@ChristiJunior This would be a failure of the republic and a great example of why direct democracy should never be implemented, because protecting the unpopular minority from the tyranny of the majority is a big part of why we’re supposed to be a republic in the first place.
@dave @ChristiJunior
What do you exactly mean by direct democracy?
Any law that attempts to target the trouble that the troublesome minorities cause will then be vetoed by being "subtly anti-minority". And why are anti-majority laws allowed at all?
@Jens_Rasmussen @LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior I wasn’t even talking about racial minorities here, although if anything, them qualifying as “minorities” for reasons beyond their control is an even better reason to protect them from the majority and their pitchforks.
"Minorities" in the world of today is everyone who has an ethnicity, faith, sexuality and sometimes disability (or even being a woman*) that makes you different from the perceived "default".
*Kind of a disability in some regards, now that I think about it
@Jens_Rasmussen @dave @LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior What’s the default? For instance, are whites a minority in California by reason of hispanics outnumbering them?
@dave @ChristiJunior
Well, I would agree, if I saw politicians in our democracies follow any rules. Yet, we are printing faster then laws of physics can handle, Open discrimination on base of sex and race is allowed, and every time the constitution should protect you, they find a "creative interpretation" to get the law through.
Yeah, for czech example:
Our premier started an emergency state. The government declared, that it should end. He was overruled according to constitution. He declared 2nd emergency 6h before the first one ended. That entire act was after a week found to be unconstitutional...
He declared a 3rd one. And government just gave up.
@dave @ChristiJunior
So, if politicians ignore the constitution anyway, and can even re-write it with enough votes, what exactly is the advantage again?
@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior This is like asking why murder should be illegal since criminals are just going to do it anyways. The intent is to restrain the government in a manner that ensures no one has their civil rights violated. Sometimes the government finds a way around those restraints, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to restrain them at all.
@dave @ChristiJunior
No, since I am not just asking murderers nicely not to do it, followed by saying "well, I told them not to do it", and pointing a finger at them with stern "Ok, you murdered once.... But you wouldn't do it again right?"
@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior Even in a system where you feel that murderers aren’t being punished enough, laws against murder are still going to reduce the rate of murder.
@dave @ChristiJunior
No, it's not.
The politicians are literally in charge of their own punishments.
That's ridiculous.
While I know the direct democracy is a joke on a different scale, I seriously cannot believe, that you're arguing, that a line on paper that politicians ignore is meaningful to them for reasons.
@dave @ChristiJunior
And I don't want to force you into any weird arguments... This is a "but he's a woman" level of weird to me 
.
I don't get even the slightest semblance of understanding.
@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior “A line of paper that politicians ignore” is a fantasy in your head, not the reality on the ground. Or at least that’s the reality on the ground here in the US. Unconstitutional laws generally get thrown out in court.
@dave @ChristiJunior
I have literally written an example of just how seriously politicians in here take the constitution.
But I am sure there are many americans, who can show their favorite examples.
@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior You’re talking about the Czech Republic vs the United States. We’re way richer and way more stable.
@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior Law is voted on directly by the people, with no constitution to restrain them.