I have just come across the award-winning short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas and it has immediately become one of my all-time favorite tales. The work is a thought-provoking narrative that explores complex moral dilemmas and societal structures, and I couldn't help but read the story through a libertarian lens.

This psychomyth immerses us in a "utopian" city called Omelas where all inhabitants are serene, happy, and prosperous. However, as the narrative unfolds, we are shown the price of this prosperity: The relentless and inhumane torture of an innocent child.

As I progressed through the reading and analyzed the chronicle of the golden city, I began to discern parallels with concepts of moral philosophy, particularly utilitarianism and deontology.
Moreover, I observed the intersection of these themes with principles of libertarianism, such as the non-aggression principle, the tyranny of the majority, and natural rights.

The status quo of the city presents a stark contrast between utilitarianism, which prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, and deontology, which emphasizes moral duties, axioms and principles regardless of the consequences. Utilitarians might argue that the overall happiness of the city justifies the sacrifice of the child, while deontologists would condemn such an action as inherently wrong, regardless of any potential benefits.

The non-aggression principle, a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy, asserts that individuals should be free to act as they choose as long as they do not initiate force or coercion against others. In the context of "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," libertarians would condemn the city's treatment of the child as a violation of the non-aggression principle, highlighting the importance of respecting individual rights and autonomy.

The tyranny of the majority, another concept relevant to libertarianism, refers to the potential for democratic majorities to infringe upon the rights of minorities. In Omelas, the majority's happiness is built on the oppression of the child, illustrating the dangers of unchecked collective power. If you are libertarian-minded individuals interested in moral philosophy and natural rights, I could not recommend this story more!

Allow me to leave you with the concluding passage that gave me chills, in which it is indicated that not all individuals agree with the state of things in Omelas, and some, both young and old, end up leaving the city. These are us libertarians and moral realists who turn our backs on the pitfalls and injustices of statism:

"Each alone, they go west or north, towards the mountains. They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas."