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."
You are a very hostile person.
I assume you are referring to Marbury here. If you are, that ruling hardly made the Constitution a "worthless piece of parchment." Marbury established that "acts repugnent to the Constitution are void," which hardly seems like a radical idea to me.
If Congress passed a law to have you drawn and quartered, and the President signed it, would you not want some body to be able to say "they aren't allowed to do this"? That body is the Supreme Court.
The thing that makes the Constitution meaningless is when the Court doesn't void laws "repugnant to the Constitution," when it comes up with notions like standing, or even worse when it orders remedies.
ML/NJ
Then why didn't we send in the military, eh? I'm not talking about the Bay of Pigs, I'm talking about *our* military. Why didn't we go in and kill the SOB? By the tone of your article, we would've been within our rights.
The reason, I imagine, is due to one of sovereignty: when US companies invest on foreign soil, they are taking a risk. When they take advantage of cheap labor, they are taking a risk. In Cuba, the risk became reality. In China, so far, it has not, but not because US companies aren't *very* eager to build on Chinese soil.
As you stated, Cuba was not American soil, not an American protectorate, colony, or territory. The people at the time seem to have supported Castro's decision and the Americans of the time appear to have been too cowed to contest it via military means. Thus, America itself is more than a little bit to blame for the current state of things in Cuba as we *could* have gone in and removed Castro whenever we thought it necessary and justified to do so. Everything else is just rhetoric and political gamesmanship.
Tuor
You're confusing comparative freedom with absolute freedom. If you want to talk about comparative freedom, let's compare America to Iraq, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. By comparison, America is very free, but that's still not saying much, is it?
Yeah, sure that's the answer. The people in Cuba don't have guns because Castro doesn't allow them. What good does President Browne (giggle) do to "ask" the Cuban people to get shoot the brutal communist dicator when that have no guns?
I don't recall ever hearing that as a motivation for the embargo, but maybe you're privy to some government intelligence the rest of us do not have.
And about buying things made in China, I suppose you are right. I do have a choice. If I want a little TV, I can either fashion one myself or I can buy one made in China. Believe me I look, and I'm willing to pay a premium for an item of similar quality made elsewhere, but I don't always have a choice.
ML/NJ
The point is that the government has *no business* making such a moral decision for the People.
You have just summed up in three sentences why I am not a in anyway a libertarian. I believe that the government can and should regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of society.
I believe that the government should ban partial birth abortion, in fact abortion in general.
I believe that child porngraphy is not free speech.
I believe that the federal government must have a strong engaged military.
I believe that the government should patrol the boarders and prevent illgeal immgration.
I believe that the United States is the world's greatest bastion of freedom. To withdraw from world politics is to withdraw the greatest promoter of freedom. Image if Reagan had been a libertarian and not a conservative? No, Cold War built-up to fight communism.
I totally reject the premise of "if it feels good do it" whether it could from Bill Clinton or from libertarians.
Morality is part of our legal system and our shared legal history.
No, I replied to your point. You chose to ignore my reply.
And about buying things made in China, I suppose you are right. I do have a choice. If I want a little TV, I can either fashion one myself or I can buy one made in China. Believe me I look, and I'm willing to pay a premium for an item of similar quality made elsewhere, but I don't always have a choice.
Like I said, you choose your convenience over conviction. Do you really have to watch TV? If you were steadfastly against buying Chinese products, the answer is easy. BTW, there are plenty of TVs that aren't manufactured in China.
I don't follow that premise. However, I *could* follow it. God gave us Free Will. He didn't try to force us to do what is right, but instead encouraged and helped us to do what was right *ourselves*. When you take that away by putting it into the hands of government -- de-humanizing it -- then people stop making those decisions on a personal level and start stop feeling personally responsible for what happens to them. Instead of thinking humans who must personally face the results of their actions, they become mere drones who expect the government to give them their rewards and punishments: they become less responsible.
I think that communities should influence people's actions. Federal and State governments are not communities. The purpose of Federal and State governments are to provide a place for *different* local communities to exist: different moral beliefs, different economic and social systems, all protected by the State and Federal Constitutions. People would then gravitate towards those moral, social, economic areas that they feel most at home with, and likewise drift *away* from those areas they feel uncomfortable in. Thus, association and dis-association would create societies that refected the local citizenry. These societies would thrive or falter based on their own particular systems: what worked would survive and what didn't work would fail.
Yes, the above would create very wide assortment of societies within the US, but they would all be Americans and all protected *and protecting* of the thing that ensures their existance: the US Constitution.
I don't know if this idea is in accordance with the LP or other libertarians. I only speak for myself. But while some morality does, by necessity, have to be invested in the Federal and State governments, it should be the absolute minimum necessary, with most of it resting at lower levels, or with the individual. Otherwise, you simply are creating, eventually, a nation of drones with a few queen bees directing the work. It is happening already.
Tuor
I'm sorry. I must have missed it.
Do you believe a government should have the power to prohibit transactions with fugatives?
ML/NJ
As far as your queston about harboring a fugitive, there is no real merit to that comparison. The only commonality is that the fedgov attempts to outlaw each.
But in reality, those are two entirely different scenarios that can't be compared. If you can explain to me the merit of the comparison beyond that, I'll make another attempt to answer it.
Nice, but you know that will never happen. What we must realize is that free trade with Cuba isn't just an opportunity for people to make money. Ideas come with that trade, ideas that will eventually destroy Fidel and his rotten Communist henchmen just as they are slowly but surely destroying the Chinese Communist Party from within. We will use trade to undermine these parasites one transaction at a time. Ask the aging commissars of the Chinese Central Committee if they'd like to close the door on free trade. Of course they would! We've succeeded in "corrupting" their culture with our products and ideas. It's an irreversible process and we should have started it in Cuba 40 years ago.
Like most liibertarians, your mental model of perfect government outweighs your common sense.
By many tons.
. I surprised my liberal friends back then when I agreed Nixon should be impeached. .
I thought he deserved it for wage and price controls. Those and the Guns and Butter Policy during the Vietnam War set up this nation for inflation and stagflation and all its consequences. .
I first read the magazine SOL III, a very libertarian newsletter. It was so virulently libertarian that they went completely underground spinning off my subscription to Libertarian Review. After them, reason Magazine. So my Libertarian credentials are valid. Add to the pot Rothbard, von Mises & Hayek and a pinch of Rand and I think I know libertarianism. .
Libertarians are not supposed to be anarchists or outright libertines. Order is necessary in a civilized society if economic and social markets are to exist. Libertarians talk of private courts and binding contracts between free people. An injured party outside of the contract would still have right to sue for damages done to him because of this contract. Slavery therefore is not allowed to exist and a person’s freedom has an economic valued in this mythical libertarian non-governmental state.
THIS STATED: To you alleged Libertarians. Trade with a state like Cuba Or China would not occur under your system. You would be sued in private court by the people harmed and pay damages (hopefully confiscatory.) .
Get that through your FREE TRADE heads. Free trade can only exist when FREE people trade. .
Sorry but the discourse here today was venom with no substance. I know, I know, we are not truly free, but its your definiton I use. As a Libertarian you can not trade with a slave state or someone who benenfits from that trade.Now if you want to srgue that Cuba is not a slave state, go on.
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.