48 votes

Glenn Greenwald On America's Two-Tiered Justice System

Via EPJ: This video is one hour and 2 minutes long. Find the time to listen to it. You will have a much better understanding of how the ruling elite operate and protect themselves from general law:

Greenwald is the author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Skip intro


Regrettably, comments are not allowed.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

I got mucho respect for Glenn Greenwald

However, I believe you can only have rule of law without a government. By definition, government agents are not subject to the same rules as other people. Government agents can murder, enslave, and steal. Only anarcho-capitalism leads to the rule of law.

This point is well-made in this classic, libertarian must-watch video:

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

That was an excellent talk,

That was an excellent talk, although he did complain a bit about how the Constitution allowed economic inequality. Well, you can have economic equality or you can have freedom, take your pick, but you can't have both. In a free society some people will work hard and make a lot of money, some will be lazy, some will be lucky, and some will be unlucky. That's how it is. I only oppose people using the coercive power of government to get rich.

Enjoyed hearing him in person in San Diego at USD last year.

Intelligent man with excellent speaking manner. Too bad the people in power do not care about equality and justice, so sadly he is speaking to the choir and his voice is blowing in the wind to the people who really need to hear and act to make change.


Reality Bites

The world is in a state of anarchy already... always has been, and always will be.

Those of us who are anarcho-capitalists focus our teachings on the golden rule/non-agression principle in order to convince others within the liberty movement that it is ok to withdraw consent from the rule of those who use force, that it is ok to voluntarily submit to peaceful "laws" (norms/customs/habits), and that it is ok to expect to be left alone.

That is the whole of it. Anarchy is not the absence of law or rules, it is the absence of rulers. The world elite submit to no one. There is a state of anarchy between them. That they are working toward a one world government proves that individuals need not have rulers in order to cooperate. It is on us as individuals to withdraw consent from the down stream effects of their efforts.

You have it backwards, it is not that we should submit them to the same laws to which they have submitted us. It is that we should claim for ourselves the self same liberty that they have claimed for themselves.

How did voluntaryists become a pariah here? Long time DPers should embrace the ideological purity and energy of the ancaps.

NEWS FLASH: Earth to all anarchists...

HanginWithRothbard (HWR) is saying the big government fascist rulers who rule the world, equate to ANARCHY. I thought anarchism was a stateless society without rulers, and apparently so does HWR, who contradicts himself a few sentences later. Anarchists are the most mixed up bunch of story tellers I've ever met. Thanks HWR, you made my day. Scroll down and you'll find more interesting anarchist commentary. And a big thumbs up for the author who posted Greenwald's video. Excellent info.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Why the beef?

Mark, I just don't understand your beef. You have no greater friends in the fight for liberty than the voluntaryist crowd. We are students of economics, history, and human action.

We see government for what it is: coercion. That you have a higher pain tolerance than the rest of us does not nullify the validity of the principle that we all stand upon. Big government is evil.

Conservatives & minarchists need to accept voluntaryists as friends in the fight for smaller government. Conservatives & minarchists must accept that voluntaryists will never stop evangelizing. Conservatives & minarchists must accept and admit the ideological purity of the voluntaryist.

On the other hand us voluntaryists need to accept that there will be no overnight flight into pure liberty. We need to realize that American culture has been so corrupted since the revolution that these people cannot handle pure liberty. We must accept that this people will run headlong into the arms of the first benevolent dictator that emerges after the collapse.

Can we not take Rothbard's advice and and together sing hallelujah any time there is even the smallest withdrawal of state control?

you misunderstand

I believe HWR was making one, or both, of these points.

1) In your everyday life, you are in a state of anarchy with respect to your social life. When you go out to dinner with your friends, there is no ruler that can force others to do things they don't want to do.

2) The governments of countries are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other. There is currently no overseeing world government (the UN has no real enforcement authority).

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson


Thanks for the support.

sharkhearted's picture

Major up vote.

Bookmarked for later viewing...

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

One of the things that stuck w me from his speech

Was the thing about people not wanting to donate to wiki leaks out of fear they'd end up on a government list (potentially for aiding a group that the government doesn't approve of). That really bothered me because it's an intimidation move by government.

In response, I came up w an idea that I wanted to run by everyone. I'm thinking this can be a "fight for liberty" type project that we can work on that is outside of the election process. My idea is that people are afraid as individuals to donate to wiki leaks so what if we could get large numbers of people to donate at the same time? Can they arrest us all? Why can't we copy the approach from "KrugmanDebate.com" where people pledge money for a cause but the money is only taken if Krugman agrees to have the debate. Why can't we only take that money once we get a certain number of people donating? Maybe 100,000? 500,000? I'm open to suggestions. But I'd add another twist to it. Why don't we request that people donate only $1. In other words, "donate a token amount of money". Even if people are against wiki leaks maybe they can be persuaded to donate on the grounds of defending our right to donate to the cause of free speech ( "I may disagree with what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it")

If its only $1, the fees for processing the credit card alone would take a chunk out of that money. So again, people who truly don't agree w Assange might still be willing to donate.

If this goes viral, it would sure create an interesting problem for TPTB. Are they going to label large groups of Americans terrorists for making a token contribution to the cause of defending our right to donate to groups that the establishment doesn't like?

What do people think of this idea?

I've listened to other Greenwald speeches...

and I agree with the author of the post, give this one a listen. Greenwald illustrates one of the U.S.A.'s founding principles, i.e., equality before the law. As Greenwald points out, we currently have a double standard when applying the law to top echelon government and business leaders, the result is fascism. Thanks to the author for posting this video.

Thomas Paine said the following: If there were to be a king, it would have to be the rule of law, and if a day of celebration were to be set aside, then homage should be paid to the law, a crown set upon it to remind those gathered that the law is king.

The anarchists that have infested DP are terrified by the notion of equality before the law, so they'll probably say Greenwald is an anarchist, just like they say Ron Paul is an anarchist.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Not true.

Not true. Anarchists/Voluntaryists might be in favor of a society without rulers, but they agree that as long as there are laws created and enforced by governments, they should be enforced evenly.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

I've exchanged hundreds of comments....

with anarchists at DP. NOT ONE has even suggested they're working to enforce the principle of equality before the law. In fact, when I bring it up, they mock the idea and say we should just give up and let the whole system collapse. And who would benefit from a systemic collapse? It would be the tyrants that anarchists claim to oppose because the tyrants are engineering a systemic collapse so they can implement global anarcho-barbarism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Well consider yourself to

Well consider yourself to have now met one who would be thrilled to see the power elite unable to escape the laws they create for the rest of us.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

How will the power elite be...

subject to the law if they collapse global governments and create an anarcho-barbarian economy?

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

The power elite have no

The power elite have no intention of moving to a voluntary society without government. The power elite is all about ruling the rest of us via the force of govt.

Look, I don't know what your hang up is WRT voluntaryism, but you might want to consider that those of us who think voluntaryism should be the end goal would be thrilled to see a return to a constitutional govt from where we are now. So until that time arrives, we're on the same side. That is unless you have something other than constitutional govt in mind as your end goal.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

it's not a

"hang up" with him, he actually doesn't know what it is:

He HONESTLY thinks that the FBI COINTELPRO "Black Bloc" are Anarcho-Capitalists who carry around copies of Murray N. Rothbard books and cite Lysander Spooner and Frederic Bastiat as easily as breathing.

Sad really, I tried my best to be accepting, but not when he deludes AnCaps = Black Bloc.

There is almost no excuse in the Age of Internet, and especially coming to DailyPaul of all places thinking he can mandate who should or should not 'belong' to this R3VOLution.

Hm... reminds me of someone else who attempted the Voluntaryist and InfoWarriors purges... who's that Benedict Arnold?

Oh right: Jack Hunter.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

AnCapMerc, you're the one trying to...

impose a mandate here at DP. According to you, I'm not even supposed to speak about anarchism if my speech isn't aligned with your ideas of anarchism. You are the thought police.

One of the reasons I support equality before the law and Constitutional government (and not anarchy), is they secure the free speech rights of you and me. If anarchist speech were banned, I would want my tax dollars spent to secure your rights via the U.S. judicial system. Why? Because that same tax dollar funded judicial system also secures my right to free speech.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Mark, I think you're


I think all you really need is a honey.

Single AnCap ladies, here's a fine man in the waiting.

love is the answer. it's all you need Mark.

go git 'em.

To my dearest AnCap Ladies, please be gentle: I admit, I haven't 'threaded' in a longtime (smartphone keypad has made me abhor all keyboards for awhile) I've let my obnoxious meanie streak get the best of me, despite how appropriate I believe my past responses may have been, considering the fact that he referred to all AnCaps as the Black Bloc (http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2996670) it's becoming clear that he really doesn't 'get' 'anarchism' enough to know the reference; and if I keep it up, he's gonna become a clear victim.

C'est la Vie

Mark, here's me "complying" with your 'dictates' to breathe, meditate, and chill the f3Ck out, 'cause I'd rather save the verbal venom for neoCons who deserve it, not well meaning (however disagreeable) true Constitutionalist.

Mark I'm gonna squash this shiite right now, brother.

Seeing as I'm almost incapable of holding grudges, peace and Namaste. LOL .o)

PS. But I see you pick on other AnCaps, I'm gonna be back.D

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I spent three days...

trying to have a rational conversation with him on this thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/276369/is-ron-paul-an-anarchist-no-but

I could never even get him to answer simple questions or even stay on point, he just rambles on posting non sequiturs and proclaiming to know what AnCaps actually believe without ever reading any of our philosophy.

I pointed out several times that he has no understanding of what Anarcho-Capitalism is and even gave him resources so that he may learn what it is.

He just ignores it, and continues to spew his ignorance.

You are not only dealing with someone who doesn't know anything about the subject he is discussing, but someone who has no interest in learning and refuses to learn about what he is discussing.

This is why I am so short with him, I was polite at first, but after three days of this you will probably be fed up with his nonsense as well.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Arizona, thanks for linking to my post.

I would've done it myself but I've been told linking to my own posts in comments is spam. Thanks for getting my message out.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Voluntaryism as an end goal.. not a good end goal IMO

I am a volunteer.

I was a volunteer before I knew what a volunteer was. It's an addiction, and one that I've had to take control over, which it's hard to control one's addictions, so in an effort to balance my life with work that benefits my own needs and wants.

Volunteering can span a wide range of activities some which are good and some good intended, and the bigger the non-profit the more paid jobs they have and government connections.. it doesn't replace government.. it is part of the government already.. I've had to pay to be a volunteer, give blood, had background checks I had to pay for, sign contracts with cities, states, counties, national and federal government when I adopted a campground in Los Padres National Forest..planted 3000 willows to restore an aquafir trampled by cattle (owned should have been fined IMO) anyways.. all volunteer jobs, even when you do it all yourself.. picking up trash.. is helping a government department.. and I'm not knocking that, I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with getting paid because it's genuinly appreciated, rather than someone who never picks up trash gets paid to pick up trash...

you are confusing volunteering with voluntaryism

Volunteering = doing something without getting paid

voluntaryism = the philosophy that proposes that all interactions between people should be by mutual consent

Voluntaryism would most likely take the form of anarcho-capitalism, though logically does not have to. As an example, it is possible to imagine a Marxist commune where everyone participates willingly. Possible, but unlikely.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I could be

I think of voluntaryism more in terms of military service

You are so damned cute!

"Voluntaryism" is about voluntarily entering private contracts, and never being subject to "group" contracts that you are never given the option to consent or decline.
Rather than be forcefully taxed to pay the State to fix my roads, I can call around to different contractors and hire the person I trust. Then I voluntarily enter a contract, and if I don't like the work he does I can take him to court - a jury of our peers who have volunteered to serve for the sake of justice, not people drafted and then instructed how to rule by the judge.
Look into "agorism." Basically the same thing.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

I repair the road here and do a great job.

I volunteered to do that too.

You're still missing the point....

...there is a distinction between choosing to be a volunteer, and the ability to enter into voluntary associations and contracts.

I could be

the ability to enter into voluntary associations and legal contracts, such as marriage, opposed to an arranged marriage, opposed to a one night stand.

Freedom's Remnant, I appreciate your attempt to bridge...

the divide between anarchists and those who advocate for limited gov't while opposing anarchy. The only problem is history, for example, four thousand years ago the core principle of the Hammurabic Code was "the strong shall not injure the weak". This Code was a response to barbarism which is based on only one law, i.e., the strong will dominate the weak.

Anarchism/voluntaryism suggests that in a stateless society, millions of years of human aggression will vanish, and like magic, people will voluntarily comply with the fabled Non-Aggression Principle. This is absurd, so I've concluded that anarchism is just a front for those who believe in the "freedom" afforded by barbarism.

You say the power elite has no intention of giving up a rules based system, well, anarchists always say anarchism doesn't mean the absence of rules.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)