Something I think isn't talked about enough, is that political assassinations are neither fundamentally effective nor ineffective; it all depends on the context.

Broadly speaking, assassinating someone to stop them from causing damage doesn't work. In relation to my last boost; it's the underlying systems where the harm comes from, the individuals in charge are 'just' their avatars. Shooting Trump would not stop things in the US from falling apart.

But that doesn't mean that there's no purpose to assassinations either. A good example would be the UnitedHealthcare shooting; it didn't directly stop UnitedHealthcare from causing harm, but it sure did spook the hell out of the entire healthcare insurance industry.

Less claims got rejected for a while; harmful policy changes got cancelled; executives of various insurance providers suddenly felt threatened and were more careful with what they did or said publicly. These were indirect but useful effects.

It wasn't removing a CEO that made the change; it was connecting very visceral consequences for the perpetrator, to the harm being caused, making other executives afraid of exercising their power. The public and sensational nature of the shooting contributed to this effect.

Should a whole society be run on this concept? Absolutely the fuck not. Can political assassinations be an effective political tool for dealing with gross power imbalances where other solutions have proved ineffective? Certainly, as long as you have the right expectations.