[OP of "The Morality of Physical Removal."]

Morals are always and everywhere the compulsion and/or prohibition of human action. Non-human objects do not act and have no morality assigned to them. A human who performs an act which converts him to a non-human entity, that is to say 'the human commits suicide', is no longer the subject of morals. For morality to be universal and consistent, it MUST have a prohibition on suicide.

From this we can extrapolate property rights and their constraints. Man must use external objects to ensure his survival. Water, food, etc. These resources are scarce, as are all things. No two actors can use the same object for different purposes. Attempting to do so results in conflict. This conflict, can only be resolved with the death of one party or the yeilding by one party to the other. How this 'yeilding' occurs in the least conflictual way is how we define property rights.

There are times, such as a lifeboat scenario, when we must go against the usual norms of property because we cannot allow ourselves to die. For allowing yourself to die goes against the reason for having property in the first place.

Now, to explain how this ties into physical removal, production under division of labor with property is more productive than self sufficient isolation or with communal property. This increase in production is necessary to protect ourselves against future hazards such as meteors or cancer. We need to be prepared for these things, so to speak. Therefore it is necessary to remove Democrats and Communists from a libertarian social order.