@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?

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior Law is voted on directly by the people, with no constitution to restrain 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.