Let me try it like this: what do you base your claim on tha…

I do not share your premise that non-violence is equivalent to morality or ethics. Why do you think they are equivalent?

Starting from the metaphysical claim that every human being is the owner of himself - or herself - I define violence as the violation of the individual rights that derive from it. This is, of course, just the base layer. In other words: violating other people's rights is violence. Violence is evil. I cannot think of a single case in which violence is ethical.

self defense?

Who's rights are being violated during self-defense?

Self-defense doesn't violate any rights. It is the reaction to rights being violated. It's the reaction to violence. Not violence. I would call it force, not violence.

ok, i see, you are using a custom definition of violence :)

I use the only one I know that makes sense to me. I defined violence above. Differentiating between force and violence goes back to a former Satanist, his name escapes me right now.

Marc Passio or something similar.

Who came up with the differentiation between force and violence?

The differentiation between force and violence as you've described it is often associated with Mark Passio, a former Satanist who became a speaker and researcher on topics like natural law, morality, and consciousness. He distinguishes between force, which he sees as defensive and ethical, and violence, which he views as aggressive and unethical.

ok, well in that case i can try to answer your question... from an evolutionary point of view encouraging individual rights allows for better reality modeling on both the local and civilizational level and therefore provides a survival advantage

allows for a better model of reality, as well as provides a superior coordination mechanism

I think the opposite is true. One of the main reasons civilization is such a tremendous success, at least for a certain period, is that it violates individual rights as its modus operandi. It is not based on ethics, but on threat of violence and violence itself. The so called mobopoly on violence. In fact, unfortunately, I cannot think of a single civilization that was based on individual rights instead of control and violence. Those that tried were quickly taken over by the more successful approach of organizing the violation of individual rights at large scale.

along an individual rights spectrum, do you think the history of Western Civilization is getting more "rightsy" or less?

I would say it is in the process of giving up the from the start artificially circumcised individual rights in favor of imaginary "human rights" which are nothing but privileges handed out by those who derive their position of power from promising and handing out privileges. Privileges, of course, tend to be payed for with individual rights.