Why the Extreme Alt-Right Is Wrong About Helicopters

I personally find the helicopter and “physical removal” memes the “Alt-Right” produces amusing and funny. They sometimes consist of Chilean dictator Pinochet saying “Go be a Marxist someplace else” and depict someone being thrown from a helicopter. I know it’s morbid, but I have a dark sense of humor. Sometimes these memes show Stefan Molyneux saying something similar (the facebook pages “Stefan Molymemes” and “Not An Argument” are such pages). There is another page called “HHH Physical Removal Service” that is similar in content. Some of these are in jest while some are dead serious about it. Christopher Cantwell is one such individual who is serious; he even offers a helicopter ride hoodie. The ones who are serious are saying that they are justified in “physical removal” through the Non-Aggression Principle. Their argument consists of the following:

  • Taxation is theft.
  • Theft is violence.
  • People who advocate violence are warranting reciprocal force done against them in self-defense.
  • Therefore, throwing communists out of helicopters does not violate the NAP.

Sure this sounds “logical” on the surface if one has a misinformed view of the NAP, but it makes a damning logical jump that invalidates it. I have talked at length multiple times here at Logical Anarchy about the concept of Estoppel and its use in arguing for a form of lex talionis justice. Lex talionis is “the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree.” Estoppel is a legal term that keeps individuals from making claims they otherwise would be able to make had they not engaged in previous behavior that would contradict the claim. We need to clarify what the purpose is of argumentation is first and Stephan Kinsella does a great job doing so. He says:

“Dialogue, discourse, or argument—terms which are used interchangeably herein—is by its nature an activity aimed at finding truth. Anyone engaged in argument is necessarily endeavoring to discern the truth about some particular subject; to the extent this is not the case, there is no dialogue occurring, but mere babbling or even physical fighting. Nor can this be denied. Anyone engaging in argument long enough to deny that truth is the goal of discourse contradicts himself, because he is himself asserting or challenging the truth of a given proposition. Thus, the assertion as true of anything that simply cannot be true is incompatible with the very purpose of discourse. Anything that cannot be true is contrary to the truth-finding purpose of discourse, and thus is not permissible within the bounds of the discourse…This is why participants in discourse must be consistent. If an arguer need not be consistent, truth-finding cannot occur.”1

The purpose of debate is to find truth and in order to do so we need to have all individuals engaged in discourse to remain consistent in their positions in order for truth to be found. This is common sense  but we need to lay this down to understand how estoppel shows where these Alt-Right people go wrong. The way this is shown is in the contradiction that occurs in having force used in response to ideas.

thought criminal

Obviously, the NAP is an ethical principle that only allows defensive force to be used and estoppel further clarifies this by showing how punishment is only justified when it is in the same kind and degree as the violation committed. As an example, let’s say that Jim murders Bob. Bob’s family takes Jim to court for punishment and Jim is found guilty. He is now awaiting his punishment from his peers and the community. Jim decides to protest the punishment (which may be compensation to Bob’s family or his own death, who knows?). This is because he feels that the “initiation of violence” against him in the form of punishment is wrong. Jim, however, would be “estopped” from making such a claim since it is a fact that he initiated violence against Bob when he murdered him. If Jim wishes to condemn the force used in punishing him he must also condemn the force he used when murdered Bob. Because he engaged in violence, he cannot claim that he should not be punished by those advocating for justice on Bob’s behalf (which is defensive force). Therefore, Jim has no choice but to accept the proportional punishment laid on him by the court. The punishment is deemed “just”.

What about another example that can show how estoppel is useful in proportionality as well as showing the illegitimate nature of prosecuting “victimless crimes”? Let’s say Stan lives in an area where the government outlaws pornography. Stan elects to create a pornographic website business anyways because he feels the law is unjust and his pornographic business would be staffed by willing and voluntary employees. His business does not infringe on the person or property of anyone else, therefore, he feels it is within his right to do so. After a few months of business the police break into his home and arrest him for operating an illegal pornographic business. It is well within Stan’s rights to protest the force used against him in enforcing this law. The agents of the state could say “well it’s the law”, but they would be estopped from trying to say that Stan is wrong in this. Stan really has the right to use physical force to defend himself from the authorities and the authorities would be estopped from claiming otherwise since they are initiating violence against Stan and Stan has not previously initiated violence against anyone else. Stan may not have the realistic means to defend himself, but the fact that it is his legitimate right to do so shows that the government thugs are in the wrong.

How does this apply to tossing commies out of helicopters? Well, Lets say that instead of a pornographic website, Stan creates a site that advocates for communism. Does his site threaten the property of others? Sure, he is advocating for violence, but he has not engaged in any as of yet (by say, seizing the means of production). Since he has not engaged in any physical violence, any Alt-Right “libertarian” that would try to throw Stan from a helicopter is giving a punishment disproportional to the “crime”. Since Stan has not become physical himself, he would not be estopped from protesting and defending himself from now offensive force of the Alt-Rightist. And since he is justified in defending himself, because he has not engaged in any previous physical violence that would contradict his claim, the violation of the NAP is shown to actually be perpetrated by the advocate for helicopter rides. So you can see how in the Alt-Right argument presented above, the illogical jump is in the third point that says “People who advocate violence are warranting reciprocal force done against them in self-defense.”

What would Stan’s website warrant? He is making threats of physical force with his claims to other people’s property so the only thing that is warranted is a response in kind. Meaning, “If you come near my property and try to take it against my will, I’ll use an equal amount of force to defend it. And if you attempt to use deadly force against me, you will receive deadly force in return.”

Trust me, I despise communists and left anarchists as much as anyone else. They are morons without a shred of intellectual honesty, but if we sink to the same level as them or the state, punishing people for victimless crimes, how are we any better? If we are going to punish people for what they might do, then we are justified in killing someone like Cantwell who advocates for stricter border control and walls. Why? Because those sorts of things are going to be stolen from us through taxation and funded by initiating violence. And as their arguments point out, taxation is theft and theft is violence. Anyone advocating violence deserves to thrown from a helicopter in self-defense. So that means someone like Cantwell is condemned to death by their own logic. Clearly these Alt-Right people are wrong; the NAP does not allow “Pinochet’s Helicopter Rides and Physical Removal Service” to be justified by it. Like the fake left libertarians, the Alt-Right is just an abhorrent form of statism by another name and flavor.

  1. Kinsella, S. Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach. Journal of Libertarian Studies 12, No. 1 (1996): 51–73.

Upvote this article on Steemit here.

18 thoughts on “Why the Extreme Alt-Right Is Wrong About Helicopters

  1. It’s funny how autistic this is.
    The point of the helicopter ride is not to setup a new justice system extraordinary inefficient & disproportionate.
    The point is to capture the minds.
    As if this kind of boring & border line retarded text was doing anything.

  2. “Sure, he is advocating for violence, but he has not engaged in any as of yet (by say, seizing the means of production). Since he has not engaged in any physical violence, any Alt-Right “libertarian” that would try to throw Stan from a helicopter is giving a punishment disproportional to the “crime”.”

    Responsibility does exist. By denying that you are a violence enabler.
    People like you are the very cause why the West is largely communist today (compared to 50 years ago).

    • On whom does moral culpability rest? The enabler or the person that made a choice to do violence? Nice job not really dealing with anything I said in the post too. Good try though.

      Are you an advocate for liberty or a statist? Deal with the estoppel aspect and it is disproportional. Calling it boring, to quote Molyneux, is “not an argument”.

  3. As I said, asserting that advocating for violence, when that violence is actually very real & done on a daily basis, is being part of it.
    Are only the cops & soldiers responsible for the crimes of the State ? Of course not.
    Anyone who support them has responsibility. The more vocal the more responsible.
    Cops are violent because they know they will not face restitution.
    Communists are directly responsible of the State and its violence.
    That’s a fact. That’s an argument.

    • Person A advocates for Taxation.
      Persona B is the Taxman that takes it.

      Who has greater moral culpability? The order follower (B) or the idea originator? Person B made the idea of person A manifest. Without person B, Person A is just a crazy person with terrible ideas. So how is having bad and dangerous ideas worthy of the SAME punishment as person B who actually physically assaulted someone for their property and called it “taxation”?

      This collectivizing of individuals and ignoring of human action is precisely what statists do who distrust the free market.

      • Under your line of argumentation, we should just kill people who do drugs or drink too much because they might be violent. Or we should kill someone who, in a rage, just threatens someone else but never acted on it.

        If you want to abandon the NAP and throw commies from choppers, more power too you, but you cannot pretend that the NAP justifies it. You either abandon it for your choppers, or keep the NAP and accept that you can only meet force with force and anything disproportional in retaliation in unjust.

        You must love Islamic law where they chop a hand off for stealing or stone women to death infidelity since you think proportionality doesn’t matter.

  4. “So how is having bad and dangerous ideas worthy of the SAME punishment as person B who actually physically assaulted someone for their property and called it “taxation””

    So responsibility doesn’t exist. You can advocate mass murder, slavery, that ARE ACTUALLY DONE, it’s ok if you’re not the one technically murdering people.

    So Hitler has done nothing wrong. So do all the warmongers. So do the voters.

    So do the chief of the police who teaches his officers to behave like soldiers.

    So do the parents who teach their children authority is the only way of life.


    Also significant groups do exist. Police is a significant group. ALL cops have agreed to apply ALL laws, including taxation. Including threatening of years in jail for no victim “crimes”.

    You refuse those facts because you’re afraid to act on them. So it’s funny you speak about human action.

    • False dichotomy bro.

      There is a difference between having bad ideas and having bad ideas that people accept and act on for sure. But again, the moral culpability rests on these that carry out the bad ideas and make them manifest.

      What would Hitler have been without jackboots ready to kill on command?

      What is the police chief without his “soldiers”?

      You cannot conflate those that carry out the violence with those that have bad ideas and say they all deserve death.

      When someone presents a bad idea, you counter their ideas, you don’t kill them.

      “Only ideas can overcome ideas and it is only the ideas of Capitalism and of [Classical] Liberalism that can overcome Socialism. Only by a battle of ideas can a decision be reached.”

      -Ludwig Von Mises

      And yet, you have still failed to refute the main aspect of my argument that refutes yours. Point 3 in the original article of making the jump from idea to violence and ignoring proportionality. You just keep crying like baby. Again, either ditch the NAP and keep your choppers, or keep the NAP and use your choppers when someone actually attempts to use physical force against you. You can’t have it both ways and pretend your are being logically consistent. Clearly you have never heard of estoppel before and do not care about being logically consistent.

    • Guyy: So, you are saying that people should be killed for using their freedom of speech? You sound like a commie to me… Maybe someone ought to throw you out a helicopter since you are advocating bad or dangerous ideas. Would estoppel permit that, Jon? He did argue that it is a good idea..

  5. Pingback: Logical Anarchy Today Episode 156 – A Rant About SJWs and the “Alt-Right” | Logical Anarchy

  6. The NAP can certainly justify the use of choppers. It simply requires you to proceed under the assumption that communists are not people and thus do not enjoy the protections of natural rights as the rest of us do. Once you recognize them as the sub-human, degenerate scum they are, tossing them out of aircraft à la Pinochet is no more a violation of the NAP than using pyrethrin gas to relieve your abode of a wasp infestation.

  7. You miss the point. It isn’t meant to be an autistic abstract ideology. You just kill your enemies. It doesn’t need justification.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *