Viability and Flux

There is a precise positive prelationship between how good the place is and how easy it is to leave. Places that are good to their people do not need to fear people leaving it in critical numbers, and those who do leave will be replaced by a greater number of people coming in. Whereas places that are terrible to their people have every reason to expect their people to want to leave them, so they must put in a lot of effort into making sure that they cannot.

It is very easy to leave San Francisco or Netherlands - places that are true accomplishments of human endeavor and have beautiful things to offer their citizens as a result of human endeavor directed toward making them the best places that they can be. Whereas it is exceptionally hard to leave hellholes like North Korea, Burma, and the Islamic Republic of Iran - as well as the worst areas of the First World (inner city, right-wing small towns) and cultish entities such as Wahabbis, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. The reason is known to anyone who has studied economics. People naturally seeking their benefit will come to places that offer it and leave those that don't. Which means that places that are horrible will need to do everything that they can to stand in the way of such a flux - and places that are viable will gain everything from encouraging it.

The more we see legal, physical, social, moral and ideological obstacles to people leaving the place, the more it is apparent that the place is unfit for human habitation.  In the same way as tariffs are a tell-tale sign of inviability of domestic industrial production, likewise such obstacles are a tell-tale sign of inviability of the country, the region, or the religious group. And whenever we see such obstacles, that is exactly what one is certain to find, by mechanism described.

So that while most often such obstacles come in the name of morality, they are in fact a sure sign of grave moral wrong. What finds in all cases that such obstacles are found is corruption, brutality, oppression, extortion, and violations of basic human rights. And just as tariffs are a way to bully the workers resident in other countries and extort from domestic consumer in order to support nonviable industries, likewise obstacles of this sort are a way to bully the citizens of the place into remaining in it and to extort from the rest of the world that would otherwise derive benefit from what these people have to offer.

The same is the case for families and relationships. The more one does wrong to one's partner and to one's children, the more one has to fear them leaving, the more obstacles one has to put in their place. Oppression and abuse go together; and the greater the abuse, the more oppression it takes to maintain it. Oppressive behavior, oppressive beliefs and oppressive institutions are therefore a certain sign that abuse is taking place - as well as providing the cover therefor.

Therefore, there is an inverse relationship between the actual moral worth of the place and the amount of moral bludgeoning done by it - both against people in it and against the rest of the world. And true moral good consists of dismantling obstacles to free flux of people, so that places that have put in the effort to be viable and good to their citizens gain, and the places that are not viable and not good to their citizens must gain in both if they want to retain their population. The result will be reward of effort done toward improving the places and the lot of people in them, and incentive for the rest of the world to do likewise. This outcome will incentivize rightful endeavor and disincentivize wrongful endeavor and thus constitutes a truly ethical outcome as well as one beneficial for the people of the world.