Don't you think, the representatives and their supporters need to justify their use of violence first? If not, then I can also end this discussion by killing you without justification.
No you can't, because I have not acted violently against you.
The state will not act violently toward a citizen in excess of the violence that citizen has displayed toward it: the government will not kill you unless you resist with deadly force its lesser efforts at punishment.
You must also keep in mind that violence need not be physical. (If you ignore non-physical violence; e.g. pollution or speeding or libel; you will have a very undesirable society in which to live.) Laws (purportedly; actuality may be less ideal) exist to prevent what society at large has deemed to be some form of violent intrusion on their safety/privacy/liberty/etc. Therefore, if you have broken a (just) law against some person, you have committed some form of violence against them, and violence (generally in the form of moving you from your home to a prison cell) is justified in their defense.
No you can't, because I have not acted violently against you.
The state will not act violently toward a citizen in excess of the violence that citizen has displayed toward it: the government will not kill you unless you resist with deadly force its lesser efforts at punishment.
You must also keep in mind that violence need not be physical. (If you ignore non-physical violence; e.g. pollution or speeding or libel; you will have a very undesirable society in which to live.) Laws (purportedly; actuality may be less ideal) exist to prevent what society at large has deemed to be some form of violent intrusion on their safety/privacy/liberty/etc. Therefore, if you have broken a (just) law against some person, you have committed some form of violence against them, and violence (generally in the form of moving you from your home to a prison cell) is justified in their defense.