The Flynn case suggests we're watching a duel between two men armed with one shot pistols. Duelist A shot first and appears to have missed. Should duelist B concede? Shoot into the air and declare satisfaction? Or drill duelist A through the heart?
Just as legal institutions were established to supplant individual duels, political processes like elections were created to obviate power struggles. Here we are again back with trial by combat.
The 17th century political philosophers feared anarchy and civil war more than tyranny. It wasn't till the 19th that anarchy started looking comparatively good again. Limited govt seemed a good compromise but politicians won't let it be.
