← Back to context

Comment by bruce511

5 hours ago

Thank you for posting. I'm being sincere.

I think it is helpful to remind folk that these policies are not universally hated. Indeed a majority of voters voted specifically for them, and they were explicitly laid out.

This is democracy in action. The majority (of those who care enough at all) get to rule over the minority (and the apathetic). Obviously not all actions will be universally loved, but no govt action can ever be universally loved.

> This is democracy in action. The majority (of those who care enough at all) get to rule over the minority (and the apathetic).

I've always been confused about how "democracy" is good, but "tyranny of the majority" is bad.

  • Well, for one you're not supposed to use a majority vote to abolish democracy, or mess with unalienable rights. You can think of it as "democracy with precommitment".

Its also helpful to remind folk about why someone would hold this position.

The largest reason US got to where it was at least in the world economy stage was because of the visa program. It was the country everyone wanted to move to, because you can apply your skills, make money, start a business, with very little restriction comparatively, buy a house, and live your dream life.

The more people wanna work, the more opportunities there are for work. Any time money changes hands, like in salary for work, this grows the economy, which further creates new jobs.

If someone is for this type of restricted immigration, then you should have a clear cut position on why you think things being more expensive, less available, and overall lower economic activity (which affects things like one being able to get a mortgate or other loan, and so on) is generally better for the country.

Because if they don't have those reasons, or have ones that are not rooted in reality than the position comes from xenophobia and racism in 99% of the cases.