The non aggression principle provides no guidance on how to live your life, objectivism does. That is what makes objectivism a philosophy. The robot could have your flow chart as a piece of it's programming, but for it to have an objectivist base it would have to include protocols for defense of the nation and threat assessment differentiating American forces from foreign.

I can't really think of many other objectivist premises it would need, but this isn't really my argument.

I like the flow chart, good luck!

Completely agree. Attempting dialog is frustrating. When his Shtick runs out he faithfully resorts to liberal tactic #1: defamation by way labeling. Save you energy and your breath.

Explanation to Maphesdus is hopeless. Philosophy cannot be turned into a "computer program" and epistemology is not a "combat co-routine". This is ludicrous.

Philosophy is not politics. "The Non-Aggression Principle" is not "the singular fundamental principle of the entire philosophy". "Part of" does not mean "singular fundamental principle", let alone "of the entire philosophy". Maphesdus doesn't comprehend any of it and keeps switching the words in gross misrepresentations as if it makes no difference and "non-aggression" were equivalent to all of it. He was originally given the benefit of the doubt and he didn't know what to do with it because he is here to attack. Explanation is lost on him and is hopeless because he is intellectually dishonest and quite dense. His hysterical sophomoric railing over his being "annoyed" and "sick and tired" is irrelevant.

Lots of good men.

I seem to run into similar difficulties in conversations with many younger AR readers and libertarians. I think it's just a very hard thing for them to give up on emotional response feedback that can be very addictive for them. They can't, or won't, accept analyzing emotions and emotional responses for reality or seem to have the idea that Objectivists try to shut off their emotions.

Calling this "Objectivist Epistemology" is bizarre.

Maph: I of course believe that I have a pretty solid foundation in the principles of non-aggression, though I prefer the words of non-initiation of force. I think, where we differ is in the interpretations of what force is or isn't and when and where it's used and applied in a real world situation and what an appropriate and continued level or course of force response is.

Your flow chart, described as a combat co-routine is a perfect example. It quite dramatically and drastically illustrates the over simplification and limitation of applying force in combat and the lack of Objectivist determination of the reality of actual combat situations. A brief example might be a rear area for combat troops to relax and resupply and the protection provided in order for that to be safe for those men and their support. It might well consist of a layered defense system of roving patrols and observations and detection for outlying areas with bombing or missiles strikes to keep the area 'clean', concertina wire, mine fields, and in our case the use of surveillance and weaponized drones. Is anyone entering that defined area considered an enemy combatant or does the defender have to wait until absolute confirmation of identity before elimination or did the planner need to incorporate such confirmation systems in the mine fields or bombing and missile strikes or in our case the drone strikes?

The Objective reality we've all had to learn to deal with in all wars, particularly since WWII, is the use of human weapons, even the elderly, women, and children with bomb vests and hand grenades in both active and inactive combat areas. If some of that defense is turned over to autonomous drones with some sort of decision matrix programmed in, what and how are ethical actions instilled in that programming and yet retain the effectiveness of the weapon?

I'm pretty confident that the program flow chart will be a bit more complicated than what you propose.

Maphesdus continues to demonstrate that you are right. But he is worse than an immature hippy anarchist mentality -- he emotes in such terms, and confuses it with Ayn Rand, but embraces its consequence of collectivism and its imposition by what he admits is "initiation of force" in his own racism and statism.

To point out that philosophy is not politics and that Maphesdus is repeatedly misrepresenting Ayn Rand is not an "ad hominem argument". He doesn't know what "ad hominem argument" means. His repeated misrepresentation claiming that "the Non-Aggression Principle" is "clearly the singular fundamental principle of the entire philosophy" is false, baseless, and ignorant. He is profoundly ignorant of Ayn Rand's philosophy. That is not an "ad hominem argument" either. It is a consequence of observing his posts.

There is no "programming" of "Objectivist epistemology into a computer". Maphesdus doesn't know what that means, let alone "provided a concrete example".

Exactly ewe; it's always confused me how some can confuse the right of defense into some type of moral constraint system that makes impossible, active defense or sufficient force application to stop aggression or to prevent future aggression.
What is so hard to grasp about 'my rational choice to not use force or it's threat to obtain those things I need or want in my life from others, but that I won't allow others to use force or it's threat against me.'
I think Maph confuses a youthful, hippy belief in voluntarist anarchism with the mature, reasoned Ojbectivist life. Those are very different topics.

No it is not. This has been explained to you several times but you keep repeating the misrepresentation. Philosophy is not politics and is not about a "non aggression principle". Ayn Rand also never said that soldiers in a war should not fire unless fired upon, as a "core" or anything else.