@Outsideness defending American independence has brought my attention to the issue of selective exit.
If you allow only bad people to exit, then you will be the spawning pool for a bunch of bad societies.
-
Show this thread
-
There's no shortage of bad people. The host society isn't going to run out by only letting filthy rebels leave. Or even forcing them out via exile. It merely makes the founders of new places reliably toxic.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
We could talk about only letting good people leave, but who would do that? America was going to be able to leave if and only if it was seized by its worst elements. At best, its worst elements that were still functional.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Luther was similar. He was basically an awful person. This is the only kind of person who could possibly split from the Church at the time: there was a Luther-shaped hole in the world.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Luther's inevitable shamefulness stained the protestants who followed him, precisely because they were following him. You can see this again in the founding of Anglicanism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
If good people can leave, exit makes your society stay healthy because you don't want them to go. If only filthy rebels can leave, then exit props up decaying and dying societies by bleeding off a bit of the filth. It's worse than having no exit at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Alrenous
This is way too pessimistic. Australia was a literal dumping ground for criminals, and it's probably the most solid Anglosphere society.
4 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
From what I understand the criminal founder population was swamped by later aboveboard immigrants.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Frontier societies are comparatively rogue-tolerant.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.