No, the goal post of violence was never moved. You just didn't think all the way through it. That's the problem with state intervention; people think it would be "nice" for the government to control all kinds of things, not considering (or observing) the consequences. This is why our prison population is larger than China's, with a large portion for victimless crimes.
Not suggesting no laws, and I am a huge proponent of standards. I just think that as much as possible should be done privately. In this case, think of something like the Goodhousekeeping seal of approval. Why does the government have to be involved with audio specifications? It makes no sense.
The violence that comes with those 'victimless crimes', assuming you mean the illegal drug trade, doesn't make it 'victimless'. How many people need to die in drive-by shootings that come with shytty aim, crossfire, firing into the wrong house or car, etc for you to see that it's far from victimless? What about the ones who die because someone sold drugs laced with something like Fentanyl, without telling anyone or the Heroin was stronger than expected? Try selling that crap to the families of people who OD'd.
Should we let those convicted of fraud roam free, possibly screwing people by selling things that aren't as described? Could be any product or service, but let's use 'fraud' as it applies to this thread. or does their crime not fit your definition of 'violence'?
The government isn't involved with audio specs, per se, as its main focus for the FTC, audio specs just happen to enter the discussion because, in defining trade practices, the information used by people to make a buying decision for audio equipment needs to be accurate and when a manufacturer or seller goes off the rails and makes it up as they go along, people don't get what they wanted.
I get the impression that if you received a list of requirements that came from engineers, you would question their validity.
