I don’t agree that can work with violence.

What are you referring to?

I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I apologize if I have offended you — that wasn’t my intent. What exactly do you mean by this?

I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn.

This depends. A violent outcome need not be in response to an action, but it can stem from it. Laws carry with them the threat of force.

I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner.

If a country allows for a citizens arrest, everyone holds within themselves the power of enforcing the law. Though you may be referring to the idea of paying for private police and leaving others without. If so, this is more of a question of positive and negative liberties. Having a public police force would be a positive liberty, imo — in that case, it potentially doesn’t align with libertarianism, but that is very debatable.

Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare

Do note that if a corporation is not allowed to use violence, then that means that they cannot take it upon themselves to protect their property. Perhaps you think that that is how it should be?

If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios.

I’m not sure I follow this point. I don’t think that I have argued that the government shouldn’t be allowed to use force — it wasn’t my intent if my previous statements were interpreted in that way. The point that I’m trying to make is that the government should be kept in check. You have pointed out that threat of violence is what must be used to uphold the law. The only way for the people to keep the government in check is for the people to keep the government under threat of violence. If the distribution is just right, then no minority group in a democracy can hold the majority of the power.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions.

Which 3 questions are you referring to?

more equal is more better

I don’t understand this point. Are you stating that you don’t believe in individual equality?