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).