Violence begets violence. No one wants a system where violence makes political decisions. Such a system would be a return to might makes right.

Assassination is abhorrent and unforgivable. And it is attempted for only one reason, which is an incurable flaw with democracy: the fact that third parties, that is someone outside yourself, is forcing their choices on you, by law. And this makes you ruled and unfree.

Decentralized governance and individual choice is the answer to this.

In a decentralized political system where people choose for themselves, there is no one that can legally force their choices on others. And so, no frustration that can develop to the point of violence, not for political reasons anyway.

We libertarians are fond of saying that the office of the presidency should be so weak that is doesn't matter who is president. Indeed some of us think the office shouldn't exist at all.

Someone shooting at a politician thinks that office matters very much, enough to lose their life for.

Moving to a decentralized political system, such an unacracy or similar, is a cure for political violence.

Meanwhile, the USA will likely continue polarizing, increasing political violence as a result of increased State power. The more powerful the State becomes, the less tolerable it becomes to be the party out of power.

I recommend Vlad Vexler on this, despite him being a pro democracy speaker, he gives responsible and cogent responses generally. And he comments on how his impacts democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/live/UFbqRLkj7_c?si=BOpBc6Ydqn-SYNF8

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4752741-trump-immunity-ruling-presidential-power-questions/

The political elites of the world have long gone soft on their peers who get caught breaking the law. Few have done prison time, apart from the most egregious and stupid. But at the highest levels, such as say a President caught red handed like Nixon, leaving office was enough for their opponents to drop all charges.

Why should this be so?

Because they have a mutual interest in not devolving into a contest of lawsuits against each other. The two-party duopoly, despite encouraging festering mutual hatred in their supporters to obtain reliable voting blocks, nonetheless recognizes that they need the other for political legitimacy. Thus the duopoly.

And they are generally students of history, and history speaks of what happened to the largest empire in the pre-modern world when they began using lawsuits as political weapons against each other.

It so happens that a Roman politician was immune from prosecution while in office. Thus one that was very successful and made some enemies would have a list of lawsuits waiting for them the minute they left any kind of office.

How to avoid this sword of legal Damocles then?

The brilliant solution was Caesar's, simply conspire to stay in office. Thus he created an alliance with two better known politicians that each would bring the others into their administrations so that they need never leave office and remain free of prosecution.

But we all know what happened. Eventually Caesar became so popular and so powerful that the Senate became afraid of him and sought to destroy him by removing him from office. At which point his life would necessarily be over, he'd be ruined. And so they left him little choice but to invade Rome and take it over as king.

The elites of today undoubtedly have been partly motivated to go soft on each other by telling this tale to themselves, about the downfall of the republic.

But we today live in a new republic, and the downfall of this republic is not long, and it will be in a new way, with an imperial presidency. One immune to prosecution while in office, and thus able to seize power while in office.

So afraid of prosecution for acts in office are they that they have given the president almost limitless immunity, even unto ordering the assassination of political rivals. What could possibly go wrong?

All it will take is a single ruthless psychopath occupying that space to realize he can do far more with those power than current presidents have dared. And then the second great republic of history will fall in its new way, this time.

We should be ready for this time by branching out into new political systems that cannot devolve into either form of self-destruction, through decentralized governance and Stateless societies, through focus on individual choice rather than group-votes which are so easily corrupted.

The path forward is clear, the will to enact it is scarce.

We live in a society where literally anything can be made legal or illegal at essentially the drop of a hat, and completely against your individual choice and will.

Where then is the 'consent of the governed'? Is that concept to be applied solely to majorities? Why not individuals?

I want to live in a society where some things are not up for a vote!

Most of the legal principles we each consider most important we would love to enshrine as off limits. That is not possible in a democracy, but it is possible in a unacracy.

Why? Because Unacracy brings governance down to the level of the individual instead of merely the group. It is a further refinement of the concept of self-rule. Unacracy means the ability of each person to choose for themselves instead of being chosen for by the group or by politicians.

And in such a society, the basic expectation is that no one can force laws on anyone else.

Currently that is not the case, not only can all your neighbors force laws on you through a mere majority vote, so too can the groups of politicians force laws on you at all levels of governance.

Indeed this is the root flaw of democracy, that the underlying truth of it that no supporter of democracy wants to admit to themselves is that democracy is actually a tool of force, a tool now run by elites to control the masses.

This isn't what it was supposed to be, what it is most certainly what it has become.

The only long-term defense against this is to fully decentralize power into the hands of each individual. Rule of the self, by the self. Choose for yourself, not for others. Then no one can abuse their power, because no one has power.

Take abortion. We have the left today freaking out about the issue being sent back to the States because this is a weakening of the full protection it had previously. Why continue to support a system where this is a question that can be flipped like this every generation? Why live in a system where this system isn't decided but up to the random whim of what president happens to be in office when a supreme court justice dies?

Same for gun ownership, why do we have half a country doing everything they can to fuck over gun owners and make it harder and harder when it's literally a constitutional guarantee?

And then you have free speech, under attack by literally both sides today. Once the most important right of all is now considered by many to be a bad thing to be dispensed with in the name of protecting people's fee-fees.

Fine, let us split into multiple societies and by that choose the kind of system we want to live in without the other being in the way. Then there need be no concern about this or that law being flipped, for we shall choose it ourselves by choosing which society to join.

https://thehill.com/regulation/4752741

So the State has decided the State should have more power, who's surprised?

John Stuart Mill, a prominent 19th-century philosopher, expressed concerns about the potential pitfalls of democratic systems in his influential work, "On Liberty." One of his most significant concerns was the idea of the "tyranny of the majority." Here’s a detailed explanation of Mill's assertion:

The Concept of Tyranny of the Majority

The "tyranny of the majority" refers to a scenario in democratic societies where the majority's interests and decisions oppress minority groups and individuals. This form of tyranny arises not from a single autocratic ruler but from the collective power of the majority, which can be just as oppressive and detrimental to individual freedoms.

Mill's Main Arguments

1. Suppression of Minority Rights:
   • In a democratic system, the will of the majority often dictates laws and policies. This can lead to the suppression of minority viewpoints and rights, as the majority may impose its own values, norms, and interests on everyone, regardless of dissenting perspectives.
2. Moral and Cultural Conformity:
   • Mill feared that democratic majorities could enforce a homogeneity of opinion and behavior, stifling individuality and diversity. This conformity could extend to moral and cultural aspects, where the majority's preferences become the standard, marginalizing those who differ.
3. Lack of Safeguards for Individual Liberty:
   • Even in a democracy, individual freedoms are at risk if there are no effective checks and balances. The majority, through its control of the legislative process, can enact laws that curtail personal freedoms, leading to an environment where dissent and personal autonomy are undermined.
4. Public Opinion as a Form of Tyranny:
   • Mill highlighted that tyranny of the majority isn't limited to formal legal systems but can also manifest through social pressures and public opinion. Societal norms and expectations, driven by majority views, can exert immense pressure on individuals to conform, thereby restricting their freedom to think and act differently.

John Stuart Mill’s concern about the tyranny of the majority highlights a fundamental tension in democratic systems: balancing majority rule with the protection of individual rights and minority interests.