It's not, but two wrongs don't make a right. The idea of liberty is that you don't conceive new injustice to cure existing injustice.

I don't think that this is as "cut and dry" as you suggest...

If employers initiate state violence or aggression upon employees or potential employees, wouldn't these employees have the right to defend themselves? Why wouldn't these employees then have the right to use state violence or aggression to defend themselves against an employer initiating state violence or aggression?

Also I'm glad you said "most," because there are many businesses out there who are vastly hindered by the government, and overtime laws are one such way.

I don't think that there are as many businesses as you suggest...

Employees have been put at a disadvantage in the labor market by government and government intervention. Absent government and government intervention, employees would have more employment opportunities, more self-employment opportunities, and more leverage to negotiate higher wages, benefits, working conditions, etc.

Once you include the entirety of all benefits and privileges granted to existing employers by government; government granted limited liability and corporate charters, government land grants, eminent domain abuses, patents and copyrights, regulatory capture reducing potential competition, direct subsidies, exclusive subsidies, subsidized public infrastructure, government contracts, zoning restrictions reducing potential competitors, professional licensing, etc., all forms of state violence and aggression, it would appear that the typical existing employer receives a net benefit through government and government intervention, at the expense of employees.

If you look in the thread of that post, you can see OP implying that they actually AGREED to these overtime rules.

Considering some of the previous forms of state violence and aggression that I mentioned previously, who initiated state violence or aggression?