"If you don't do X, I won't do Y" That is a threat in the broadest sense. the more useful comparisons are law != violence || threat of violence threat != vio

"If you don't do X, I won't do Y" That is a threat in the broadest sense. the more useful comparisons are law != violence || threat of violence threat != violence unless youre just equivocating the 2 meanings of threat to construct an argument? So as law isn't equivalent to violence, why is it acceptable to bring violence into it?