Blog

Purchase the recordings of all the Peter Mac Shows since the beginning for one low price! Just $25.00. Here’s how. You send us a hard drive with a capacity of at least 100 GB. Alternatively, we can purchase a hard drive for you. We’ll copy all the Peter Mac Shows that we have dating back to the very first show in November 2001 with Larken Rose to the hard drive you supply or the one we purchase for you. We’ll mail the hard drive back to you using whichever carrier you prefer for the cost of postage plus $25.00 (in the case where you provide the hard drive) or postage plus $25.00 plus the cost of the new hard drive. There are over 175 shows in all. That means you can have every show we have for the insanely low price of about 14 cents per show! Contact This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it if you have any questions.

“This collection of archives from the Peter Mac Show is absolutely brilliant and life changing. A person who has logic and critical thinking will be delighted to finally hear another person espouse the same views. By listening to this collection a person will find that anarchism is a viable alternative to statism.These shows provide a clear and concise education in taxation, the state, anarchism, freedom, war, and numerous other topics contrasting the statist position, the view of limited government, and finally the anarchist point of view.

“The information contained in these shows is thought provoking and a challenge to dogma. These shows pick apart commonly held fallacies and belief systems that are the norm and provide an alternative way of thinking about the problems that plague society today.

“After listening to these shows a person will learn what the anarchist’s philosophy is all about. What it is and what it is not. A person cannot receive this type of education in the government school systems. It isn’t taught by those who control what a person is allowed to learn. After listening to all these shows I am confident you will never see things in the same light again."

-- TM-colorado

Americans are used to hearing stories about violent men. The nightly news regularly carries reports of murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, assault, child molestation and sexual assault. Once in a great while such reports are about a woman who is involved in such a crime, and even then she is often an accomplice to a man. According to the FBI's Crime in the United States 2004 Uniform Crime Report, women committed 7.1% of the murders that year. On average, women "account for 14% of violent offenders," according to the Department of Justice*. When one thinks about violent crimes, what image comes to mind? Is the person committing the crime using his own hand or body, whether to fire a weapon, stab with a knife, beat someone with a blunt object, or force himself sexually on a defenseless woman? The criminal who has multiple victims, like the infamous serial killers Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, or mass murderer Timothy McVeigh are sensationalized through movies and documentaries. But in terms of the number of victims, personally committed crimes pale in comparison to those ordered or promoted by heads of state, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Saddam Hussein.

However, violence sanctioned by the head or ruling party of a government may only involve bloodshed and physical pain if one resists. As long as the people under subjugation comply with the leaders' wishes, violence seldom has to be inflicted. The threat of violence is usually sufficient to encourage almost complete obedience. While the threat is omni-present, most people rarely stop to think about it. If the people of a country become so used to following the orders of the few at the top, only a small number may realize that control manifests itself through threats of actual violence. Once the government passes a law, no matter how arcane or silly, the masses feel obliged to obey. Such obedience, of course, is always backed up by the threat of violence and that threat must be made real against at least some of the violators. That is, violators must have their property seized (by violence if they resist), or their persons jailed (by violence if they resist). In fact, if a violator of the supposed crime resists sufficiently, he or she will be killed. This is true regardless of whether the "crime" involved any harm or threat of harm to anyone. Consider all the so-called crimes in the U.S., such as not paying taxes, prostitution, drug use, or insider trading, to name just a few. These amount to the following: a government, i.e. a bunch of human beings, often given power through a democratic process, decide that if certain rules are violated, a crime is committed even though everyone knows that it involves no physical harm to anyone and threatens no one's property.

Recently, the House of Representatives, under the guidance of Nancy Pelosi, The Speaker of the House, passed a health care bill. One provision of this bill requires that Americans meeting certain conditions must purchase health insurance for themselves. The penalty for failure is jail or a fine, or both. It goes without stating so directly in the bill that anyone found guilty of this so-called crime and who resists, will be killed if necessary. The sequence could unfold like this: Person X meets the conditions requiring him or her to purchase health insurance as stated in the law (if the bill becomes law); person X refuses to buy insurance; person X is charged with a crime; person X is found guilty in a courtroom; person X tries to flee by using his physical might and directs violence at AND ONLY AT his would-be captors. Finally, person X is killed by his would-be captors, ultimately because he (a) refused to buy health insurance and (b) refused to give up his freedom. This is the bill that Pelosi smiled about as it passed 220 to 215. Ms. Pelosi, along with those who voted for the bill, is knowingly threatening the kind of violence that would ensue for any person X described above. She is the most influential female in the United States Congress and made every effort to get this bill passed. In terms of the sheer number of people who will be forced through threat of violence to adhere to this (should it become) law to avoid the fate of any person X above, Ms. Pelosi is the most violent woman in America.

* http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Binswanger's article "Anarchism Vs. Objectivism" was written more than 29 years ago, so one cannot know what he still believes. Since many current Objectivists hold the same or nearly the same views as he expressed in 1981, those ideas are critically examined here.

For the sake of clarity, I will use the term "anarchy" to denote the social system in which initiation of force is prohibited for everyone. That is, one (anyone) may use force in self-defense, defense of himself or herself or their property or the self or property of another person, but only when said self or property is attacked or threatened with physical harm. Binswanger seems to be using this definition in the beginning of his article, but near the end, ascribes other attributes to anarchists that I don't share, e.g. "The real target of the anarchist's attack is objectivity." Certainly there may be people who call themselves anarchists who include in that term beliefs that I don't share, just as there are people who call themselves Objectivists who disagree on what Ayn Rand said or meant in particular writings of hers.

Binswanger writes:

"A proper government is restricted to the protection of individual rights against violation by force or threat of force. A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework, from its constitution down to its narrowest rules and ordinances. Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a 'right' to 'compete' with the government -- i.e. to act as judge jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a 'right' by joining with others to go into the business of wielding force.

"To carry out its function of protecting individual rights, the government must forcibly bar others from using force in ways that threaten citizens' rights. Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision."

[Binswanger, 1981, HBL]

Notice that Binswanger doesn't tell us how this so-called proper government gets established. Is it by coup, by democratic elections, by dictator seizing control and declaring, "I have established a proper government?" Presumably Binswanger would oppose someone or some group using overt force to obtain power. That leaves the possibility that this "proper" government was established by democratic elections. But a democratic election is simply one in which group A, which outnumbers group B (and C, D, etc.), puts its candidates in office to wield power. By what right is group A allowed to do this? Surely a group does not gain rights by outnumbering another group. In fact, Binswanger admits this when he says, "Nor does one gain such a 'right' by joining with others to go into the business of wielding force." Therefore any claim by one group that its candidates have been duly elected to office (or put in office any other way) and therefore are authorized to take actions that ordinary citizens are not allowed, violates this principle: Rights belong only to individuals, not groups, and do not accrue by virtue of the number of people claiming them.

Much of the rest of Binswanger's article is laced with other self-contradictions and a tirade against imagined bogeymen and chaos that would result from the absence of government. He says, "The attempt to invoke individual rights to justify 'competing' with the government collapses at first attempt to concretize what it would mean in reality. Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by police, the leader of the band announces: ' Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.' According to the 'libertarian' anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade." A private police force is only morally bound to withdraw if there is no objective threat to anyone. On the other hand, what if the band of people marching down the street is actually the government police or military, declaring the right to enter people's homes and seizes their guns? This is, of course, exactly what happened in New Orleans after the Katrina hurricane. We have over 200 years' experience of the use of growing arbitrary force by the United States government in almost every sphere of Americans' daily lives. So there is overwhelming empirical evidence for the use of arbitrary force on the side of government and Binswanger cites none for supporting his illustration.

"There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force AND (emphasis added) delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement," states Binswanger. He gets it half right. Everyone should denounce the use of physical force. But that in no way obligates them to delegate their right of self-defense to another entity, governmental or not. Furthermore, the fact that some people may choose to delegate their right to self-defense to, say, a private police force, in no way obligates the others in society to do the same. Binswanger wants to at once renounce the use of physical force and then immediately deny people (using force!) the right to self-defense or self-chosen defense. Logically, he can't have it both ways.

Finally, Binswanger claims that dispute resolution cannot possibly be done fairly or effectively absent a government in the role of final arbiter: "The most twisted evasion of the 'libertarian' anarchists in this context is their view that disputes concerning rights could be settled by 'competition' among private force-wielders on the 'free market.'" Again, the overwhelming evidence is against him. Many private civil disputes today are solved through non-legally enforced arbitration. Private dispute resolution organizations -- DRO's as Stefan Molyneux has discussed -- would have to constantly prove their effectiveness and fairness or go out of business. The court system in the United States today at every level is notoriously ineffective and expensive. Even in criminal cases, the court system isn't so concerned about the victim and restoring, if possible, his or her rights, but rather in punishing the criminal -- often in ways that are counterproductive for both him and society.

In summary, no one can claim that one entity has a right to a monopoly in providing law enforcement, defense, civil dispute resolution, or criminal apprehension and, at the same time, that no one can initiate force against others. Such a claim is -- to use Binswanger's own words -- a "self-defeating contradiction."

"Obama's speech reminds me of President Kennedy's famous line: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The implicit message is: education is mainly for improving the country. He said, "I want to talk with you about education and what's expected of you all in this new school year." Whose expectations are we talking about? Apparently Obama's himself: "We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so that you can solve our most difficult problems. If you don't do that -- if you quit on school -- you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country." And, near the end of his speech he says, "I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down -- don't let your family or your country or yourself down." Obama is very good at blurring rhetoric encouraging self-improvement with the subtle message that your life is really not your own, but that of the state."