SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy

Friday
May 16, 2003

Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy by Chris Matthew Sciabarra

"The tree of liberty," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." And so, when I saw those startling images of a liberated Iraq-those first photos of fellow New Yorker, Major David "Bull" Guerfin of the U.S. Marines, ripping down the poster of Saddam Hussein in Safwan or that riveting footage of fellow Brooklynite, Marine Cpl. Edward Chin, helping jubilant Iraqis in Baghdad's Firdos Square to topple Hussein's 20-foot statue-it seemed to me that Jefferson's remark was as true as ever. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (90 messages)

Post 80

Friday, June 27, 2003 - 2:01pm

Link

Edit

Still, the Silber analysis seems to veer towards the conspiracy theory viewpoint: “I’m not convinced that defense is at stake so there must be some other motive”. It just may be that the American people are convinced that this is a defense imperative. The motive may or may not be justified – but it may still be the motive.

I have no problem with the analysis of the politics of a mixed economy. Such forces must necessarily exist. But to say our military actions are corporatist/fascist in origin begs the question. It assumes that there is no threat. Once the latter is determined, nothing else is required for our policy decision. Will the foreign threat be exploited for corrupt gain? Of course! I’d go further and say that the mixed economy at home necessitates a corrupt economic international policy (and I believe Silber ends with this conclusion). Yet, we can’t let that stop us from defending ourselves. The hidden or not so hidden motives of operatives within the unholy alliance of government and business are not what drive public support.

Let’s review recent history. Up until the last month before the Iraq War, the issue was Iraq’s threat and Iraq’s failure, as a defeated nation, to give the assurances that she had no WMD. Regime change became a public policy only after UN inspections were deemed irrelevant – about a month before the war. In case you don’t remember, in the days before the war, polls started to show that the public viewed the prospects of further delays as a negative reflection on the President’s leadership. Was Bush leading the nation or following? I’d argue the latter but it would take several paragraphs. I believe that he is doing the minimum that the public expects.

Remember Rand’s dual critique and policy recommendation concerning Vietnam. She said if someone advocated a totally consistent foreign policy based on self-interest, then we could withdraw from Vietnam without undermining long-term defense needs or sending a message of appeasement – but such an advocate wasn’t possible in the culture at the time. In light of the attacks on America, the frenzy of anti-American irrational hate pounded into mid-eastern minds by dictatorial governments and Islamic leaders, and the past policies of appeasement (which I haven’t talked about), there is little choice – and the public shares that viewpoint. I’m not claiming the target should be Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria or Egypt. Also, I’m not claiming it should be an invasion, covert operations, boycotts, fermenting revolution and/or strategic withdrawals. The public, also, is not wedded to the form of a forceful response. But to step back now would be taken as a sign of weakness by the enemy and us.

In summary, the Silber/Sciabarra analysis properly shows the extent that our policy falls short of the ideal and the harm that that causes, but fails to handle the contextual requirements given the real alternatives currently available. (When was the last time someone said you weren’t contextual enough? ;)

Post 81

Friday, June 27, 2003 - 3:46pm

Link

Edit

I suspect we'll have agree to disagree...

But ask yourself a single question: If somebody in power decided to scale back government intervention in the economy or to eliminate sodomy laws or affirmative action, but their arguments were generally inconsistent, would you stand up and say: "No, we can't reduce the role of government ~this way~ because we're not providing the proper principles to justify such reduction"?

Truth is, if you ~didn't~ support scaling back government, you'd only be providing an apologia for continuing such intervention.

At some point, you have to stand up and say: Enough. Especially when "enough" is a matter of life and death.

Fortunately, there are Objectivists for whom "Enough" means a complete revolution in the way things are. Yes, of course, we have to pay attention to the context that currently exists. But that's no excuse for not trying to ~change~ that context fundamentally.

We heard from the pro-war side for months about the links between Hussein and Al Qaeda, about the imminent threat of bio, chemical and radiological weapons, and so forth. So far, no link has been found, and the weapons are nowhere to be seen. And even if they are found, the question remains: Just how ~imminent~ was this threat? What neoconservative "bill of goods" were the American people actually sold?

I fear that the answer is that Americans themselves have become the "useful idiots" for a folly that is just beginning.

Post 82

Monday, June 30, 2003 - 5:11am

Link

Edit

Your question is a good one: should we back doing the right thing if it is done for the wrong reason? I don’t think there is a general answer. It depends: does the acquisition of short-term gains, by dubious means and premises, threaten long them gains? I’m sure you’ll agree that the ends don’t justify the means; but as you hint, in dire circumstances, we must focus on the immediate problem. Unlike the orthodox Objectivists, I’m not as skeptical of joining forces with libertarians, conservatives and even liberals (some of my best friends …).

I wish other Objectivist/libertarian "hawks" would join this debate; I saw your invitation on the other thread. The Silber/Sciabarra viewpoint(s) bring up important matters that aren’t being fully considered by the Objectivist community. (C’mon you people reading these posts – jump in.)

Finally, you still seem focused on Iraq when I’d focus the discussion on Islamism in the Arab world. It may be that Iraq turns out to be a strategic step (by design or accident) in the regional war against another (or wider) enemy. If the Wahhabi Muslims and Iranian theocrats are the main targets, we may have started with #4 on the list of enemies as a prelude to military or hegemonic means of dealing with our main targets. This may be a prudent step in the wider war, or it may be an unnecessary detour influenced by the forces that you and Silber describe.

In any case, it sounds like we are on different tracks concerning an analysis of the threat we face. We may have to agree to disagree.

Post 83

Monday, June 30, 2003 - 6:15am

Link

Edit

Indeed, we may have to agree to disagree; I actually have something to say ~precisely~ about this in my post here.

In the end, folks, I do think we fight for the same fundamental values. And, in my article, I don't consider myself to be among those who argue, a priori, that the U.S. has no right to defend itself because it is "imperfect" by laissez-faire capitalist standards. As Rick suggests here, there are immediate problems to focus on--and if one does not focus on such immediate problems, then one faces extinction, and all the other questions are academic.

That's why I've not said, a priori, that the U.S. government, imperfect though it is, has no right to defends its citizens. I supported U.S. engagement in Afghanistan (though I am, today, ~very~ critical of the policy of enriching despicable warlords and former Taliban officials for the purpose of creating "stability" in that country). I support the ongoing war against Al Qaeda---and would support commando raids on any and all Al Qaeda bases being operated, no matter where they might be.

But I still think that the strategy here requires a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, precisely because the Islamic world is not an undifferentiated whole.

The U.S. opposed both the Soviet Union and Communist China during the Cold War; but it also learned to exploit the Sino-Soviet antagonism, which is why Russia and China never joined forces to destroy the United States.

I'd suggest that viewing the Islamic world as an undifferentiated whole entails the same strategic mistake. Islamic tyrannies and the people who support them in the Middle East are at war ~with one another~. That's why every strategic move in that region requires careful attention to the broader conflicts. It's also why getting into the business of supporting one despot over another always comes back to haunt this country---and the innocents who are murdered on days like September 11th.

Chris

Post 84

Monday, June 30, 2003 - 3:17pm

Link

Edit

I have a thought.
Ayn Rand compiled her philosophy and presented it to the world, allowing people to freely accept or deny what she stated, in clear, uncompromising words. Rand didn't march into homes and force her philosophy on ~anyone~. Perhaps the way to stabilizing the Middle East (or Eastern civilization altogether) lies not in bombs that are dropped for suspicious reasons, or economic sanctions that will drain the lifeblood of ~any~ reform or revolution: hope.

Our gun to the head of mullahs and shahs in Iran and Iraq, warlords in Africa, and a dictator in North Korea won't appease them, certainly.

It will not stop them either. What do they have to lose? What ~aren't~ they willing to do, in order to maintain their hold?

Only the people within a given geographic region being oppressed have the right to revolt ~with direct force~ against the oppressor.

However, it seems completely moral to me that we should: drop leaflets, import texts, broadcast radio and television programs...send friggin carrier pigeons with messages of freedom attached to their legs! Import knowledge to the repressed, or the plain ignorant. Show them our way is better in ALL ways, not just the way we kill people. (BTW, I fully advocate killing or otherwise fucking-up those who harm our nation...it used to be my job.)

I realize it sounds mushy and "kumbya"-ish (sp) to say we should inform and not evicerate. But this is our philosophy! Our foriegn policy should be, "We will ~teach~ you and trade with you, but do not touch us, lest ye be touched back tenfold."
"Foreign policy should an extension of our philosophy, not an exception to it." (Can't remember where I heard that!)

I realize "Eastern" peoples are normally outright hostile to Western ideals, but ~ours is the RIGHT way~. While we cannot force it down their throats like a pill that will do them good in the end--but choke on today--we can still inform. Drop old math and science books, a few million copies of the US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence and Emancipation proclamation...throw in a few copies of Atlas, just for kicks.

I guarantee this will cost us less as taxpayers, and just might not make us mortal enemies of little children the world over, who find a random mullah someday that tells them to blow themselves up in Jerusalem, because their village got the BeJesus bombed out of it.

There are other things we ~must~ do as well, but if the East and West are ever to live in peace, the East must die and become part of the West. We can't--and shouldn't, yet-- kill them all...there's too many, and they are still human beings. The West must win...not in the methods of Greece versus Persia--bloody intercontinental war--but in the method of Truth.

We all could agree that given information, desire, and hope, an oppressed people rapidly become a free people. It's basically up to the oppressed to decide their level of freedom. All we can do is give them the tools.

Umm..yeah...so I guess this all means I'm against current US foriegn policy, even though it sometimes gets good ~results~. Apologies if I'm being too general.

J

Post 85

Monday, June 30, 2003 - 3:39pm

Link

Edit

:Chris Sciabarra- And, in my article, I don't consider myself to be among those who argue, a priori, that the U.S. has no right to defend itself because it is "imperfect" by laissez-faire capitalist standards.

David Tomlin- Chris, would you give some links to people making such an argument? I don't believe anyone has. I think this is nothing but a strawman.

Post 86

Monday, June 30, 2003 - 4:10pm

Link

Edit

First, Jeremy... I LIKE "Kumbaya"---even if it is not always effective as a strategy. The truth is, in the long run, this ~is~ a battle for ideas, and it is only ideas that will win it.

Second, David, my comment was provoked by a point that Lindsay Perigo has made that people who argue that the US is imperfect make the rationalist claim that it should, therefore, ~not~ act in the world until it ~is~ perfect. There are, in actuality, very ~few~ people who adhere to this commitment. I have argued with a few people on ~closed~ lists (and I'm therefore unable to provide links), mainly of an anarchist persuasion, who argue in essence, that the U.S. government has ~no~ right to do ~anything~ in response to anything. But such anarchists basically dismiss ~all~ governments as illegitimate.

Let's just say that I'm not an anarchist. I have some ~real~ "anarchist" sentiments on a lot of issues, and I think the anarchists can be rather persuasive in their criticisms of minarchy (just as I think the minarchists can be rather persuasive in their criticisms of anarchy). But when "push comes to shove," I don't believe that all governments are created equal. I do have a sense of proportion.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 87

Tuesday, July 1, 2003 - 1:49pm

Link

Edit

Chris Sciabarra- Second, David, my comment was provoked by a point that Lindsay Perigo has made that people who argue that the US is imperfect make the rationalist claim that it should, therefore, ~not~ act in the world until it ~is~ perfect.

David Tomlin- When I first read your article, I marvelled at the respectful attention you gave to Perigo's silly screed. Perigo swings at strawman after strawman. Clearly he never made the slightest effort to understand the arguments he caricatures.

Chris Sciabarra- I have argued with a few people on ~closed~ lists (and I'm therefore unable to provide links), mainly of an anarchist persuasion, who argue in essence, that the U.S. government has ~no~ right to do ~anything~ in response to anything.

David Tomlin- That's different from saying that the people of the U.S. have no right to act in their own defense, individually or in voluntary concert.

Chris Sciabarra- Let's just say that I'm not an anarchist.

David Tomlin- A sentence like this gives me the sinking feeling that my point has been completely missed. The issue is not whether you agree with the anarchists, but whether you are representing their views fairly.

Post 88

Wednesday, July 2, 2003 - 6:03am

Link

Edit

That's fair enough; and actually, the anarchists in question that I've referred to above have argued that people can act individually or in voluntary concert to defend their homes or any cause they see fit. And, I would agree; in fact, there are times that people express such solidarity with foreign nationals who are at war, that I'm simply tempted to tell them: If you want to support such foreign nationals, give your money, give your life, but please don't put a gun to my head and ask me to forfeit my property, my liberty, or my life.

As for Perigo's comments: understand that I have very serious disagreements with Lindsay on this issue. We have simply agreed to disagree at this point. I do think he does make a valid observation, however, with regard to the principle that people can't wait for ~everything~ to be perfect before doing ~anything~ in response. The question that we disagree over is this: What is the appropriate response?

As for the anarchists: I went through a very solid anarchist phase as an undergraduate in college. I count Murray Rothbard as one of my personal, intellectual mentors. I have learned much from the anarchist take on American history and on societal conflict. And whatever my criticisms of various positions in the anarchist wing (see my TOTAL FREEDOM: TOWARD A DIALECTICAL LIBERTARIANISM), I have enormous respect for this school of thought.

Cheers,
Chris
---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog.htm
---

Post 89

Saturday, July 5, 2003 - 7:39pm

Link

Edit

I'm assuming all Objectivists oppose the idea of a "draft" - to conscript people into the defence forces (but I may be wrong - given clear disagreements about many such fundamental things on these forums).

However, just because the military is made up of volunteer humans, doesn't remove the issue of initiation of force - as such a military are sustained by involuntary "donations" (or more correctly, stolen money).

As various news organisations reported this last week, the USA has troops in over 160 countries (and counting).

This is a huge undertaking - costing billions of dollars each year. This money is raised by taxation - which is compulsory.

My point is that a state, which had no power to coerce money from people - or people into the military, would have no choice about following a foreign policy such as the USA has now. It simply would be unaffordable, and therefore most of the foreign adventures the USA is involved in wouldn't have happened.

Just because the USA doesn't have military conscription at present, doesn't do away with the fact that such a volunteer military is supported by the "conscription" of money (taxes).

If one is totally against compulsory taxation (as a matter of principle), then I fail to see how a moral state, comprising free individuals, could ever get as large (militarily) as the USA. I simply cannot see individuals paying for such largesse - if they had a choice.

People will defend themselves (and no doubt volunteer the money as necessary) - when they see a real and imminent threat to their own lives. However, foreign adventures by bloated states would surely never happen in a truly free society. People would simply refuse to pay for it.

So, how would this affect the issue of Saddam Hussein and what a truly free America would have done about him? He would have been left alone. Seeing as he didn't pose any imminent, real threat to the security of the USA, ordinary people of common sense would not have voted via their pocket book to attack Iraq.

But what about the issue of toppling a brutal dictator - and bringing freedom to suffering humans? That's a different issue - and if enough people feel so inclined to topple such dictators, then let them organise voluntarily for such a purpose.