So why do people engage in violence? Because violence is often times profitable, and therefore a rational choice. It is not always a rational choice, and not the only rational choice possible, but it can be one.
For example, if some weak, cowardly imbecile tries to impose costs on and in some way dominate a stronger person, and is also irrational, meaning you cannot talk him out of it, then doing violence to stop him will probably be more profitable than relenting and letting him have his way.
There is no shame (or at least, there is less shame) in submitting to one’s superiors. Submitting to inferiors is what is shameful. It is therefore rational for the weak to submit to the strong, but irrational for the strong to submit to the weak.
If neither the strong nor the weak try to take and impose by non-violent means more than they could through violence, then non-violent means of conflict resolution can be a stable alternative.
That said, violence can be a useful means of gaining control, maintaining it, and even restoring it if it is lost.
Contrary to this, the false and demonstrably hypocritical liberal position is that violence is always evil.
Another commonly held liberal position is that when people resort to violence, it is because they are not capable of reasoning. In reality it is often that people resort to violence because the other person is not capable of being reasoned with. Furthermore, resorting to violence IS the product of reasoning, of assessing the cost and benefits of such an action. Just like not resorting to violence.
Furthermore, effective application of violence relies on many virtues - physical fitness, willpower, intelligence, truthfulness, etc.
Another commonly held liberal position is that violence is for pussies/cowards. Not much to say about this one because of how clearly false it is - violence is almost always highly risky, especially compared to the usual proposed alternatives, so it tends to be an indicator of daring and bravery, and yes, sometimes stupidity.
Is violence motivated by fear? Yes, I guess you could say so. But so what? Non-violence is too. This is just used as an insult to try and get people to stop being violent “you don’t want me to call you fearful, do you? then stop being violent”. Well, fear is nothing to be ashamed of. It is an emotion that evolved to detect threats so that we can respond appropriately. How we deal with fear and the threat determines whether we should be ashamed or not. And yes, sometimes, violence is the appropriate response, and NOT being violent is what’s shameful.
The reason liberals oppose violence so much is that they tend to be weaklings and cowards, and therefore bad at it and not predisposed towards it. They’d prefer if they could just be irrational, lying parasites and get away with it, without the ones they’re harming retaliating. Of course, since we all exist in physical reality violence is inevitable, so liberals too will hypocritically engage in violence whenever they think they can get away with it, and will demand that the strongest violent entity (police/military) engages in violence on their behalf. All the while telling everybody how violence is bad.