You didn't answer my question, who is in the right and who is in the wrong when the shopkeeper stops the vagabond from stealing a loaf of bread? Who is being violated?

Is this your proposed definition of violence?:

Violence must violate something.

That "something" that violence violates is rights

certain [violent]behavior forfeits certain rights.

an attacker gives up their right to not be attacked whenever they initiate an attack

therefore a defensive attack is not necessarily violent

I find this definition kind of vague and subject to opinion, such as: What constitutes a violation?

In my example the homeless guy is violating the shopkeeper's right to property, and the shopkeeper in return in violating the bum by denying him the food he needs to survive. This is a simple concept portraying why justice and order requires violence. In a perfect system there would no reason not to give him the bread because it is in abundance and nobody would benefit from withholding it. This is a false scarcity created by the greed associated with a monetary economy.

A little more on how you came to this conclusion would be helpful.

What is the cause of most crimes? I will contest that most if not all crimes and violations are the result (directly or indirectly) of monetary issues.

For a little more info, and it helped me come to my ever incomplete conclusions, watch the online movie Zeitgeist. it's pretty long so dedicate some time to it, watch the full version on google video.

What kind of hope? wishful hope or genuine discontent?

I have genuine discontent that people are being violated for monetary reasons considering money is man made and not a requirement for life, or even happiness. We put false value on these bits of paper. Money does not solve problems, innovation does.

I see your point, but violation could be used subjectively. For example, a hobo might feel violated if someone stops him from stealing a loaf of bread that he needs to feed his children. In the eyes of the shop keeper, the hobo stealing the bread is a violation of his/her right to property and ability to make income. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Someone must violate someone else in order for order to be maintained. In a perfect system where there is no money, where there is no "incentive" to be productive or do the right thing, I don't think violence would be necessary or even fathomable. But since we have a monetary economy and everyone is brainwashed to think that they need money more than anything, people will be violated. It is the nature of the false scarcity that a monetary system creates. I maintain that in today's world, justice requires violence. I hope that isn't the case forever.

I think violence is only just if it's used in defense, I will defend myself and my home against violence with violence. However, it is quite a bit more complicated than that. Preemptive violence is never justified, as that would be a failure to communicate.