@LouisIngenthron (Also, I think it puts the thumb on the scale to say "a democratic system that seeks to protect rights equally for everyone." You're telling me you get to populate my anarchy only with bad guys, and you populate your democracy only with good ones?)

@JKuznicki No, they're populated by the same people. But democracy is ruled by the will of the majority of those who seek to participate. And as history has shown, that majority is more often than not, good.
But, in anarchy, might makes right, and that is a clear incentive for the worst of humanity to take over.

It's not a difference in the hypothetical. It's a difference in the core concept and how that applies to human behaviour.

@LouisIngenthron " But democracy is ruled by the will of the majority of those who seek to participate."

What on earth makes you think that a democratic majority will want to grant rights to a mistrusted minority? I mean, sometimes they do, but that's hardly the rule.

I expect democratic governments to be unkind to minorities because that's exactly how they have usually acted.

(Your "enforcing" and my "instantiating" seem to be the same here.)

@JKuznicki On the contrary. As global society has democratized, civil rights have flourished. You think that's a coincidence?

@LouisIngenthron That's an effect of foot voting, I'm afraid, and not of holding elections. The world's population is mobile like never before, and I'm glad that authoritarian governments are feeling it.

@LouisIngenthron To defend the rights of a minority, I'd say a much better tool is A.O. Hirschman's "exit," which the fediverse has in abundance. This is also why I like the fediverse. If things get bad on masto.ai, I can always go elsewhere. Systems that face that kind of loss are under pressure. And it's good that they are. If a democracy knew that it got to keep me no matter what, it could become arbitrarily cruel.

@JKuznicki On an individual scale, the right to exit is essential. On a societal scale, relying on it will only lead to mass segregation.

@LouisIngenthron Mass segregation? Where's your evidence for that? It seems like we're mixing things up rather than self-segregating.

@LouisIngenthron When I see (for example) Tucker Carlson complaining about immigration, he's not complaining that we're getting segregated. Rather the opposite.

@JKuznicki Sure, but that message plays best to the most segregated audience, because those of us who aren't segregated see through it easily, and see the benefits of diversity.

@JKuznicki Also, I'd note that Carlson's objection seems to be diversity period, not specifically un-segregated diversity.

@LouisIngenthron But that's pretty slippery. You don't get to call mass migration "segregation" when you're opposed to it but "integration" when it annoys the Tucker Carlson fanboys. I say it's integration, and it is, racially, culturally, and in other ways. Reasons for foot voting are commonly orthogonal to culture and demographic status.

@JKuznicki I never said mass migration was segregation.

I said segregation is the inevitable end of relying *only* on the right to exit to solve civil rights.

@LouisIngenthron And I'm saying that the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary. People will mix themselves up if they're allowed to. They will not segregate.

@JKuznicki What?!? Are you kidding me? You look back at history and think "yeah, different peoples were good at getting along"? You and I must have read *very* different history books.

@LouisIngenthron No, not at all. But the Irish looking to escape the British, who had effectively imposed a famine, could come to America, where it was marginally better.

Or should they have stayed and starved until their governance improved?

@JKuznicki ...and then the Americans forced them to live in segregated neighborhoods and started putting up signs about not hiring the Irish.

Your claim that "people will mix themselves up if they're allowed to" is nonsense.

@LouisIngenthron My claim that people will mix themselves up is empirically true. Migration is producing racial mixing, and that's great.

I didn't promise anyone perfect treatment in 1850s New York, lol.

@LouisIngenthron @LouisIngenthron But anyway, what do you mean by "prioritized"? Why do you get to place your priorities above those of the persecuted?

I choose exit rights as a priority because it's much more often going to help in the near term and because (unlike locally vindicated civil rights), exit rights can be meaningfully offered by another entity (like the United States). They are also useful in the longer term for pressuring other polities. It worked well against the Soviet Union.

@JKuznicki "Why do you get to place your priorities above those of the persecuted?"

You're doing this every bit as much as I am by saying that exit rights are more important than civil rights.

@LouisIngenthron When I say that foot voting should be respected, I am only following the priority ranking that has already been set by people fleeing their governments. The alternative is to send them back, which I find unconscionable.

@JKuznicki Things that help in the near term are rarely the best option overall.

@LouisIngenthron So... when a queer person flees Saudi Arabia, would you indeed want to send them back? I just want to be clear on this.

@JKuznicki Gee, what's the difference between today and 1850s New York? Something that maybe could be promoting diversity? Oh, wait, that's right, civil rights legislation.
Without that, your "racial mixing" would still be outlawed by localities.

@LouisIngenthron I don't oppose civil rights legislation.

But you would oppose the Irish fleeing the famine, or so I'm forced to infer: They should have stayed and agitated for civil rights legislation there instead. (You seem afraid of race mixing, else why the scare quotes?)

@JKuznicki You're rapidly approaching the line of arguing in bad faith.

I never said you opposed civil rights legislation.
I never said I opposed anyone fleeing poor governance.
Those were regular quotes (I was quoting you!), not scare quotes.

Please stop arguing with imaginary people.

@JKuznicki You said that the best way to defend the rights of a majority is to exit. If a town chooses to ban black people, and they exit and form their own town for lack of a better option, what else would you call that other than segregation?

@LouisIngenthron No town in the United States can do that now. But if one could, would you say that the black people have to stay in it, because integration?

Meanwhile, over here in the real world, I think LGBT folks should be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. Are you opposed?

@JKuznicki While I don't deny the importance of their right to exit, I'd argue that their right to exist in the location of their choosing without persecution is more important.

@LouisIngenthron I don't see why a person of privilege gets to make that determination. If I'm in Saudi Arabia, I'm going to leave. It sure would be nice if the whole society would change, but expecting desperate people to wait around for it because that's what best satisfies your political theory is pretty cruel.

@JKuznicki You're imagining that I said that.

@LouisIngenthron You have told me that "their right to exist in the location of their choosing without persecution is more important."

I don't know what that means in practice apart from "stay where you are until your life improves." It's pretty much what Trump said about immigrants, they should stay where they are and improve their shithole countries.

@JKuznicki You are aware people are capable of doing more than one thing at a time right?
Just because one issue should be prioritized doesn't mean another must be ignored entirely.

But, ultimately, yes, if they have *neither* civil rights nor the right to leave, I do think civil rights should be the focus, because it would do more good in the long run.

@JKuznicki Can you explain what you mean by "instantiating" here? I've never heard that word used in that context before.

Usually, I'd choose "enforcing" there.