Sure, a guy with a gun taking what he wants.
I would consider it a stretch to call prohibition of violence an economic regulation.
The values being lined out in the form of scarcity, which I might add is in economics a word for abundance. The values are carefully noted in international ad national exchange rates and are daily decided upon by stock exchanges and common markets. Those rules existed then, just as now.
Scarcity is a natural law and the root of all economic issues. If you argue that scarcity is a law that can be taken advantage of unfairly, you are indicting your own position.
Scarcity and abundance are just words the way you're using them. Needing to eat in a world of limited resources is not a state of being created by an economist somewhere; it is a basic, primal fact.
A person with a weapon taking another person's food profits precisely because of the absence of rules governing such behavior. He doesn't rob the weaker man to enjoy the "abundance" of bread; he does it so he can eat the bread.
This argument seems to be a parody of semantics.
It can be argued that the person with the gun is not exploiting in the absence of rules, rather he is creating his own set of rules that he can exploit. Furthermore, he is doing this in much the same way that business and government have done it over the years.
I believe some of the posters on here might call this hypothetical interaction a "social contract".
Are you really missing that in a society without economic rules there can be no scarcity and that it would therefore be 'the good' for any person to collect ones own food, not leaving any reason for robbery? The primal is to eat, not to rob remember..
You are getting it backwards. There is natural scarcity (people need resources, resources are not infinite), laws are created to deal with this scarcity.
The question for me is whether regulation is more efficient or fair in distributing these resources. There will be rules regardless.