There is no such thing as an “unethical necessity” or “necessary evil”. It’s an oxymoron.
If something is necessary, it can’t be unethical, and if something is unethical it can’t be a necessity. Maybe you can’t see another way, but it’s there. It is never necessary to rape a baby, in other words.
Those who believe in such fantasies have fallen prey to pragmatism.
Yes, I can understand why they do it. Principles are hard. They may not even be safe to stick with– no one ever said doing the right thing was easy, safe, or would result in instant (or eventual) Utopia. But it’s still the right thing.
For some reason, Trump and “immigration” have fooled more people into abandoning principles– and what’s right— than anything I’ve ever personally witnessed. Maybe other things were stronger archation bait in the past, but that must have been before my time.
This would be scary, except that I understand the concept of winnowing grain; to allow the chaff and harmful debris to fly away with the breeze so it doesn’t end up choking you in your food. So I see this as a way to see who’s on the side of liberty, and who was hanging around while it was convenient and easy. Seeing some of those who have chosen to fly to statism at the earliest provocation has been a huge surprise… and a bitter disappointment… to me.
Someone has to stake out the ethical, principled ground. There are plenty of pragmatists and quislings around; that position is well represented. No more of them are needed.
If you approach every problem from the position that statism is unavoidable (or necessary), you’re going to find statist “solutions” to accommodate your statist objections every time. You’ll be blind to real, lasting voluntary solutions when you assume statism. Thus you’ll justify States and all the horrid things which come along with them– while using the inevitable results of statism to show why “we need statism”. You’ll get angry at anyone who points out that your assumptions are flawed.
And that is the unvarnished reality.