again, the nap is defined by a universal morality.
apv - aggressive physical violence
for starters, both "aggressive" and "violence" are terms that are completely subjective. as to "physical"... why would emotional/psychological violence be excluded from your universal morality? as i see it, the government gains far more control and does far more damage through (non-physical) coercion and indoctrination than through apv. the threat of imprisonment is a part of that, but i would say a much smaller part (at the current point in human history) than the ease with which people's perceived needs and desires can be manipulated. you don't need the threat of violence to coerce people, that much is abundantly clear to me.
 dns, would you consider "property destruction" to be aggressive physical violence? regardless of your answer, i think that is a perfect example of how subjective those terms are. [/edit]
"If you don't believe in the NAP and it is not a part of your context then you take no issue with apv."
do you not see how absurd that statement is? it's kind of like saying "if you don't believe in laws, then you take no issue with rape". come on, you can do better than that. or i don't know, maybe you can't; breaking free from dogma ain't easy.
Physical violence has an objective component. Has physical damage to the body taken place?
As I've mentioned already it is not 'my' universal morality, it is a suggested principle that you may choose or not to adopt (there would be no way for me or anyone else to enforce it anyway).
"the government gains far more control and does far more damage through (non-physical) coercion and indoctrination than through apv." It does if it can delude people into accepting apv as an inevitable and necessary part of life and it's agents have fully absorbed the delusion wrapped up as 'authority'. They can then be relied upon to suppress anyone who questions apv with the NAP (for e.g. by refusing to pay tax).
Taking the U.S. as an (admittedly more extreme) example a higher proportion of the population is today imprisoned than they were in the past.
You need the threat of violence for 'awakening' people. The more power over the mind (guilt, desire for social conformity etc.) the less violence required to control and the reverse is also the case. Since the State itself is a mind controlled delusion it follows that it consolidates it's power through mind control. The violence is necessary to effect trauma based mind control.
Someone who understands that taxation is essentially theft (currently very few) for e.g. must be violently forced to conform.
As with plants and animals I don't concern myself much with non-human related aggressive violence. The prevalent belief that it is justified if wielded by 'authority' is problem enough.
What then is your issue with apv? Are you for or against (in the human context)? Should I break free from my dogma and embrace apv?
Apart from the egregious straw man, if you don't take a position at all, you have nothing to say when the State gladly adopts it as the prevailing delusion for it's agents to justify suppressing dissent. Come on, you can do better than that.
Ah, hence "bu dum tss". Ok, but a pun won't help us to clarify.
I limit my understanding of the nap to the initiation of violent physical aggression against humans. If something is taken from someone without violence then it can be taken back without violence.
Personally I wouldn't buy or use stolen goods. Would you?
"If something is taken from someone without violence then it can be taken back without violence."
really. here's a real-world scenario.
i take the shovel that was sitting unused on land that you claim. (call it theft if you like). you eventually see that i have taken it. you ask for it back. i tell you i'll give it back when i am done using it, since you were not. you demand it now! i refuse. you attempt to physically grab it from my hand; i refuse, by simply holding it out of your reach. nothing violent has yet occurred, by your definition. what's your next move? if it involves physically overpowering me, then you are unquestionably the initiator of violence. if not, then you are actually not able to take it back, despite the fact that i used no violence at all.
[not even sure why i care enough to post that]
"I suggest that violence is a last resort in the vast majority of circumstances and that it probably couldn't easily be justified as 'defense' in the case of the shovel. How likely is it that I'm going to come to actual physical harm due to loss of the shovel? Taking back something that belongs to you isn't 'moralizing'. It's just a restoration back to the previous circumstance."
I said you are moralizing because you are talking about a system of morals and looking down on those who don't adhere to it (NAP). maybe you forgot why and when you were trying to take the shovel back without apv, which is why I implied you were going to telekinesis it with your mage powers.
"really. here's a real-world scenario.
i take the shovel that was sitting unused on land that you claim. (call it theft if you like). you eventually see that i have taken it. you ask for it back. i tell you i'll give it back when i am done using it, since you were not. you demand it now! i refuse. you attempt to physically grab it from my hand; i refuse, by simply holding it out of your reach. nothing violent has yet occurred, by your definition. what's your next move? if it involves physically overpowering me, then you are unquestionably the initiator of violence. if not, then you are actually not able to take it back, despite the fact that i used no violence at all."
"Its not apv if I deal with it in a non-aggressive way. That's how I would attempt to deal with it. Depending on circumstance this could involve more or less skill. If it's a 'tricky' situation I might turn to others with better skills and attributes than me to help resolve the issue non-violently. If your judgement led you to use apv you would be the one initiating apv, then for me it would be a matter of self-defense."
again, turning to others with more skill is a cop out, like I said earlier, until you explain how it can be done without apv, I'm assuming it cant.
"What "non physical types of harm could incite a reasonable person to violence?"
seriously? another thing from the beginning you forgot about, go read the comments on the question from the beginning.
considering that is the third thing I reminded you of, I think we are now in circles and I am finished. goodbye.
edited to clean sloppy quotes and change answer to question in the last few sentences
Even if I was 'looking down on those who don't adhere to it (NAP)', why would that create a real problem for you? It's not like I could enforce it. I'll take other people's 'morality' (which I can ignore) over being shot sitting in a car because someone doesn't like my uniform any day.
I've set out my position on the shovel scenario already. Could it turn violent? Yes, it's possible. Should it turn violent? My judgement. Yours and anyone else who finds themselves in such a situation.
The 'others' would, of course, be confronted with the same set of issues, it's just that they may be more skilled and experienced at handling them. If the intention is to avoid violence, which, in my case, it would be, then turning to such help would be a good idea imo.
"What "non physical types of harm could incite a reasonable person to violence?" Again a question simply answered with another question i.e. a cop out.
I read the earlier comments. I don't see what I'm supposed to have forgotten.
no problem, that's just why I said you are moralizing.
"I've set out my position on the shovel scenario already. Could it turn violent? yes"
and I was talking about how we mentioned non physical forms of harm like psychological and emotional abuse. manipulation, idk anything like stealing ur shovel according to u
I feel like you aren't even thinking about your responses, as you contradict yourself so much. your efforts to walk back and clean up the slop make it worse (see above).
not copping out just not worth the time.
It turning violent doesn't imply 'non physical types of harm'.
"psychological and emotional abuse. manipulation, idk anything" - indeed, but I specifically related the NAP to 'physical violence' which you would know if you read my earlier comments.
You haven't pointed out any contradiction. You've simply demonstrated that you never listened to or thought about what I was actually saying.