or fair to treat someone who creates a liability through an honest mistake or accident the same way as a criminal, which your system would do, thereby making everyone a criminal or no-one a criminal.
BTW: I know you're a very intelligent person, but isn't time to throw in the towel on your definition?