@JKuznicki I honestly don't understand anarchists. Like, do you not understand human nature, or are you actively rooting for a culture of local warlords exerting their dominance through sheer brute force? Because that's the *inevitable* endgame of anarchy mixed with human nature.

@LouisIngenthron And I in turn don't understand how democracy makes everything better. The inevitable endgame there is scapegoating. Which is just what you claim I don't understand, only on a larger scale.

@JKuznicki I mean, it can also be credited for a great deal of the world's current state of prosperity, and it was the mechanism used by much of the world to stop white people from considering black people "property". I could list hundreds more examples of the fruits of democracy.

All anarchy gets you is unrestricted individual liberty, which is only a good thing if you've thought about it for less than five seconds.

@LouisIngenthron I distinguish between rights and democracy. Rights are checks on the scope of democracy's power. Rights are not instantiations of the principle of one person, one vote, in a consequential election. They are exceptions to any future activity of that type.

@JKuznicki Yes, and with anarchy, you have no rights at all, other than the ones you can physically defend yourself.

How is that better than a democratic system that seeks to protect rights equally for everyone?

@LouisIngenthron Instantiating rights is hard, I agree. I would rather have that conversation than have the one about making everything as democratic as possible, which misses the mark. I'm not arguing in favor of any system on the basis of its having attained the ideal.

@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.)

@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.

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