Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses. This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
Just as a group of five Bitcoiners in a bar has a right to beat up anyone that violates the NAP, which makes the place safer for everyone, the broader culture has a right to dictate by fiat to our morally inferior neighbors the terms of what constitutes legitimate violence, even when we are the minority population.
I agree with Ayn Rand's take on this question:
Just as a group of five Bitcoiners in a bar has a right to beat up anyone that violates the NAP, which makes the place safer for everyone, the broader culture has a right to dictate by fiat to our morally inferior neighbors the terms of what constitutes legitimate violence, even when we are the minority population.