What a particular person does in real life has no bearing on whether a particular moral principle is a good idea. You may be a sociopath who doesn't give a fuck about the NAP, or you may be a gentle person who wouldn't hurt anyone. That's beside the point.
The NAP is a reasonably well defined moral principle. You either think it's a good idea, or you don't. If not, perhaps you'll suggest a better one. Either way, these are just ideas, and then, as you pointed out, there's the real world.
But so what? In fact, the vast majority of people already automatically adhere to the NAP, without ever having even come across the idea. What you're doing here, is preventing the conversation from progressing, preventing us (or yourself) from getting anywhere with this. I've expended months of effort in debating with a couple of staunch Statists, and their favourite bullshit distraction is complicating everything.
See, there really are countless different "lifeboat scenarios" or edge cases you could keep coming up with and bringing up, but they have no bearing on the sensibility of the rationale behind the NAP, or the principle itself. What matters is not the countless edge cases, but the general principles themselves, and most of all, whether they are rational and consistent.
There is no all-encompassing, absolute, 100% objective moral system, but that's alright. Since the best we can do is "close enough", that's what we should aim for. Even the Golden Rule by itself is enough, and not only that, we actually have a "biological moral system" - your conscience is a manifestation of it. We're biologically inclined to behave in a moral way. No, bringing up sociopaths is not necessary here.
>> I offered you a chance to define your terms
Not really. You came in claiming that my definitions weren't definitions. But that's yet another issue that's better left un-bickered. Then you threw various unrelated questions at me, and I responded to them, trying to get you to see that the answers to most of your questions depend on various circumstances etc that aren't known.
>> You might do that by pointing to a series of objects and asking, "Is this a banana?" That's all I'm doing: I'm pointing at a series of situations and asking, "Is this force? Is this initiation?"
Sure, but to what end? You can figure out the correct answers to all of your questions with a moment's thought, at least hopefully. For example, owning a gun is no more "force" than owning a pair of socks. It's about what you do with the gun. Besides, you can strangle someone to death with a pair of socks, but for some strange reason, someone possessing socks is not a problem.
>> Like this. This is important. Nothing in the Non-Aggression Principle points this out.
That's because you can figure this stuff out as necessary, as it comes up. Reasoning is enough.
>> Which categories of intents, choices, and actions may be combined to constitute coercion, which constitutes force? As our understanding of neuroscience develops, how might we gain nuance into understanding what constitutes coercion?
Again, there are endless options for preventing a discussion from getting anywhere. You're just needlessly complicating things. I get it. It's difficult to process this stuff.
But here's a simple question: Does anyone have the right to take someone else's property by force? Now, if you're thinking of asking for a definition of "property", you're just proving my point. "Property" can be defined in several, compatible, sensible ways, but we all intuitively know what it means anyway, and act accordingly. We all know it's wrong for me to take something from you against your will, and vice versa.
Next, since the answer is clearly "No", the next question is: "So why would a human being working for the government have the right to take your property by force then?".. Feel like answering that? -Bear in mind that we're all just people, all part of the same human race, all just individuals, with the exact same rights as every other human being, and the answer should be obvious.
>> This is a question about the definition of violence
No it's not. It's a question of common sense. Yes, the definition of "violence" gets murky when you start digging through it, but that's irrelevant. For example, everyone knows that punching someone in the face for no reason is wrong, and that it constitutes violence. Again, the aggressor is always in the wrong. It's a very simple, but extremely effective rule, and one that actually does fit the way we naturally behave and the kind of things we naturally consider immoral.
>> If someone cultivates the land and produces value from it, then they own it.
Sure, that makes sense. It's roughly the same as Murray Rothbard's idea of "mixing one's labour" with something, eg. land.
>> If you gain ownership, and then someone else cultivates and produces value, is that force?
I'm assuming you meant the same piece of land. Clearly, if the land is already reasonably considered your property, then no one else is allowed to interfere with your control over it.