I actually found a piece of evidence to support a much better theory.

The theory is that they define violence as anything standing against their wishes.

Everything else is peace.

I am not kidding you. I will see if I can find it.

Basicalyl the guy claims to have debunked the nap with the argument that preventing him from stealing food is a violation of the nap if he dies without it. or simply, if he needs it.

I feel hungry! gibsmedat!

No moral awareness of the consequences of norms and incentives throughout the season. LEt's force the ants to give food to the grasshopper. That'll make our race strong. Socialist hand rubbing intensifies

edit: here it is: https://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-against-me-dopes/

If you stand in the way of forced sharing of ressources to keep your fellow man alive, you are an aggressor. There is no concept of you having sacrificed in the past to save these ressource and taking them from you punishes you from saving.

but niggers dont need savings. it's not like they have winter or anything. or even a civilization to invest in. I suppose they evolved mud hut privatization.

HEre's another take on why they believe it is not violence:

People believe more in the norms of the group than they believe in property rights. The state is the norms of the group.

By being part of a group one ... well I think it should be clear that being forced to adhere to a group's nroms isn't consent. so nvm.

nvm. Basically they equate the desire for people following rules even if they disagree with some of them with consent to being subject to those same rules. aka democracy