Chris Sciabarra
[Continued from page 4]
CHRIS: Seriously, forums like SOLOHQ are not in the habit of excommunicating people. There have been some awful, regrettable, terribly personal fights on that forum. But the forum itself is a pretty wide open one. SOLO's founder, Lindsay Perigo, is very clear about his likes and dislikes, but he still subjects these passions to debate, even to debates with anarchists just like you! [laughing]
I should say that while I don't characterize myself as an anarchist, I did go through a fairly hard-core anarchist phase that helped me to genuinely appreciate the theoretical contributions made by a variety of anarchist thinkers. And I think the jury is still out on the anarchist-minarchist debate. Unfortunately, however, we are so far from either ideal that I think the debate is largely an academic one at this point. I do believe that too many Objectivists are preoccupied with the issue of "sanction," however -- with the issue of whether it is appropriate or not to post to certain lists or write for certain publications or work with certain individuals or groups that one finds distasteful for any reason. I take the issue of sanction seriously, insofar as it is not a good thing to sanction or enable incivility, rudeness, or malevolence in any dialogue. But I, myself, have often operated on a premise first enunciated by my pal Wendy McElroy: that I'd be published in Pravda if I could be assured of presenting my ideas without editing or censorship. Okay, maybe not literally Pravda, but you get the picture. There's a reason why Lindsay Perigo once called me "Her Royal Whoreness," and it does have to do with my penchant for posting to a very wide variety of forums on both the left and the right. I did a lot of that in my day. In recent years, I did grow tired of the acrimony, and have been much more selective about where I post. That's why I consider Notablog my home. I'm the boss, and I get to moderate and set the tone for the discussion.
Some of what I'm saying here does have practical political consequences too. On the level of actually acting in the political arena, the fact is that one must sometimes be willing to act on an ad hoc basis with groups whose whole reason for being might be anathema to one's conscious philosophy. On any number of issues, from conscription to the war in Iraq to tax relief, one might find oneself with some strange bedfellows. But there is no alternative when one is in such a small intellectual or ideological minority. One's willingness to work with such groups might also enable one to actually reach out to group members who might be influenced by a different perspective on things. I know that has been my experience, and I've "converted" quite a few leftists and conservatives in my day to a more libertarian perspective because of the ecumenical spirit I bring to things.
SUNNI: My dear, you've given me too many things in there to be able to follow up on them all! Before my brain explodes, I'll try to spit out a few questions in response. First, on anarchy: I have been unable to see how a person could be a hardcore minarchist and observe the daily, egregious abuses of power by nation-states and not tip into anarchy. What keeps you from taking the leap, and who are the anarchists whose ideas you respect? Second, on strolling through the political spectrum, what do you make of the current libertarian shift to the left? Is it mostly a reaction to the ugliness coming from the Republican right, or an action -- a reaching out that will come to a fruition that the libertarian-fiscal conservative marriage never attained? And ... Damn, I've forgotten the rest! Probably just as well ... [laughs]
CHRIS: [laughs] Well, let me take that one point at a time. I think one can be a hardcore minarchist, so to speak, and still argue that there isn't a single extant government on earth that has genuine legitimacy. Of course, it is also true that not all governments are equally illegitimate; some are worse than others, and we neglect a sense of proportion at our peril.
I've admired the works of Murray Rothbard and Bruce Benson among other anarchists, but what has prevented me from taking the leap has been the anarchist obsession with all things political and economic. It's as if getting rid of the state becomes some kind of social panacea, when, in fact, the problems we face are primarily cultural, and no amount of state-reduction will get rid of the overwhelming cultural trend toward more force and more state intervention. There are too many supporting cultural conditions for statism that militate against the success of any counter-movement. Here is where I think Rand was right on target: politics is, after all, a by-product of a certain constellation of philosophical and cultural principles and conditions. Freedom requires certain conditions that nourish it and sustain it. That's why it won't take hold in Russia or in Iraq or in any number of other countries that lack even a modicum of cultural understanding of notions such as individual responsibility or individual accountability. Granted, the cultural issue that I point to is as much a problem for the minarchist as it is for the anarchist, but it has been especially pronounced in anarchist circles.
Perhaps there is something good about the recent libertarian shift toward the left, given the cultural primitivism that one finds among those on the religious right, who are no friends of liberty. The age of the rhetorical Goldwater-Reagan "libertarian conservative" seems to be withering away. The GOP has now gone back, in both rhetoric and policy-making, to its big government conservative roots with such passion that there is little left to hope for.
SUNNI: Your objections to anarchism sound quite like mine to Objectivists -- and I agree with you regarding the misplaced focus. That's why I've shifted my context to one of individualism, and pursuing personal liberty. As more individuals do that, politics and economics can't help but follow. Anyway ... Total Freedom
CHRIS: I've got lots of articles in the pipeline, but no formal book proposal in the works right now. I actually do have some thoughts about everything from a collection of various previously published essays to an introductory text on dialectical method. But I'm so preoccupied with my editing duties and with writing essays for various journals, periodicals, encyclopedias, and newspapers, that I've not formally drafted any book proposals yet. I think some of my resistance has to do with the fact that I was so tied up with book projects for about 20 years of my life and that I now really value my ability to deal with a greater variety of intellectual pursuits. Speaking of which: I've got an essay coming out this fall in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies that allows me to revisit the subject of Rand's university education, which I first addressed in Russian Radical and, later, in the first article to ever appear in JARS: The Rand Transcript. I was fortunate enough to be provided with recently unearthed archival records that continue to support my own historical theses on Rand's Russian years. Writer Anne Heller provided this material to me; she is working on her own biography of Rand, due to be released in 2007, and was very generous in sharing her research with me.
