The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely on the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.
The Wife and I decided on this film for our movie night viewing. I knew of the Killdozer story from the growing internet folktale of the event. I was curious to see how it was portrayed.
The documentary uses audio tapes made by Marv Heemeyer in the months leading up to the Killdozer event and interviews with his friends in the first act to bring Marv to life. The filmmakers use this time to help Marv build his case against the authorities in the town of Grady.
Then, the second act feeds in the counter narrative with interviews from members of the local government and parts of Marv’s tapes that were more, shall we say, ranting. By the end of the second act, I was a bit more ambivalent on whether Marv was fucked over by the town or Marv just had a persecution complex.
The third act was the Killdozer rampage. I learned a lot of details about how Marv built, armed, and drove the Killdozer. The last act is going to be shaded by how you come out of the previous two acts. Since I was feeling more ambivalent already, the rampaging done made me more ambivalent.
Summary – I thought this was a well-done documentary. I think anyone who champions the Killdozer as a myth of the common man against corrupt government should watch this. Then, after seeing this, do you think if the folktale holds, or should we discard this?
Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory – both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
If the constitution were meant to be interpreted, if it were meant to change and be fluid with the times, why would the founders have made an amendment process in the first place? Furthermore, if it was meant to be interpreted and a “living constitution” that changes, why would the amendment process be so stringent?
I was listening to the Free Thoughts podcast last Friday, and they were discussing criminal justice reform. One of the speakers (honestly can’t remember if it was one of the hosts or guests) talked about ways of reforming the disparity between the prosecutors and public defenders offices. He talked about semi-privatizing it by selecting each side from a pool of available attorneys. I liked the concept.
Derek’s State Attorney’s Office Proposal:
- abolish both the prosecutor’s and public defender’s office
- Establish a pool of attorneys. I’m thinking of either volunteers or perhaps as a condition of being a part of the bar.
- All attorneys in the pool agree to a flat rate per hour for doing state service.
- No attorneys will have qualified immunity for unreasonable prosecution.
- Trial costs would be managed by judges
Here’s my idea of the flow:
- Police investigate crime, develop evidence, and arrest suspect
- State Attorney or Deputy State Attorney will decide if the case should be brought forward
- If the case is going forward, two attorneys from the pool are chosen randomly – one prosecutor and one defender
- Attorney selected for prosecution can decline if case is unsound. Since the attorney will be liable for bad prosecutions, they will have incentives to take the strong cases.
- Defendant may accept pool attorney or hire their own attorney.
- Attorneys will be paid going rate per hour for their time on the case.
- If additional funds are needed for prosecution or defense, that will be up to the judge.
Are there big, gaping holes in the plan? Heck, yeah. That’s what happens when Derek gets one of his wild idea plans. Yet, I find the framework fascinating.
The “private sector” of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and the “public sector” is, in fact, the coercive sector.
Liberty is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual.
I am very leery of proposing new laws because I am aware the root of all laws is state-sanctioned violence. So, if I’m asking for a law to be passed, it’s because I’m willing to see violence done to enforce it.
Which in the case of New York demanding income taxes from people who came in to help, I want the state of Florida to say that it will not assist in any collection effort against its residents or companies with presence in the state of such a bullshit cash grab. Further, I would be just fine with a corollary that if NY does steal money from the people who came up to work and volunteer during the emergency, the state of Florida will pay those taxes by seizing any and all property in the state owned by any New York government or government official.
It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The transformation of charity into a legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude.