When self-government has been eradicated, a state of tyranny exists.
Who is talking about eradicating self-government? If anything, protecting individual liberties only increases self-government- we actually let the individual govern their own life to a greater extent by allowing them the freedom to make their own decisions. Again, how is that tyranny?
Or perhaps you are talking about democracy, even though I thought you believed we were a republic. Or perhaps you mean the ability of people to tell others how they must act. You might be able to call those things self-government, and I suppose respecting individual liberties does restrict them in some ways. But it in no way eradicates them.
If you are required to respect individual liberties, you still have the ability to choose your leaders, to choose how to deal with the violation of individual liberties, to set rules governing public property...all those aspects of self-government are still intact. You can't, however, "self-govern" to the extent that you can control any aspect of an individual's life. Is that really so tyrannical?