I think it'd funny that the libertarian definition of violence includes everything the government does, but it doesn't include their own 'social contract' stuff. "The right to swing your fist ends at my nose" - this requirement, for example, sounds nice and fluffily individualistic, but what happens if you violate it? You are taken to court, and if you continue to not comply, you go through the usual escalation of things. So using the same standards of proof, "don't hit me" is an act of violence.
The same goes for the requirements for a free market - which involves perfect information on the part of the purchaser. If you withhold information, you've violated the requirements... and if you continue to not comply, the system requires escalation, and libertarianism in particular relies heavily on the courts to fix things post facto, and of course, courts need to be able to enforce their dictates. So not providing perfect information to the market is an act of violence, using these flawed "chain-of-events-that-end-in-foo-are-literally-foo" terms.
The libertarian redefinition of 'violence' really needs to be abandoned.
The same goes for the requirements for a free market - which involves perfect information on the part of the purchaser. If you withhold information, you've violated the requirements... and if you continue to not comply, the system requires escalation, and libertarianism in particular relies heavily on the courts to fix things post facto, and of course, courts need to be able to enforce their dictates. So not providing perfect information to the market is an act of violence, using these flawed "chain-of-events-that-end-in-foo-are-literally-foo" terms.
The libertarian redefinition of 'violence' really needs to be abandoned.