alexakarpov Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer Today marks 10 years since the day of Killdozer rampage. So, esteened freedomaniacs, what are your opinions on this man's crusade? On events that led to it? I would expect a somewhat different response from more 'brutalist' and more 'humanitarian' camps.
nathanm Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 This story does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling, it's pretty tragic. Roger Pion on the other hand makes me giggle like a schoolgirl, even though I still technically shouldn't. Reason tell us to take the high road, but there can be much schadenfreude when the tables are turned on the government. That's only for physical property destruction, not so much with the killing people. Destruction of government "property" is a truly guilty pleasure. You know it will just be replaced, you know it doesn't solve anything…it's just absolutely delicious, savory mental junk food. To have the philosophical truth about why these things happen in the first place, and how to prevent it; ingrained in one's mind makes the short term pleasure of vengeance against the State bittersweet.
alexakarpov Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 Oh, it's absolutely tragic. They guy was, obviously, disturbed, traumatized (likely, from childhood), and most likely mentally unhealthy. His use of force against the state, however misguided and short-sighted it might have been (I mean, he didn't leave any means of exit, sealing himself in the machine) - that's the interesting bit. Is he a heroic rebel against the tyranny, or is he an aggressor? Are acts of aggression against the state, such as this, to be admired/condoned/accepted, or are they an impermissible initiation of force? That's why I referenced the libertarian debate of brutalist vs humanitarian (which, as I understand it, is mostly around that point).
nathanm Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I wouldn't ever use the word heroic for anyone who uses violence, even if it defensive and entirely moral. That word needs to be used for proactively good people who do even more good things beyond what regular good people do. This guy got tangled up in bureaucratic red tape, which is of course wrong and ridiculous, but then destroyed a bunch of stuff, put innocent people in harm's way and then killed himself. Not exactly a heroic rebellion against tyranny. I think everyday folks who work a legit job in the private sector are the only candidates for possible heroism. Parents who never hit and yell at their kids and who grow up to be cool, productive, thinking people…that's what I want. Who knows, maybe there will be an anarchist vs. statist war in the future and maybe thousands of people will do great dramatic things to save their teammates, but even that will not be heroic rebellion. It's being a boring, everyday moral person that nobody wants to make a movie about which will pave the way forward to a stateless society.
alexakarpov Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 I wouldn't ever use the word heroic for anyone who uses violence, even if it defensive and entirely moral. That word needs to be used for proactively good people who do even more good things beyond what regular good people do. This guy got tangled up in bureaucratic red tape, which is of course wrong and ridiculous, but then destroyed a bunch of stuff, put innocent people in harm's way and then killed himself. Not exactly a heroic rebellion against tyranny. I think everyday folks who work a legit job in the private sector are the only candidates for possible heroism. Parents who never hit and yell at their kids and who grow up to be cool, productive, thinking people…that's what I want. Who knows, maybe there will be an anarchist vs. statist war in the future and maybe thousands of people will do great dramatic things to save their teammates, but even that will not be heroic rebellion. It's being a boring, everyday moral person that nobody wants to make a movie about which will pave the way forward to a stateless society.I do agree with everything you're saying. And you are correct about the poor choice of the word. Stefan has repeatedly made that important point in his videos - that a violent and suicidal rampage (especially carried out in the name of God, as is, unfortunately, a case here) is not heroism, but a form of escapism; it doesn't solve problems, doesn't help people. It's more properly an act of despair - and, as such, it is not far from what Elliot Rogers did. Though, I think, not nearly as sick and depraved.At this point in my life, I certainly don't think he was a hero. Two years ago, before I discovered Stefan's videos, I *did* consider Marvin a hero of resistance to injustice an state oppression; now, I consider him a victim of both, and, as I became more aware of parenting issues, of those too (most likely).However, what I am wondering now is still this: if, in a situation like this one, but assuming no motivation like "mission given by God" is present (as it is present here); assuming no mental instability and deep childhood issues (which are likely present here) - so, under these assumptions of purity, would you consider it just and moral to go on a suicidal mission like this one? Assuming it's predominantly a statist society, and a person is acting alone.
Recommended Posts