As we all know, Objectivists/Classical Liberals/AnCaps in general do not like libertarians, however, they are not really a threat to others (unless they don’t understand private property). We all fight amongst each other, but our real enemies against freedom are the collectivists. Physical removal (or more commonly known as Helicopter Rides) is becoming increasingly popular as a joke as a solution to deal with the collectivists, but the ethics behind it is controversial since, one may ask: Does physically removing someone violate the libertarian ethics of non-aggression principle? I would say not quite, let’s look at several propositions:
- Rational self interest: Alright, so if someone is to be a threat to your life, liberty and property. What would be the moral thing to do? To defend yourself. Rational self interest is perfectly rational because the presupposition is that life is valuable and we must rationally live our lives to survive. Removal of a threat is perfectly rational and moral, one’s life must not be a sacrifice for others.
- Non-aggression principle: To go a little beyond rational self interest, non-aggression principle is a rule that if you don’t aggress against others, others don’t aggress against you. The reason it’s a little more extreme than the self interest is because it is expected to be observed at all times, hence it’s dogmatic. In the chapter on self-defense (from Ethics of Liberty), Murray Rothbard argued that threats must be immediate and proximate, any other “threats” would be an excuse for an invasion. Hence while it may be justified that a potential aggressor could be a threat, it may not be moral to remove them unless it’s provoke. Although this theory is flawed in the fact that physical removal would always be reactionary, hence the achievement of self-defense is not guranteed.
- Argumentation ethics: Developed by Hans Herman-Hoppe, this Hoppean ethics assumes that non-aggression principle is a priori, independent of empiricism and that it would be a performative contradiction to argue for violence to retaliate against aggression, which itself is also violence. Thus, non-aggression principle is an axiom in any arguments and any arguments against it would be unethical since homesteading is a universal phenomenon. Removal of aggressors is the only way to achieve an ethical, libertarian society.
Take the recent case of Charlottesville, Ohio, where left national socialists fought with the far left international socialists (communists) and the national socialist killed one of the international socialist. It’s actually quite difficult to determine whether it is moral or not since both sides are already posessing unethical propositions as their premises. But if we look at the case specifically, the international socialists were vandalizing “public” properties, which undoubtly the national socialists among others have paid for through tax, despite it being an aggression in the first place. Since, it’s collectively owned, it’s the responsibility of the State to ensure they are not vandalized, but as we are well aware of, the public simply do not care about “public” property. In any case, they do not belong to anyone in this sense, so the national socialists do not have the claim as a self defense unless they physically attack their private property such as shop windows and cars (which the international socialists already done). The threat was proximate, and it could be urgent as new video emerged to show that the suspect’s car was attacked by at least one baseball bat, hence it does meet the critera of self-defense. The reality is objective, the almost as immoral national socialists were right to physically remove the evil and vile international socialists since they were actual threats that deserved to be removed.
The alternative method of dealing with collectivist through a peaceful mean is via redpill. Redpill came from the Matrix movie, by taking the pill, you will see reality as what it is, albeit the reality is not all nice and peachy. Many of the youtube personalities have been redpilled in recent years as a reaction to the now declining collectivist aggression, such as Pewdiepie, Jon Tron, Chris Ray Gun, Nicole Arbour among many others. The most notable case is Laci Green, who is slowly transforming herself into a rational human being again by rejecting the leftist rhetorics. As a result, she was instantly attacked by other collectivists for wanting a civilized discussion, all these attacks just pushed her further and further away from the leftist delusions. It was quite a beautiful sight to observe. This is the same with Imam Tawhidi, who is a strong supporter of Islam reformation to remove the violence and barbarism from within, likewise he got death threats and had to hire personal guard to stop Islamists from killing him. It’s really brave for a collectivist to put down their swords and accept the objective reality for what it is, we should be more supportive of them instead of criticizing them for not being redpill fast enough, the leftists do a better job at redpilling than us with their violence anyway.
So in summary, I sincerely believe that physical removal is a last resort to the threat of collectivists, everyone deserves a second chance at life if they are willing to learn. Even a formerly vile feminist was transformed when she decided to reform herself. We are not going to stop redpilling people, it is exactly how we can achieve peace. We certainly don’t need some delusional hypocrites to tell us what to do.