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

http://youtu.be/MRiQ0SGJ_98



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Oh Really??

No, really?

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.

All the ancient origins, translation variances, legitimacy, illegitimacy, occult Babylonian/Sumerian/JudeoChristian progenitorship aside, have you actually read the Code of Hammurabi??

'Cause I actually have read the Code of Hammurabi.

So that, is your idea of "the strong shall not injure the weak"??

You think this is different from any statist govt of today who never follow the Constitution that it does have, deems it has arbitrary 'moral' authority to adjudicate who should, or should not live?

I know this will be a novel concept for you Mark Hanson, but I want you to actually read what the Hammurabic Code actually states, not what you imagine it to be.

But since I know you won't actually read it, for a shortcut, just CTRL+F "death," and click highlight, then scroll down to see just how many instances and how many manner the State justifies it, or someone it sanctioned, can be dictated to murder you:

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.
6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.

7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.

8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

9. If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property," then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their testimony -- both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the money he paid from the estate of the merchant.

10. If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.

11. If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.

14. If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

15. If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.

16. If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the major domus, the master of the house shall be put to death.

19. If he hold the slaves in his house, and they are caught there, he shall be put to death.

20. If the slave that he caught run away from him, then shall he swear to the owners of the slave, and he is free of all blame.

21. If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.

26. If a chieftain or a man (common soldier), who has been ordered to go upon the king's highway for war does not go, but hires a mercenary, if he withholds the compensation, then shall this officer or man be put to death, and he who represented him shall take possession of his house.

33. If a ... or a ... enter himself as withdrawn from the "Way of the King," and send a mercenary as substitute, but withdraw him, then the ... or ... shall be put to death.

34. If a ... or a ... harm the property of a captain, injure the captain, or take away from the captain a gift presented to him by the king, then the ... or ... shall be put to death.

109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

110. If a "sister of a god" open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.

115. If any one have a claim for corn or money upon another and imprison him; if the prisoner die in prison a natural death, the case shall go no further.

116. If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.

130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

150. If a man give his wife a field, garden, and house and a deed therefor, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.

210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.

227. If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his house. The barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall be guiltless.

229 If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.

230. If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

Those are out of 282 translated "laws" that you deem to free us from "barbarism." Now I see why you're the sole self-proclaimed paragon of virtue and righteousness here at the DailyPaul.

Now, don't get me wrong, every human has a right to lethally defend oneself and others against initiation of force and in some cases, in protection of property. For most of the above cited capital offense? Cheney would love you.

But, I'm just so glad to know that you would've been on the 'right' side of history: if you actually followed the Hammurabic Code, you'd have cheered on the state murdering all the operators of the Underground Railroad, and all fugitive slave harboring pastors, deacons, and everyday citizen abolitionists. Bravo Mark Hanson, bravo!

Thanks for justifying and referring all here to you Mark'I love Black Bloc FBI COINTELPRO'Hanson's personal CommieF3CK Stalinist Occultist Satanist Death Manual.

Oh Great One, deliver us from the evils of "Anarcho-Barbarism" by providing us with your ever non-"barbaric" Stalinist Death Manual!

This is absurd, so I've concluded that anarchism is just a front for those who believe in the "freedom" afforded by barbarism.

So, basically, Mark Hanson: 'You suck! Me Rock! I'm the Decider! I concluded it so, and so shall it be! You don't like my conclusions? You're all Barbarians! I don't do namecalling, except when I do! Rahrrrr!'

Did I tell you how much we LOVE having you here? You are an endless well of living, breathing, absurdity, mein Freund! Let me start up your Gas Chambers! Is the train coming? Let me check the schedule.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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

So what you're saying is...

barbarism would've been more civilized and therefore preferable to the Code of Hammurabi? And please explain how thousands of years of human aggression will vanish, and like magic, people in a stateless society will voluntarily comply with the Non-Aggression Principle?

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

So...all you're saying is you STILL HAVEN'T READ

the motherfrakking Book/Code of Hammurabi, that you invoked, and PRETENDED to have read, and yet you don't understand it??

Right???

You do know, that I actually read every single one of your 'rebuttals?'

I disagree with you, but respect you enough to actually read your reply, before rebutting. I'd expect the same courtesy, but you've already displayed that have no such intellectual honesty when you equated all AnCaps here at Daily Paul and elsewhere as FBI COINTELPRO Govt-sponsored REAL terrorists the "Black Bloc." http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2996025

Be that as it may, I shall proceed.

So what you're saying is...barbarism would've been more civilized and therefore preferable to the Code of Hammurabi?

Um, actually, YES. So WTF's your point?

LOL, no, hold your feigned indignance; an elaboration is coming:

All your above statement tells me is that you're trying to equate the maladjusted State arbitrarily adjudicating a sovereign individual under the arbitrary, non-existent, delusional, Divine-Right-of-King-To-Rule when and whom the said King and the State by proxy can or cannot to institutionally systematically kill, is MUCH MORE PREFERABLE than a single or more maladjusted individuals murdering another?

Are you seriously human? Or do you represent the Charles Manson SuperPAC?

Google "false equivalency."

Your 'logic' is premised on: 'well, hey, it's okay that the govt may make a mistake and murder an innocent, but since I pay taxes for govt to do that, and because its judicial system spreads mortal and moral liabilities among several citizens, it diminishes the nature of the 'mistake.''

Bravo, Genius. You just gave me the Nazi defense.

But seeing as how you love throwing around your personal private pseudo-neologism of "Anarcho-Barbarism," since I've already defined the classical dictionary term of what Anarchism is (without Archons, aka "ruLERS" in original Greek, not without ruLES), and since I'm a stickler for definitions, let us define the rootword "Barbarism," before we move on, shall we?

Greek word βάρβαρος barbaros. Hence the Greek idiom "πᾶς μὴ Ἕλλην βάρβαρος" (pas mē Hellēn barbaros) which literally means "whoever is not Greek is a barbarian". In ancient times, Greeks used it for the people of different cultures but also to deride other Greek tribes and states; in the early modern period and sometimes later, they used it for the Turks, in a clearly pejorative way.

Source:

^ Εκδοτική Αθηνών, ο Ελληνισμός υπό ξένη κυριαρχία: Τουρκοκρατία, Λατινοκρατία, 1980, page 34 (in Greek)
^ Justin Marozzi, The Way of Herodotus: Travels with the Man who Invented History, 2010, pages 311–315

Since you don't read, and do the YouTube Hooked-on-Phonicss substitute for illiteracy in lieu, it's obvious you're not referring to the original 'NOT-Greek = babarian' etymology, which is no different than what one warring faction have labeled to denigrate its 'enemies,' the way 'we' labeled all Germans including civilians "Krauts," Japanese "Japs," Vietnamese "Gooks," the Somalis "Skinnies," to now all Arabs MidEasterners and otherwise all Muslims "Ragheads" and "Hajiis"; you must be referring to the more pop-culture vapid vernacular of "barbarism" to mean a crude, 'savage' 'tribalistic' behavior of yore.

But it should be noted that anyone who smears others as "barbarians" speaks much more about the nature of the type of person who invokes it, than the ones he's targeting, ie. that would say much more about your pathological collectivist nature to separate others into groups, as Plato agrees as playing into the modern equivalent of a Sophist dialectic:

Plato (Statesman 262de) rejected the Greek–barbarian dichotomy as a logical absurdity on just such grounds: dividing the world into Greeks and non-Greeks told one nothing about the second group.

So let us examine the term "babaric" in modern context/semantics:

1. etymologically, A foreigner, one whose language and customs differ from the speaker's.
2. Hist. a. One not a Greek. b. One living outside the pale of the Roman empire and its civilization, applied especially to the northern nations that overthrew them. c. One outside the pale of Christian civilization. d. With the Italians of the Renascence: One of a nation outside of Italy.
3. A rude, wild, uncivilized person. b. Sometimes distinguished from savage (perh. with a glance at 2). c. Applied by the Chinese contemptuously to foreigners.
4. An uncultured person, or one who has no sympathy with literary culture.
†5. A native of Barbary. [See Barbary.] Obs. †b. A Barbary horse. Obs.[18]

The OED barbarous entry summarizes the semantic history. "The sense-development in ancient times was (with the Greeks) ‘foreign, non-Hellenic,’ later ‘outlandish, rude, brutal’; (with the Romans) ‘not Latin nor Greek,’ then ‘pertaining to those outside the Roman empire’; hence ‘uncivilized, uncultured,’ and later ‘non-Christian,’ whence ‘Saracen, heathen’; and generally ‘savage, rude, savagely cruel, inhuman.’"

What would be more barbaric?

SWAT murdering 9yo 'by accident?' and the coverup and excuses that followed? Could a private barbaric citizen do that and get away with it via tax subsidized union and an entire judicial superstructure?

Could a barbaric private citizen lie to entire nation to war, occupations, tortures, murder, then coverup, lie and get away with it?

Can a barbaric private citizen claim they have Fuhrer like powers to decide who shall live or die on his sole say so?

Can a barbaric private citizen order over 100,000 Japanese locked up in a concentration camp while hypocritically maligning (though rightfully so) the Nazis about their concentration camps, and worse, get away with it?

Is crudeness or cruelty, savagery gauged by a scalable metric? If so, by your own definition, there is not a single thing that a 'barbaric Anarchist' can ever do, that can ever match the true savagery of an a napalm, phosphorous bomb, cluster bomb, to a nuclear bomb.

So tell me again, whom throughout history has proven to be the REAL barbarians? Govt and those deemed to be in the Govt ruling class? Or your lowly armed street thug, or even Al Capone, or a Mexican Drug Cartel?

What parallel dimension did you pop in from again, Mark Hanson??

Murder, is murder is murder. But no private person, or groups of private person can EVER match the barbarism made possible by a ginormous state, or a dictator in govt.

Like Dr. Paul says over and over, "when the Govt makes a mistake it makes it for everybody!"

Worse, because govt is an institutional system, wrongful murderS committed by it, is always systematic. And like any systematic bureaucracies with their inherent momentum to constantly propagandize their legitimacy, coverups for its crimes and wrongful deaths are common place, as is the case these days.

So all you're telling me is, Govt murder is more preferable than individual murder.

Immorality is immorality, except private individuals can NEVER match the sheer scale that a 'scalable' institutionalized murder can bring.

You can gather up every single non-govt gang and mafia and drug cartels on earth, put together and ALL their murders will NEVER match the near 300MILLION to 500million (by some estimates) committed by govts worldwide in the 20th century alone. And that's NOT counting wars.

And you honestly delude govt is less barbaric?

And please explain how thousands of years of human aggression will vanish, and like magic, people in a stateless society will voluntarily comply with the Non-Aggression Principle?

I don't have to: AnCaps never claimed our philosophy will eradicate evil or willful evil humans will always be capable of.

But, your 'without govt how will humans remain civil and not kill each other!'-sentiment is certainly, typically exhibited by delusional Commie Collectivist Statist Socialists/liberals/progressives/RINOs who actually delude they can use govt to change human nature, or PREVENT it from occuring, at least.

So you're assuming govt laws prevent human evil?

Who's unicorn delusional, now?

I don't need to repeat again, that you've never researched, nor understand what any of the concepts and philosophy we're talking about here, do I?

will voluntarily comply with the Non-Aggression Principle?

But, your above statement requires that I have to hold your hand, and walk it through, anyway.

Do you notice the words you're using?

The only thing Non-Agression Principle is promoting is that YOU as a single individual, the believers of it NOT initiate force vs. another.

It doesn't ask anyone else to "comply," it doesn't suggest once a small group of believers of such philosophy live by it, it'll alchemically eradicate evil, as you seem to delude laws, as in mere words will prevent evil.

All of which again, tells me more about your own insecurity. You already have no control over what any other human will do or think. As such, you believe you MUST make others conform or "comply" with a set of behavioral 'rules' dictated by your govt betters, whom you never (s)elect, yet presume to operate under your consent. If so, I want you to name ONE, just ONE person in govt that you will consent to just one of their decisions that affect you, that you directly 'consented' to.

You can't. You know why? There's no such thing. The 'comfort' you get in knowing that somehow govt operates under YOUR CONSENT, is the same delusion that every single statist socialist liberal/RINO gun-grabbers employ when they delude that an "Assault Weapons Ban" bill will magically keep them safe.

It's all an illusion. It's faith that you have that mere words will keep a society together. You get a whole bunch of people like you, then you have a nation of sheep operating under the delusion that words are like magic: That, Mark Hanson, is the very hallmark of a statist.

Every time you reply without govt you can't be... you can't do... you won't be civilized... you're revealing to me that you're the real barbarian who feels the need to use force to make people who don't think like you to conform and comply with rules not of their making, just because you delude they gave indirect tacit consent.

But, if you're gonna make people comply, that already implies force. And how morality of justified force is measured? Under what circumstance is that person killed. Technically you can die, for not complying with a traffic ticket, because what does an actual non-compliance against an armed person making you comply to their will? Physical resistance. Unless you want to simply be tasered and cuffed. Then you're not, NOT complying then, are you.

So if an entity claims in can use up to lethal force to make you "comply" because "complying" is not voluntary, you're a slave, and not the govt's master, now are you?

And, if you think using force to make others comply with the mundane, that is the very definition of a barbarian.

So, if you delude NAP is ridiculous, then your assumption that laws and cops enforcing those laws will prevent evil is a million times more naive.

So by your logic, more gun control laws, and locking up crazies will prevent evil.

Right...how's current reality working out for you??

Here's a simple test. If you know 100 people in your circle who respect life and property, who aren't gonna commit murder, rape or kidnap, right now. The same 100 people likely WON'T suddenly murder, rape, or kidnap, once such laws making those very acts are gone.

Then you say, well what about the millions outside my 100 people circle who will? Well, how do we stop them now? When we observe aggression being committed in one's presence, you stop them by force. Which comports with NAP.

Ask yourself this, if you're at a local 7-11, an armed thug comes in to rob the clerk, and you're carrying, do you pull out your smarphone to lookup local gun laws, sentencing, lawyer fees right before you pull out your gun to stop that armed thug? NO.

"Laws" even now, only deal with how one will punish. It NEVER prevent a single crime, period. So factually, how will it be any different in a voluntaryist society.

That's like saying if we legalized all drugs from cocaine to pot tomorrow, 99% of the population will automatically become junkies.

Plus your whole carnard about voluntaryism is bunk; Self-Govt/Constitutional Republic was NEVER tried successfully, until 1776. So just because 'it has not been tried, or no current example exists' canards are intellectually dishonest.

Your presumption and all the 'rebuttals' I've seen thrown at other AnCaps here, have all been utterly naive, and vacuous in your rationale. Mark the longer you talk/write, the longer you discredit yourself.

You never read, you never research, you never understand the semantics, vernacular, diction, nor definitions involved in these discussions. Hell you NEVER EVEN READ the Code of Hammurabi that you even invoked, pretending you've actually read it, worse, comprehended it.

My boy, the longer you talk, the quicker you're revealing yourself as an empty fraud.

Yet you expect everyone else who are empirically a gazillion times more informed, as self-evident to ANYONE who's ever bothered to research and do due-diligence, watching you call AnCaps names, 'you'll go extinct!' 'you're a barbarian' is like watching a Chihuahua chew on its tail while attempting to speak English.

Honestly, strictly within the confines of Constitutionalist arguments, I frankly agree with a lot of what you have to say. Your mistake here is to pick fights with long time members who love and get along with 99% DailyPaul members from ALL strains of Freedom philosophy from Christian Miliamen, Paleo-Conservatives, constructionist Constituionalists, Libertarians, libertarians, Minarchists, Anarcho-Capitalists, Voluntaryists and Agorists, etc.

You're the new kid on the block, yet you acted like a dick and assumed you've earned respect enough by simply showing up and decided it was simply hunky dory to pick unnecessary fights. Worse, it'd be one thing if you unequivocally understood, at least objectively intellectually proper word definitions, terms, and legalese, and philosophy, and history. But, clearly you've displayed over and over that you haven't. And you're honestly surprised that people don't like you, or when you treat others like dick, and they return the favor, you're actually incredulous?

Get a grip, get over yourself.

Drink be merry, and we can party.

Till then, get busy reading Code of Hammurabi, because I'm gonna test ya.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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, I've never once mentioned...

the phrase, "FBI COINTELPRO GOV'T-sponsored REAL terrorists the "Black Bloc". Never, not once, nothing even close. So I certainly haven't compared all anarchists to whatever that means. So like I've advised before, just relax, take a deep breath, and meditate on your Non-Aggression Principle.

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

so... you still haven't read the Code of Hammurabi?

Okay.

and... you still don't know the dictionary definition nor Greek etymology of "barbarism," eh??

LOLOLOL

So...these aren't the droids you're looking for?
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2996025

Your own words:

I guess wearing black masks and breaking windows was so successful they think juvenile delinqency will work on the net.

You mean you know nozing! nozing!

LOLOLOL!!!!

No, you definitely do not know just WTF you're talking about. The description that you gave me above, is the literal MSM propagandized image of an 'Anarchist' who are run by the FBI COINTELPRO: the "Black Bloc."

The fact you didn't 'get' that reference, tells me that you're either feigning ignorance, or worse, you really have no clue who they are, or what real 'anarchism' is. I've been reading your posts for awhile now; don't lie: it wasn't until recently where someone pointed out to you that Anarchism means without Rulers, not without rules, that you reiterated in a completely separate thread replying rebutting another AnCap pretending you've always known the difference.

The fact that you thought NAP requires 'compliance' tells me that you don't comprehend NAP: it's simply the Golden Rule. Capice?

Why do you make everything so hard Mark, and requiring me to be rather verbose? LOL

You're killing me! Like watching Faux News, but better!
seriously, dude, how old are you and what planet are you from??

I tell you what, why don't you demonstrate that you actually know what you're critiquing then perhaps I won't have to be bemused by your non sequitur answers!

And really, while I don't mind, as you can see, dear Mr. Mark 'I love Black Bloc terrorists' Hanson, why don't you take a chill pill and lay off other AnCaps who've never bothered you?

Mark just be honest. You love the Constitution. (I can respect you for that) But you simply don't 'get' anarchism. In fact, you viscerally fear it, as if it'll poison impressionable mind of anyone coming across it. You see it as a moral disease that needed to be routed out.

Yet...all it really comes down to is, your irrational statist collectivist self derived simple fear, of the unknown.

You just don't 'get' it. And, you don't want to 'get' it.

It'll just be easier for you, if you didn't pretend to know everything you've never read/comprehend, with people who actually DO know what they're talking about.

Why do you put yourself through this Mark?

I just never met anyone who work so hard at a voluntarily joined forum, to be so despised, on purpose.

That's okay Mark. The Sun will always come up. There will be another day. Love is in the air. Go for it...somewhere. Get laid, breathe, get your frustrations out. Hell, find yourself a wild AnCap chick. Perhaps that's all you need; well dudes always do crazy sh8t for fine pussy. Perhaps that's all it'll take for you, to be 'convinced.'

LOLOLOL

Now git huntin'

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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

Have you ever created

Have you ever created something? Think of something you've created; a bookcase, a work of art, perhaps a computer program? Well what was the first step in producing your creation? Imagination.

Well I can imagine a society where actions are voluntary, where there is no need for a coercive rule making authority because the vast majority of the members of the society respect human rights and because the society has invented non governmental ways of dealing with those who don't play nice. Such a society IS possible, IMO.

Now I'm also a realist, and I admit that we are a far cry from such a society. I believe that the chances of seeing such a society in my lifetime (I'm 57) are nil, in my 30 something children's lifetimes extremely unlikely, and in my granddaughter's lifetime highly unlikely.

But that doesn't mean that such a society is impossible and that it shouldn't be held to as the end goal - the ultimate human society, and the experiences of the past do not mean that a different future is impossible.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Imagination is what led the...

ancient Greeks and Romans, Enlightenment philosophers, and U.S. founders to create a system of rights and limited government to secure those rights. But I can't equate Alice in anarcho-Wonderland with imagining a rational goal. To me, anarchism is on it's face irrational, and the unwillingness of most anarchists to admit there are fundamental contradictions in their arguments, leads me to believe they're not honest. Just take the Ron Paul issue. If RP is an anarchist, he's been deceiving most of his supporters who would never support an anarchist, including me. But anarchists seem to condone lying by their fearless leader as a legitimate means to an end. So why should I believe anything anarchists say?

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

Have you ever asked yourself

Have you ever asked yourself why you feel that you are unable to live with others without rulers? Why you need rulers? Why you can't even imagine living in a society of rights respecting people, without rulers?

You simply appear to have a lack of imagination. Sorry, can't cure that for you.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Again, do not try to explain what you clearly do not understand.

If you would ever like to learn what anarchists think, you will have to listen to them. Individually. We do not have a "group" nor a "platform" or even a "club." We are people who embrace self governance. Beyond that, we have very little in common. To decide you know what motivates an entire segment of the population when you cannot articulate the most basic premises correctly really makes you look bad.
What are YOU? Speak of what you know, try to win others to your way of thinking by speaking in positives about what you do and the people you associate with. You will never make anything in the world any better by spewing hatred, fear and disinformation. You will merely discredit yourself.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I provided links to my sources...

in a comment below, and those links demonstrate that I've been listening to anarchists, individually, and we're going to have to agree to disagree. But according to anarchist thought police like you, I'm not supposed to talk about my opinions of anarchism because if I knew what I was talking about, I would agree with anarchists. Right? So take some time and check out my sources before suggesting that I haven't made an attempt to listen to, and understand anarchists.

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

i'm a bit confused

with the argument that the tyrants want to set up a system of anarcho-barbarism. it's my understanding that the tyrants want one world government. which, in my mind, is more akin to socialism or communism. in other words, complete state control over every aspect on the globe. i'm confused as to how that is viewed as anarchy. which, from what i understand it to be, is the absence of the state.

No need to be confused...

because anarcho-barbarism will be implemented after global government collapses, which is what most anarchists say they want.

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

I take serious exception to this:

The anarchists that have infested DP are terrified by the notion of equality before the law

That is categorically false and it also seems like an attack on anarchism which I happen to support in large part due to that is pretty much our form of government. If people actually took the time to read the constitution they would realize the path to peaceful anarchy is through enforcing that document.

Sadly though... most of those who support anarchy as a viable societal structure have either never read the constitution or have just glazed over parts of it.

To hear my debate of "Anarchy vs Constitutional government" you can take a listen here:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=1...

I take the constitutional side of the debate. A fellow DPer plays the anarchy role.

Do you include the Bill of Rights when you say...

"the path to peaceful anarchy is through enforcing [the Constitution]"? Furthermore, you're saying enforcement leads to anarchy. But anarchists say force and the resulting coercion is antithetical to anarchism.

Previous question aside, are you saying anarchy, which is a stateless society, can be achieved by instituting a Constitutional State? The bizarre nature of arguments put forth by supporters of anarchy are unbelievable, literally unbelievable. This is a prime example of anarchist tactics, i.e., attempt to break down all accepted definitions as a means to break down the fundamental agreements underlying civil society.

Vinceableworld, you reference the debate "Anarchy vs. Constitutional government" which implies a difference between the two. And you even say you took the "constitutional side". This contradicts you're previous assertion that "the peaceful path to anarchy is through enforcing that document [the Constitution]. So which is it, the Constitution and anarchy are the same, or as the debate suggests, there is a difference?

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

The Bill of Rights was written to explicitly limit federal power

So how is it possible to violate it in the absence of a federal government?

I didn't say the....

Bill of Rights could be violated in the absence of the Federal gov't so I'm not sure what your point is.

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

Please provide ONE SOURCE for what "anarchists say."

I did not know there was a home page where official proclamations were issued. Or maybe you heard AN anarchist say something and YOU decided that is what "all anarchists" say?
Just stop, Hansen. Agree to disagree, get over yourself.
Here is your quote:
"But anarchists say force and the resulting coercion is antithetical to anarchism."
Please source it, or stop making ridiculous and unfounded claims. I'll even grant your that non-aggression is one of the shared values of every anarchist I know, but I do not know of ANY source that claims to speak for "anarchists." Except you.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I'll gladly provide my sources.

I've recently been exchanging comments with anarchists at the following links:

http://www.dailypaul.com/277482
http://www.dailypaul.com/277248

And about a week ago I posted a topic on anarchism, but Mr. Nystrom warned me about linking to my own posts because it's spam. So in my signature line, click on the link to "Rand Paul: One person can make a difference". That post contains a link to my topic on anarchism, which has nearly 900 comments, most of them from anarchists, and you'll find that their comments reflect the assertions I've made here regarding anarchism.

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

I found a much more interesting link to click.

Your name. It shows me that you have been here a few hours over 26 days, and that almost everything you post is inflammatory toward "anarchists."
Thanks for all the good bumping you have done, you are now the proud owner of slot number four on my "blocked" list. I don't play with trolls.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I'm sorry you feel that way, really...

but I'm not surprised because anarchists seem quite sensitive. Apparently, trying to have a rational discussion about what I consider to be contradictions in the anarchist ideology, is considered inflammatory. But rather than attribute this to anarcho-sensitivity, the more likely explanation is that anarchists want to censor those who think their ideology is irrational, thus the claim that I'm inflammatory.

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

More dimensions

I listened both to the posted Greenwald talk and your "Anarchy vs Constitutional government".

I am far to the "left" of even your position, but still I find much that I agree with and find interesting here on DP. (I am Swedish btw).

I think it is interesting that there are more dimensions than two parties or left/right. In the latest few days there have been postings where people that are from all over on the left <-> right dimension and still agree on a number of very important issues. That is a very good starting point for a better future.

I presume that many here still dismiss not only Chomsky, Ellsberg but also Greenwald as a damn communists. If you listen carefully Greenwald says something like a person as weird as Rand Paul.

Gnome Chumpsky, Daniel Ellsberg and...

others on the left (and right) are very good at playing both sides of liberty and tyranny. The whole purpose of the left/right paradigm is to divide and conquer by preventing people from being open to good ideas from both sides, thereby preventing citizens from coming up with workable solutions. Most of what the Gnome says is very important, but don't get chumped by his socialist fascist solutions. While in his 20's, the Gnome lived in Israel and supported the removal of legitimate Palestinian landowners, which led to the current socialist fascist regime that runs Israel.

I put up a post on Daniel Ellsberg's position that NDAA constitutes an impeachable offense but don't support many of his other ideas.

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

ignore him

he actually deludes all AnCaps/Agorists/Voluntaryists are the same FBI COINTELPRO "Black Bloc" terrorists.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2996025

He's on a personal crusade to purge DP of all AnCaps, even though he's only been here about a month.

I break out a bag of popcorn every time he cuts and pastes the same sh*t over and over and over and over and over and over. LOL.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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 have no delusions about ridding...

DP of anarchists. I wouldn't if I could because I believe in the anarchist's right to free speech. And I voluntarily give my consent to a Constitutional gov't that uses taxes to defend the anarchist's right to free speech.

Besides, there's no need to rid DP of anarchists because like all weak links, they're destined for extinction.

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

I'm sorry, I heard a bark,

didn't want to kick the cute little Chihuahua.

I love feeding its bits and twits, twigs that pats a pits.

"I have no delusions about ridding DP of anarchists."

- no, that's because you're simply deluded; the mere fact that you actually 'think' that proven FBI COINTELPRO group the "Black Bloc" is your idea of what an "anarchist" or in DP context AnCaps, should plainly tell all someone forgot to pick you back up from the neoCon Special Yellow Schoolbus intervention route stop.

"And I voluntarily give my consent to a Constitutional gov't that uses taxes to defend the anarchist's right to free speech."

- That would be Exhibit A) collectivist statist Cognitive Dissonance.

Your Delusion 1: nobody voluntarily consents to be voluntarily taxed. It's theft and taken by force, whether you 'consent' or not. Particularly the income tax, it's PLAINLY UnConstitutional: it's unapportioned.

Just try not paying it; find out how 'consensual' it is. Then tell me what your new cellmates and REAL freedom fighters/govt terrorist victims and not some annoying DP keyboard jockey: Ed and Elaine Brown would tell you.

Seriously, were you like born in the 1940's where every gullible American blindly believed in the 'goodness' of FDR's 'infallible govt'?

Your Delusion 2: So 'my rights' are only "rights" when they can be defended by the same thugs who'll infringe upon those very rights at the point of a gun?

Hold up, you actually delude govt defends my rights? Seriously? NO really, Mr.Mark 'closet L v.R false paradigm stuck-liberal' Hanson?

"Rights" are not rights if they require taxes to defend it. Capice? You had a right to live, defend yourself, before and after the Constitution. Just like how the 2nd Amendment merely guarantees and codifies the PRE-Constitution, pre-existent universal natural right of self-defense and telling the govt to DO NOT INFRINGE upon it (not that it follows it), the 1st Amendment also merely codified to guarantee the PRE-Constitution natural right of speech, thought, expression and specifically forbids the Fed. Gvt from infringing it.

See a pattern?

You truly have ZERO idea what you're talking about.

"Besides, there's no need to rid DP of anarchists because like all weak links, they're destined for extinction."

Besides, there's no need to rid DP of Mark Hanson because like all weak links, they're destined for extinction.

Yeah...I know, right? Just as brilliant, when you simply plug in a different name, an oBUSHma statist sockpuppet, at that.

Besides, do you even 'hear'/read yourself? You just admitted in your above proclamation that to not extinct, you'd have to be someone who loves govt and loves to live under its thumbs by 'voluntarily' funding it to protect yourself from... it. Your statement clearly concludes that your idea of being 'strong' and not go extinct, you need the nanny state govt.

You know what we call that around here? A Commie Statist Collectivist. Thanks for finally admitting it. You probably have an altar dedicated to Lincoln and FDR, too.

I can smell the retched incense of statist altar all over you, well virtually. lol.

Mark, just face and admit it: you're simply a commie collectivist socialist hiding behind RP, DP, and love to wrap yourself in the Constitution while mounting a quixotic crusade to purge AnCaps here, fruitlessly. You do know we've been here for YEARS, so don't you think you're the one in the wrong forum??

Besides, I've got a few more slots to fulfill on my daily quota, you may proceed, my dear Mark'I love Black Bloc FBI COINTELPRO'Hanson.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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, if U.S. media banned all...

speech pertaining to anarchism/voluntarism, or any other euphemism for barbarism, most ancaps would be demanding that the State funded judicial system be used to secure anarchists right to free speech. And I would support this judicial process because that's the same process that secures my rights.

And I don't know a single advocate for limited Constitutional government that doesn't think current U.S. tax schemes equate to theft. But other than advocates for anarchism, I don't know of a single advocate for limited gov't that doesn't agree it requires a limited power to tax.

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

before I answer all that.

when was the last time that you actually read any AnCap literature? Vids? Treatise?

No scratch that.

I want you to define, in your own words what Anarchism is, how many variations of it you're familiar with.

Because frankly, the fact that you have no clue who Black Bloc anarchists were, and every time you 'rebut' an AnCap, it's hard not envisioning you imagining all AnCaps as Black Bloc wearing black bandanas with molotov cocktail in hand.

Then, you can answer for yourself how utterly ridiculous all your assumptions about, if I say A, then the Anarchists MUST believe B.

Circle, circle, spin cyle 5.

go on.

By the way, you never read the Book/Code of Hammurabi, did you?

I want debate dance partners, but not a lazy one. Read, then we talk, umkay? Until then, you're nothing but a closet Stalinist Commie Collectivist Statist hiding, cowering behind RP, DP and the Constitution, the greatest minarchist document ever humanly devised.

Until you can intelligently define what Anarchism is, in your own words, you'll simply be Mark "I love FBI COINTELPRO Black Bloc Terrorists" Hanson, to me.

Now git!

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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 think your first priority should be...

herding all the anarchist cats together and getting them to agree on a definition of anarchy. Good luck with that!

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

Everybody needs to watch this

Everybody needs to watch this speech.

The main point Greenwald makes here is a critical one to the potential growth of the liberty movement; it is the uneven application of the rule of law (the demonstrable fact that the power elite are increasingly immune to the rule of law) that is leading the country into tyranny.

Because we (the hoi polloi) know that the power elite can act with impunity, we, quite rationally, fear them.

This is not consistent with liberty. The government should fear us, not the other way around.

This is the chord that Rand struck last week. He dared to challenge the idea that the power elite can ignore the rule of law.

This is the common thread, the meeting point of the principled left with the principled right.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I've Read Greenwald Many Times But Never Before Heard Him Speak

This is a moving speech.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard