[charlesism]

  > so that they can expose themselves as lunatics to the public?

How worldly and erudite is the public? How are they supposed to know?

Besides, it's not necessarily the case that there is any "correct answer." There have been societies that were extremely brutal. I read somewhere that ancient Mayans may have played soccer with human heads. I presume Mayans were generally content with that sort of society.

I happen to like the living in a liberal democracy, and I'll advocate for liberal democracy as long as there's breath in my lungs. That doesn't mean it's objectively better. It's just better to those who share my values. There are probably plenty of sound arguments for other systems under which I personally could not bear (or perhaps be allowed!) to live.

  > suppression magnifies the amount of potential sympathy they could gather in the public eye.

Hrm, it's not that simple. There is no one outcome when you suppress people. Sometimes they go away, never to be heard from again. Sometimes they redouble, and prevail. Often, they mutate and come back again in a more palatable form (how much more palatable, varies). I could list about half a dozen examples of this last case, if you want them.

It's tempting to think of humanity in terms of a narrative. The truth is, an asteroid could smash into the earth a year from now, and none of the human events we may feel are so inevitable today would come to pass.