Everybody does. Some however only object when the violence is extralegal.

> All political agendas are violence.

if treated seriously, that just makes "violence" a meaningless term

for start, there is a difference between threats of violence and actual violent acts for example

None of those things are violence, and redefining words to dilute their meaning in order to justify actual violence is pathetic sophistry.

How is it not violence if people get hurt or die as the direct result of ones actions?

Just because you don't like being made aware of the violence committed by your preferred system doesn't make it less violent.

Here's the definition according to the Cambridge dictionary:

> actions that are intended or likely to hurt people or cause damage

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/violence

Please enlighten me as to why it doesn't apply.

Starvation has historically been used as one of the most effective ways to commit violence on populations and is often used by militaries.

If you do not think that is violence, I'd love to hear what qualifies in your mind.