There are 2 parts to the story: making the decision to remove someone, and then the eviction process after the decision is made. Nobody defended the airline, a

There are 2 parts to the story: making the decision to remove someone, and then the eviction process after the decision is made. Nobody defended the airline, and many said that they should've approached it differently. However, once the decision has been made, regardless of whether it was correct/fair/just, the situation has now changed to eviction and that is standard anywhere: ask first, then order, then use force. Air travel is more security sensitive and therefore more forceful, but that's all there is to it. A civil issue with improper removal should be dealt with at the gate or other civil courts, not by refusing to move which only escalates into a much bigger federal security problem. > "favor of the right for a corporation to expel anyone for any reason" This is an incorrect assumption. Corporations do have some rights to refuse service for certain reasons. They can't do whatever they want, just like a private individual doesn't have the right to do whatever they want. Neither extreme is acceptable. > "society means to be free from the violence imposed upon citizens by any authority, against the one to whom society means the enforcement of a set of rules protecting it against chaos" These are not opposing views. Freedom doesn't exist without order, and order doesn't exist without rules, and rules don't exist without enforcement, and enforcement doesn't exist without violence. Society is the collective agreement that your rights are my responsibility; you're free from violence until you break the rules, at which point authorities that are explicitly granted a monopoly on violence will use it to enforce the rules. Of course there are various factors and complexities involved, but the fundamentals are pretty straightforward.