It's no secret that if you defy the authorities they escalate the amount of coercion they use. You just need to follow the progression far enough to get to the violence.
They start with a polite court summons, then send a police officer to your home, and if you don't come quietly they'll physically force you. If you manage to resist that, well now you're resisting arrest so it doesn't even matter what the original summons was for. They'll escalate to tasers, nightsticks, maybe tear gas. You probably need guns on your side to resist past that point, which means the police get their guns out, and they've got more guys and more guns than you. You most likely end up dead, but definitely not resisting anymore. At no point will they say "Gee guys, this is just too much effort, guess we better let him do whatever he wants."
There is implied violence in every government directive. You don't usually see it because almost nobody has the will and the means to push it that far, but it's still there. I think people would do well to remember that when casually calling for things to be made illegal.
That said, I actually agree with the idea of banning antibiotics in agriculture. It's quite important, and a classic market failure/tragedy of the commons situation that you sadly do need government to solve.
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.
Yes, so we're talking about someone who would be committed enough to resisting authority to provoke violence. This is different than saying "if you break a law, it will result in violence" or even the more extreme "instituting a law is a violent act", which is what the original comment in this tree suggested. I realize what you're saying, but I think at this point it's argument just for argument's sake.
Also, in this case, the individual dosing livestock with antibiotics is actually harming society, in which case I think it would be okay to physically detain him/her from doing so, rather than just saying "this is just too much effort, guess we better let him do whatever he wants". In most scenarios though, I don't think this would be necessary.
If I go to an Apple store and decide I can pick up an iPad and get out, because I've been nice to everybody and I deserve it, similar things will happen, starting with "Excuse me sir," verbal arguments, guards, armed guards, and (if I decide to defend my right to my iPad with armed force) eventually a shoot-out match.
So, we could equally say that there is implied violence in every transaction. (Well, yes sometimes the violence is leased from the government, which will happen if I bring my armed thugs to raid an Apple store. And I'd consider that a good use of the government's resource.)
They start with a polite court summons, then send a police officer to your home, and if you don't come quietly they'll physically force you. If you manage to resist that, well now you're resisting arrest so it doesn't even matter what the original summons was for. They'll escalate to tasers, nightsticks, maybe tear gas. You probably need guns on your side to resist past that point, which means the police get their guns out, and they've got more guys and more guns than you. You most likely end up dead, but definitely not resisting anymore. At no point will they say "Gee guys, this is just too much effort, guess we better let him do whatever he wants."
There is implied violence in every government directive. You don't usually see it because almost nobody has the will and the means to push it that far, but it's still there. I think people would do well to remember that when casually calling for things to be made illegal.
That said, I actually agree with the idea of banning antibiotics in agriculture. It's quite important, and a classic market failure/tragedy of the commons situation that you sadly do need government to solve.