KafkA,

The non-aggression principle is good from the standpoint of theory, but whenever I try to to really apply it to the world, I always end up in these rabbit holes like you described, trying to figure out what exactly constitutes aggression.

Is it aggression to defend yourself? How about a pre-emptive strike in order to prevent anticipated aggression? Exactly what level of suspicion qualifies anticipated actions as aggression and therefore justifies a pre-emptive strike? Trying to apply the aggression meter to everything just becomes exhausting, I suspect because the world is way too nuanced and complicated to distill down to a binary choice of aggression or not. It's like trying to divide the world into black and white when in fact it is rarely either.

Trying to apply non-aggression in a strict way ends up in ludicrous situations, like the Antioch college sexual activity policy that requires a verbal request and verbal assent for each and every move during a sexual encounter. Essentially, Antioch has followed that rabbit hole down so far that they have reached a level of purity that is completely impractical, and thus it gives the policy wonks a thrill but is otherwise ignored.

What if aggression or the lack thereof is not actually the filter that makes the world function properly? I tend to see the world more in cycles rather than linear scales, in the sense that my actions tend to produce consequences whose effects come back around to affect me. I create the world that I get. What is important in this world is not the yes/no of whether something is aggressive or not, but rather properly matching the level of aggression I show to others with how close a relationship I want to have with that person.

Aggression isn't "bad" per se -- it just produces a predictable echo of aggression back from others. Aggression in low doses widens the space between you and others, but in high doses tends to draw you together into a fight. So aggression is a tool -- use it properly and life is better. Use it poorly or in a ham-fisted way and life is worse. There are plenty of scenarios where a little bit of aggression is like a good fence -- it makes society better.

So for me, it is not as important to try to adhere to a non-aggressive life. It is much more important for me to understand how my actions are perceived by others and choose the actions that reflect back to me the world that I want. So if I want a world where I am separated from others and no one is on my team, then I am aggressive towards others and lie and cheat. Or if that's not what I want, then don't. To my way of thinking, most of life is just learning that there are no short cuts -- we always get exactly what we create. That's the bitch of living in a world ruled by causality ;-)

Funny -- I don't put much stock in religion, but the golden rule sure hit it right on the head.