Throughout this series, we've challenged widespread ethical assumptions about inequality, redistribution, opportunity, and immigration. Each argument has hinged on a clear, consistent ethical principle: agency—the capacity to act voluntarily and pursue meaningful goals—is the core measure of ethical success.
We began by clarifying that inequality itself isn't harmful; poverty, or absolute deprivation of agency, is the genuine ethical problem. Focusing policy efforts on alleviating poverty through enhancing agency is both ethically coherent and practically effective.
This insight naturally led us to question coercive redistribution. Because coercion inherently reduces agency, coercive redistribution—even with compassionate intent—is ethically indefensible. Ethical redistribution must always be voluntary and consent-based, respecting agency rather than diminishing it.
We then examined libertarian rhetoric around "equal opportunity" and revealed its inherent contradiction. Genuine equal opportunity demands enforced equalization of prior outcomes, a coercive act that libertarians reject. The coherent ethical stance is to abandon equality as a goal altogether, instead prioritizing the maximization of voluntary agency.
Applying our ethical lens to immigration, we argued that immigration restrictions significantly harm agency by blocking voluntary associations beneficial to both immigrants and host populations. Genuine ethical consistency requires openness to voluntary interactions, constrained only by justified concerns about coercion or violence.
Addressing the "cultural threat" objection to immigration, we maintained our commitment to agency preservation. Cultural difference alone isn't harmful; genuine harm arises only from coercion or direct threats to agency. Ethical immigration policy thus selectively filters genuine coercive threats rather than capitulating to vague cultural fears.
This synthesis reveals a unified ethical principle that cuts through common political ideologies: justice measured by agency rather than equality or aesthetics. This reframing offers profound clarity, aligning ethics and policy with the fundamental value of voluntary, consent-based action, and maximizing the potential for individual and collective flourishing.