comment: >
  
  You just described the House of Representatives/Senate/Supreme Court. 
  Your actual problem is with Conservative voters.  It's kind of sad because they are the people  closest to your ideological position.
context: I also believe that governments should only get involved in the day-to-day life of its citizens when there is a direct threat to the populous, be it racism or any other type of damaging and dividing force.
  
  This caveat completely renders everything you said pointless. "Damaging and dividing forces" on the level of racism are ubiqitous. They're everywhere. If it's a legitimate function of government to combat them, then we necessarily must have an expansive, centralized government. >
  
  Bear in mind, in the US at least, it has been the large federal government who needed to step in and force smaller state governments to not segregate, or to guarantee black voting rights, or forcing states to respect gay marriages. If you want to be anti-racist and protect LGBTQ rights, someone has to have the power to do that. >
  
  I should’ve gotten into more detail of what I mean by protecting the citizens of the nation.
  Yes, I do believe the central government should be that mediating power, however I believe that most of everything else should be very decentralized to prevent the central government from (if conservatives get elected into power) making their own regulations against blacks and LGBTQ peoples. >
  
  How are you going to have a government that A) is capable of protecting minority rights, but B) is incapable of attacking those rights? >
  
  My solution is to have a council that helps represent the people to decide the fate of any bills that could take rights away from the people while the protection bills would be voted on by the population of that state. If it is not voted in favor of, the supreme court can vote on those regulations and decide the fate of them. >
  
  For someone who wants small government you have at least two organizations that can override or ignore the result of a democratic election, especially if that council isn't elected in and of themselves. That doesn't even get into the fact that bills aren't so neatly separated into those that take rights away and those that protect rights. One could argue that forcing people not to discriminate takes away the right to free association to a degree. >
  
  How is this extremely limited government supposed to be combatting racism and other forms of bigotry again? In addition, extreme federalization is a great way to do what we see in the US: some states being backwaters of bigotry where being trans can get you arrested and women need to go out of state for healthcare. >
  
  I actually want it so expansive, spread thin, and convoluted that it is like not even having any government at all functionally. Just empty threats of a large powerless entity that can't do anything because bureaucracy. >
  
  So the United States lmao? >
  
  
  I also believe that governments should only get involved in the day-to-day life of its citizens when there is a direct threat to the populous, be it racism or any other type of damaging and dividing force.
  
  So you want to have smaller communities living by their own laws and overarching elected government that will step in if there is vague "direct threat to the population"?
  Problem is that it would either not work or become just another standard government.
  All because either overarching government has no power to do anything and small governments would do what they want (including having anti-humanist laws) or overarching government would have enough power to find out a "direct threat" anytime they want to neuter the power of smaller governments.
  So either you would finally have EU-like structure where local governments can to what they want and overgovernment can just whine, or have US structure where overgovernment dictates what smaller governments can and can't do.
  You simply can't have a cake and eat it too. >
  
  
  I also believe that governments should only get involved in the day-to-day life of its citizens when there is a direct threat to the populous, be it racism or any other type of damaging and dividing force.
  
  This caveat completely renders everything you said pointless. "Damaging and dividing forces" on the level of racism are ubiqitous. They're everywhere. If it's a legitimate function of government to combat them, then we necessarily must have an expansive, centralized government. >
  
  Bear in mind, in the US at least, it has been the large federal government who needed to step in and force smaller state governments to not segregate, or to guarantee black voting rights, or forcing states to respect gay marriages. If you want to be anti-racist and protect LGBTQ rights, someone has to have the power to do that. >
  
  I should’ve gotten into more detail of what I mean by protecting the citizens of the nation.
  Yes, I do believe the central government should be that mediating power, however I believe that most of everything else should be very decentralized to prevent the central government from (if conservatives get elected into power) making their own regulations against blacks and LGBTQ peoples. >
  
  How are you going to have a government that A) is capable of protecting minority rights, but B) is incapable of attacking those rights? >
  
  My solution is to have a council that helps represent the people to decide the fate of any bills that could take rights away from the people while the protection bills would be voted on by the population of that state. If it is not voted in favor of, the supreme court can vote on those regulations and decide the fate of them. >
  
  For someone who wants small government you have at least two organizations that can override or ignore the result of a democratic election, especially if that council isn't elected in and of themselves. That doesn't even get into the fact that bills aren't so neatly separated into those that take rights away and those that protect rights. One could argue that forcing people not to discriminate takes away the right to free association to a degree. >
  
  How is this extremely limited government supposed to be combatting racism and other forms of bigotry again? In addition, extreme federalization is a great way to do what we see in the US: some states being backwaters of bigotry where being trans can get you arrested and women need to go out of state for healthcare. >
  
  I actually want it so expansive, spread thin, and convoluted that it is like not even having any government at all functionally. Just empty threats of a large powerless entity that can't do anything because bureaucracy. >
  
  So the United States lmao? >
  
  
  I also believe that governments should only get involved in the day-to-day life of its citizens when there is a direct threat to the populous, be it racism or any other type of damaging and dividing force.
  
  So you want to have smaller communities living by their own laws and overarching elected government that will step in if there is vague "direct threat to the population"?
  Problem is that it would either not work or become just another standard government.
  All because either overarching government has no power to do anything and small governments would do what they want (including having anti-humanist laws) or overarching government would have enough power to find out a "direct threat" anytime they want to neuter the power of smaller governments.
  So either you would finally have EU-like structure where local governments can to what they want and overgovernment can just whine, or have US structure where overgovernment dictates what smaller governments can and can't do.
  You simply can't have a cake and eat it too. >
  
  What makes a government large? >
  
  
  I also believe that governments should only get involved in the day-to-day life of its citizens when there is a direct threat to the populous, be it racism or any other type of damaging and dividing force.
  
  This caveat completely renders everything you said pointless. "Damaging and dividing forces" on the level of racism are ubiqitous. They're everywhere. If it's a legitimate function of government to combat them, then we necessarily must have an expansive, centralized government. >
  
  Bear in mind, in the US at least, it has been the large federal government who needed to step in and force smaller state governments to not segregate, or to guarantee black voting rights, or forcing states to respect gay marriages. If you want to be anti-racist and protect LGBTQ rights, someone has to have the power to do that. >
  
  I should’ve gotten into more detail of what I mean by protecting the citizens of the nation.
  Yes, I do believe the central government should be that mediating power, however I believe that most of everything else should be very decentralized to prevent the central government from (if conservatives get elected into power) making their own regulations against blacks and LGBTQ peoples. >
  
  How are you going to have a government that A) is capable of protecting minority rights, but B) is incapable of attacking those rights? >
  
  My solution is to have a council that helps represent the people to decide the fate of any bills that could take rights away from the people while the protection bills would be voted on by the population of that state. If it is not voted in favor of, the supreme court can vote on those regulations and decide the fate of them. >
  
  You mean like elected representatives? You're essentially just creating a secondary body that would "decide the fate of any bills" (like voting on them?) so the first set of people who created the bills can't pass the bad bills. You've just created a bicameral system of government or judicial system. >
  
  Yeah, I forgot to mention that they would be elected >
  
  That just sounds like government with extra steps >
  
  How?