[striking]

I'm not even specifically talking about drugs: these so-called "wars" (drugs, terrorism, etc.) are just wars on citizens. I have a Polish passport, so if I ever need to go somewhere safe, I can. But Poland lacks the same opportunity that exists here. Y Combinator, Silicon Valley... everything's right here.

Portugal seems very interesting and I'd really like to hear what happens with their drug policy.

But in the end, it's all for naught if I can't get any opportunities there. Which is why I live in the US.

[coldtea]

Well, I don't like this viewing of societies/countries as just venues for "individual opportunity".

I mean, it's not just about getting were you can get the most benefits, money, tax breaks and whatever.

It's also about working with your fellow citizens to improve the conditions where you live, and also fighting when the bad times come there, not just saying "so long suckers" and leaving for the next opportunity abroad.

The latter just makes everybody a selfish bastard, and ends up in a (non)-community of cowards stepping on each other to get to the top.

[greggyb]

Or expressing voice through exit is much stronger than expressing voice through vote.

If I express dissatisfaction with my mobile carrier, should I work with my fellow customers to improve the conditions of the service we get, or should I just switch to a competitor? If I switched I would just be a customer of a company with lots of satisfied cowards stepping on each other for the best deal they can find.

[coldtea]

>Or expressing voice through exit is much stronger than expressing voice through vote.

Expressing voice to what? To some greater power (ie. the government) to come and fix the issues?

What I said was about people HELPING solve the issues themselves.

>If I express dissatisfaction with my mobile carrier, should I work with my fellow customers to improve the conditions of the service we get, or should I just switch to a competitor?

See, that's my point. A society is not some company that owes you service, it's something you build.

For a better example, if you express dissatisfaction with an OSS software, you should very much work with your fellow users to improve its conditions.

[greggyb]

By "expressing voice" I mean showing your preferences and acting in some way to make your reality closer to those.

I am not a fan of many window managers available on Linux. The most reasonable solution is not for me to attempt to change the first one I happen to use (Unity in Ubuntu for me) into one I prefer, but to find a community which better suits my use case (i3 now, in Arch - I've clearly made a big jump in communities here).

What you are arguing is that the happenstance of where one starts should absolutely dominate opinions and preferences developed through experience. Or do you think I should have fought Canonical and the entire Ubuntu community to turn it into a much more minimalist distro with i3 as the default WM? There are thousands of orphaned projects out in the wild. If I find one that I like, is it the best use of my time, or is it best for the community for me to take it over, or is it best for me to focus on one of the communities where I find up to date and functioning software?

Similarly, I was born to a pair of Christian parents (one Catholic, one Episcopalian) and experienced two (admittedly very similar) religious traditions growing up. I am now firmly agnostic. Should I follow your line of reasoning and work night and day to turn one of these religions into a bastion of agnosticism, or should I act as a reasonable adult and abandon the community I have no communion (pun intended) with in favor of a community of my choosing? Which community should I choose to fight against in order to make it more pleasing to myself?

Why should the circumstances of my birth bind me inextricably to an arbitrarily delineated geographic region and whatever society predominates there? Why do you expect me to care more about those who live within 500 miles of my birth place than those who live further? Are these people more worthy, more human?

If you admit that the happenstance of birth is exactly that, and that those who share a birthplace with me are not more deserving in any way than those who don't, then how can you demand that I pay more attention to them and make more effort to make them better off?

A strict utilitarian would argue I should go to the worst-off country I can find and help them. I do not believe either of us is a strict utilitarian.

If I find a society that I fit into better than the one I am born into, is it not a cruelty to forbid me to join it? Is it not a qualitatively identical (though quantitatively lesser) cruelty to discourage me from doing so by attempting to make me feel immoral for desiring to join another?

If you value individual choice, why not allow me the pleasure of choosing my own company and my own society? I would argue that the best way to improve societies is to allow anyone to make that same choice.