Posted on 05/21/2002 12:19:30 PM PDT by tdadams
Continuing embargo on Cuba does more harm to American freedom than to Castro, Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC -- By continuing to support the U.S. embargo on Cuba, President Bush is undermining the freedom of the American people, Libertarians say.
"The U.S. government has no business ordering Americans not to trade with or travel to Cuba or any other nation," said LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach. "By stubbornly refusing to repeal this failed, 40-year- old law, Bush is punishing the American people for the crimes of Fidel Castro."
In an appearance in Miami's "Little Havana" on Monday, Bush called for democratic reforms in Cuba and reaffirmed U.S. support for the trade embargo imposed on dictator Fidel Castro in 1962.
But by focusing on removing Castro from power, Bush has ignored the fact that the embargo is undermining two fundamental American freedoms, Libertarians say: the freedom to trade and the freedom to travel. Federal law imposing sanctions on Cuba makes it illegal for U.S. firms to trade directly with that nation, and travel restrictions created in 1963 impose fines of up to $50,000 on Americans who are caught traveling there.
"The trade ban violates the economic freedom of every American," Dasbach said. "Individuals and businesses in a free country should be able to buy and sell goods freely to whomever they like, without getting government approval.
"According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S. firms lose between $600 million and $1.2 billion worth of business per year by not being able to trade with Cuba. Why should American businesses and consumers be punished because Cuba is a communist state?
"And why should American workers be deprived of jobs simply because their government has singled out one particular tyrant for punishment? After all, the United States trades with or gives foreign aid to other dictatorial states like Jordan, Egypt, and China.
"The Cuban embargo has, in effect, created a list of 'government- approved dictators,' like those in Jordan, Egypt, and China, and 'unapproved dictators' like Fidel Castro," he said. "U.S. politicians should abolish this arbitrary list and let American people and businesses decide for themselves which governments should be punished with a trade cutoff.
"The travel ban is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes like the former Soviet Union, East Germany, and yes, Cuba," Dasbach said. "The freedom to come and go as you please is a fundamental human right. Politicians have no business ordering Americans not to visit 'unapproved' countries, then fining and interrogating them when they return."
And the travel ban is enforced, Dasbach noted. The Treasury Department estimates that 50,000 Americans visit Cuba illegally every year, and an estimated 800 are prosecuted.
One example: Two years ago, Marilyn Meister, a retired, 73-year-old Wisconsin school teacher, went on a Canadian-organized bicycle trip to Cuba. When she returned, she told The Washington Post, she was confronted by a U.S. Customs agent who "flew into a rage and made me feel like the most horrible of criminals." Meister was charged with violating the travel ban and ordered to pay a $7,500 fine.
"What kind of government feels threatened by a 73-year-old school teacher riding a bicycle in Cuba?" Dasbach asked. "Ours does. But when government bureaucrats have the power to berate ordinary Americans for going on vacation - then extort an exorbitant fine - it's time to repeal that law."
That's why the U.S. embargo on Cuba must be eliminated, Dasbach said.
"If Bush really wants to send a pro-liberty message to Fidel Castro, he can do it by ending the embargo on American freedom."
That is a giant joke.
The supreme court established its superiority over the constitution when Jefferson was president. That unchallenged rulling made it a piece of worthless parchment. Ever since it has meant whatever the judges on the Supreme Court say it means at the time they say it means it. It may mean something else tomorrorw.
Adams, Jefferson, and Madison did not refute or oppose the Courts supremacy over that document when they were president. It was as you assert to be a self evident document when written. It has not been that for the last 200 years. It won't be for the next 200 years either.
It took all the founders could do to get it ratified. They had to leave out the bill of rights to get that done. Then less than 12 years after it was adopted the Supreme court ruled that the constitution said whatever they said it said.
Jefferson, Madison, and Adams may have supported your views of that document when it was adopted. But when the Justices asserted their right to say what it meant, none of them lifted a finger to dispute that claim. They were all alive and well. They did nothing to stop the courts assumption of total power. Libertarians seem to deny that is what happened. It happened. It can not be un-happened.
If you want to live in a nation governed by a self evident document, you are going to have to found a new nation. Our constitition stopped being a self evident document in 1802. Since then it has been what it is now... what ever the judges say it is.
Your self evident view is worthless. Less than one percent of the population agrees with you. You need two thirds of the people to change that. You can't get 5 percent. You will never get 9 judges to rule it so. Not a judge on the court today agrees with you. It is unlikely any justice ever will. You can't unring a bell and you can't make a document that does not have self evident meaning into one that does.
Neither do most Libertarians. There are many pro-life Libertarians such as Ron Paul and Carla Howell. We just believe that it should never had become a federal issue. By the way, about a third of all Republicans are pro-choice (baby killing).
Well said... I didn't know Carla Howell was pro-life. What documentation do you have?
It doesn't satisfy me because it doesn't completely answer the question. Do you ALSO support a total federal ban on trade and travel to China?
Do you support a total federal ban on trade and travel with Iraq? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Just what oppressive dictatorships do you support trading with, and why?
I'll pick C) Mr. (Harry) Browne. He's the only one of the 3 that gives a @#$% about freedom, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law.
Harry's only concern is where he can score some more weed.
Go get an economics book, and read a little about "opportunity cost."
Why should American businesses and consumers be punished because Cuba is a communist state?
This is the sort of nonsense that results when a party defines itself and its moral underpinnings solely in terms of sales.
No, it's the sort of "nonsense" that results when a party defines itself by freedom and the Rule of Law. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to ban sales with or travel to a country with which the United States is NOT at war.
Unlike Bush, I'll bet Harry Browne has never tried marijuana. Or cocaine.
I bet Hilter would have wished you were president in the 1930's and 1940's. Besides, the intrastate commerce clause of article I section 8 of the Constitution allows for Congress to regulate intrastate commerce. This includes between Cuba and any state.
Hehehehe! I dunno...
One of the few nice things I can say about Dubya, he seems the type that'd be nice to invite to a backyard Bar-B-Q to kick back and enjoy a couple ice-cold brews.
I'm afraid I can't bring myself to say the same for Harry.
Go Pat Go!!!
You certainly can't get anything done with that attitude. Just because it happened 200 years ago doesn't make it OK. It needs to undone, so let's get to it! Slavery and segregation endured in this country for almost that long. Were we wrong to change it because it had been that way for so long? Does longevity equal morality? Or is unpopularity just an excuse for those who know better to sit around and do nothing? Let's get this straight now--- freedom never has been and never will be popular. Only 17% of the colonists were willing to fight and die for it 200 years ago. I suspect even fewer Americans would be so willing today. If you fight for your liberty you will be despised by the great ignorant mass of people-- GET OVER IT AND GET ON WITH IT. DON'T SIT ON YOUR BEHIND AND COMPLAIN. AND PLEASE DON'T WASTE MY TIME TRYING TO SABOTAGE ME BECAUSE I'M WILLING TO FIGHT FOR MINE AND YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT FOR YOURS. May your chains rest lightly upon and trouble us no more.
Correct...even though there were good reasons originally for the policy.
The anomaly extends to trade in used postage stamps!
Look in a Scott's catalogue and discover which countries it is illegal to trade in USED stamps from.
It is beyond absurd.
You just don't get it, do you? You are completely clueless about what libertarianism is all about. Either that, or you are willfully avoiding the point.
The point is that the government, particularly the Federal Government, has *no business* making such a moral decision for the People. It has nothing to do whether it is right or wrong to have an abortion, but *who is empowered to make the choice*. Libertarians believe the individual is empowered to make that decision; Democrats and Republicans believe the Federal Government should make that decision.
As someone with strong libertarian leanings, I tend to agree that the federal government shouldn't be deciding this: the Constitution doesn't give them that power, not unless they are prepared to state that the unborn are citizens with the same rights as those who've been born: then they would have some say in the matter in accordance with the Constitution. They haven't done that and aren't likely to.
So, quit playing games around the point: you believe, evidently, that the government should run our lives; we believe that individuals should run their own lives and pay the unfettered consequences, both good and bad, for their actions.
Tuor
I bet Hitler never would have come to power, if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved in WWI.
Besides, the intrastate commerce clause of article I section 8 of the Constitution allows for Congress to regulate intrastate commerce. This includes between Cuba and any state.
Heh, heh, heh! You ought to read the Constitution before you become governor. The Constitution does allow Congress to "regulate" commerce "among the several states" and with foreign countries.
But "regulate" was MEANT to be "to make regular," as a laxative makes a person "regular." In other words, the clause was meant to normalize commerce, not halt it completely. The United States federal government has the legititmate authority to levy tariffs on goods traded with Cuba. It does NOT have the authority to tell U.S. citizens that they may not travel to Cuba, or spend money in Cuba. Because we are NOT at war with Cuba.
Castro's government has imprisoned his people, so they can't travel to our country at their will. It's pathetic that OUR government has responded in kind. It shows how little OUR government cares about OUR freedom.
No, there wouldn't be. Trading with countries you don't like is not the same thing is saying "We like you... keep doing what you're doing. China, keep up those forced abortions. Nazis, keep killing Jews." Doing business with people is just that... doing business. Using your logic if I do business with someone who is a Democrat and I think all Democrats are baby killers then I have the blood of innocent babies on my hands.
Harry Browne probably would have asked the Cuban people why they haven't gotten guns, and blown Fidel's head off. Which means he would have been imprisoned...either by Castro, or by the U.S. government, which has criminalized travel and spending in Cuba.
Why such snottiness, you arrogant *****? I never said a damn thing about the "poor little dictator" being abused. I think you're imparting your own bias and bigoted viewpoint. I'm saying as a free American citizen, the fedgov has no right to tell me where I can vacation or who I can conduct trade with. Nothing I said indicated sympathy for Castro or his dictatorial communist regime.
Pipe down, you blowhard!
If it is proven, show it to the people, have the Senate declare war, send in the army, take the SOB out and shoot him dead. Kill anyone who physically tries to stop that from happening. Kill anyone who is proven to be collaborating with him. Show all executions on public TV. Bring the military home when the job is done. Simple, eh?
I completely believe that the military ought to be used to protect the country. Evidently, I believe it more than the supposed 'hawks' in DC who play wishy-washy games. Kill your enemies and go home. Don't screw around. Don't negotiate. Make sure the military is strong enough and motivated enough to do the job. Make sure your intelligence agencies are able to prove to reasonable people that those you are attacking are guilty. No hidden evidence. No secret tapes. Proof. And if other countries don't like it, too bad.
Tuor
Oh, you certainly have a choice. But like most people, I think the convenience outweighs your conviction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.