Right. And if, like an Egyptian Pharoah, he can die rich and happy after a lifetime of lording it over underlings and slaves, who live or die according to his word, he can be called "successful," and therefore "moral" according to your definition.
Here, what is in the best interest of the people, and that is to allow them to live as they please as long as it does not affect others nagatively.
You're saying this because it suits your interests for the ruling elite to let you live as you please.
But suppose that Joe Slobotnik somehow manages to propel himself into a dictatorship wherein all were required to serve him. You've given yourself no grounds for complaint, other than that you won't like it. Nevertheless, as long as he holds power Joe can kill you, or rape you, or both, as he chooses, and his actions are moral, by your own definition.
Libertarians claim that Joe's actions are wrong, and absolutely so. You cannot make a similar claim -- which is what prompted my earlier comment that you can't hold your view and still be a libertarian.
twist, twist, twist......
if there is an uprising by the subjects of the dictator, then what he is doing is immoral. our society will view Castro as an immoral man, while some in the Cuban society will view him as a moral man because they either believe it or are afraid to say otherwise. What is moral varies from society to society.