What is the libertarian argument for throwing commies out of helicopters?

I know the throwing commies out of helicopters Pinochet memes are good, but what is the libertarian(or ancap) for throwing commies out of helicopters?

>Commies demand force be used against people who don't conform to state monopolies
>Helicopter rides are a reciprocation of force, not an initiation of force
>NAP gods are pleased

There is none. When you take a person into a helicopter, you make a contract in which you promise to preserve their bodily integrity (otherwise, they would never get in with you). If you throw them out, you are simultaneously violating the NAP in respects to their body, but also breaking a voluntary contract (really the same thing).

If you force them into a helicopter, your goal is to either kill them, or to remove them from property they are trespassing on. If they are trespassing, then your act of removal is a cause for transportation, and the above offered contract is binding.

If you wish to kill them, then this is a violation of the NAP, as there is no use of force which has a helicopter ride as an appropriate response... unless you are trespassing on private property.

Libertarians aren't against the use of force, we are against the use of aggression (which is force used to violate private property rights). Any violent response must be only that required to resolve the initial violation (including death if necessary).

...so to speak.

I forgot to add... helicopter memes are still funny though.

Im alright with taking commies in a helicopter ride to a different country, say Venezuela or North Korea where they'll be more at home. Too bad they probably wont invent tramplines in those countries for another couple hundred of years

You're doing NAP wrong if you think it isn't reasonable and just to kill a commie, since they want you dead, and will use the state to do it.
They are ACTIVELY petitioning the state to murder you, and sit there all cucked, thinking helicopter rides are unjust.

What is the National Socialist argument for throwing the proponents of a Jewish economic theory into the oven?

>(((Ayn Rand)))
>((((Von Mises))))
>(((Rothbard)))
Ouch that's just sad.

>pic related it's a libertarian society

...

Libertarian in the streets, Nat-soc in the sheets is the argument

Yeah... you're right... throw them the fuck out!

stepping on your neighbor's lawn

I once read a good explanation on why communists aren't people. I can't for the life of me find it or remember the philosophy behind it but I feel morally justified in killing commies as I am as eating a sandwich.

From page 211, the importance of excluding degenerates from your property:

To exclude other people from one's own property is the very means by which an owner can avoid ''bads'' from happening: events that will lower the value of one's property. In not being permitted to freely exclude, the incidence of bads-ill-behaved, lazy, unreliable, rotten students, employees, customers-will increase and property values will fall. In fact, forced integration (the result of all nondiscrimination policies) breeds ill behavior and bad character. In civilized society, the ultimate price for ill behavior is expulsion, and all-around ill-behaved or rotten characters (even if they commit no criminal offense) will find themselves quickly expelled from everywhere and by everyone and become outcasts, physically removed from civilization. This is a stiff price to paYi hence, the frequency of such behavior is reduced. By contrast, if one is prevented from expelling others from one's property whenever their presence is deemed undesirable, ill behavior, misconduct, and outright rotten characters are encouraged (rendered less costly).

Rather than being isolated and ultimately entirely removed from society, the "bums" -in every conceivable area of incompetency (bumhood)-are permitted to perpetrate their unpleasantries everywhere, so bum-like behavior and bums will proliferate. The results of forced integration are only too visible. All social relations-whether in private or business life-have become increasingly egalitarian (everyone is on a first name basis with everyone else) and uncivilized.

cont:

In distinct contrast, a society in which the right to exclusion is fully restored to owners of private property would be profoundly unegalitarian, intolerant, and discriminatory. There would be little or no "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" so dear to left~libertarians. Instead, one would be on the right path toward restoring the freedom of association and exclusion implied in the institution of private property, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States. There would be signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and, once in town, requirements for entering specific pieces of property (for example, no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Moslems, Germans, or Zulus), and those who did not meet these entrance requirements would be kicked out as trespassers. Almost instantly, cultural and moral normalcy would reassert itself.

>Now for the most important part from page 218, Physical removal:

As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued nonconformity, exclude and ultimately expel these members from society.

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

Communists don't believe in self-ownership, so it may as well us that own them.

>libertarians
>roads

Communists aren't people.

Life is sacred, however commies are not real people

A tear comes to my eye every time I read this passage. Beautiful

That's the meme I was looking for