Yes and in my path toward libertarianism I believe that a minimum State in charge of preventing violent crimes is a good compromise to have, even if there are lots of other potential solutions with even less State involved. But it sounds well, to have violence (from the State) only to prevent violence from citizens toward each other.

Obviously it’s also tricky cause violence has to be carefully defined before, and it’s here that natural laws come at play.

In your example, where people are poor at the point of starving there is no State to prevent violence cause nobody can pay policemen, so yes violence could be chosen. But the reach man would be able to pay some of the citizens to protect himself from other by feeding its guardians. Or you could also simply imagine that the reach guy owning its grain, lend it with a interest rate (or not if he decides this as an act of charity), for people to survive until better times come.