If law and state police are violence, so is employer-side capitalism

A common minarchist point goes as such: the state has a monopoly on violence. Taxation is theft. Laws are backed by violence. In most cases police do not respond to a violation of state law with guns drawn and license to use them. In cases where they do, that can be called violence from all perspectives, but we're talking here about the causal chain.

The causal chain goes like this: the government says you must do something or must not do something. That is the law. You break the law and the police come. Most likely they will not use violence on you, but they will force you to either surrender property or come with them. If you don't surrender property you will have to come with them. If you don't come with them, they will detain you. If you refuse to be detained they are licensed to assault and possibly kill you. Therefore it is said that even though the state does not have to use violence to get its way, it always reserves violence as a failsafe.

Lawmakers do not assault you. They do not necessarily even send people to assault you. However the system as a whole, including judiciary and execution, utilizes violence as a failsafe to ensure they are able to make you obey their deprivation of your choices and/or property. Taxes are not literally a gun to your head, but the obedience-punishment chain can lead to violence and death.

If direct action is not necessary to say violence is a part of the state's strategic interactions, why wouldn't employer leverage be violence? You have to have money to buy survival needs. The employer can determine how much money to give you, even if full time pay does not meet the cost of survival. If you don't like it you can go to another employer who has the same right. As no employer has the responsibility to ensure your survival, each one of them has the power to deny you access to what you need to survive.

In the end you can argue negative and positive choice as a difference between causal deprivation of life. But what does it matter? Does your soul care if it was forced through positive or relegated through negative action to leave your body? The only way this distinction matters is if the philosophical concept of actor is more important than the concrete concept of survival. And if that is the case, then there is a deep philosophical issue with liberalism.