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."
Except that they're talking about "loss". The statement in question is this: U.S. firms lose between $600 million and $1.2 billion worth of business per year
U.S. firms haven't "lost" one red cent worth of business. To "lose business" means you had it in the first place.
It's true that there are potential business opportunities in Cuba. The question then becomes whether it's in the national interest to feed the coffers of the Cuban Communist Government, and thereby strengthen their grip on power.
If you take the LP's "sales is morals" approach, there's no problem with this. Among normal people, however, there are some other moral considerations involved.
I didn't ask you specifically about harboring a fugative. I asked you whether a government should have the power to prohibit voluntary transactions with a fugative. It's a simple question to which a one word answer should suffice. The fact that you avoid giving an answer tells me a lot about your supposed libertarian convictions.
ML/NJ
Carla Howell PRO-LIFE??? ROTFL!!!! Some hypocritical Buchanan brigages CLAIMED she was pro-life during her Senate campaign, but that just just to cover up the fact they were in bed with pro-aborts while bashing Bush for not being pro-life enough. Not only that, our holier-than-thou pro-life brigagers screamed that the CLEARLY pro-life Republican candidate was a "RINO", and ignored the even more vocal pro-life Constitution Party candidate. Here's Ms. Howell's "position" on abortion:
" Do you believe that the labels “pro-life” and “pro-chioce” accurately represent your beliefs? Many Americans don’t. Neither side listens. To each other. Or the rest of America. I don’t like the shouting that has been going on for 30 years...Carla Howell will vote to Separate Abortion and State for the same reasons that Americans Separate Church and State. Carla Howell wants to get the government’s hands off abortion."
--U.S. Senate campaign statement, 2000
(Interesting on how she's always yapping that people are too comprimising and complacent on gun rights, but she tries-- and wants the rest of us-- to act that way on the the rights of the unborn. Hmmm....)
"The Libertarian Party has consistently supported a woman's right to her own body. We own our own bodies. No one can usurp that right. The Libertarian Party starts from the concept that ALL of us have a right to decide what to do with our own bodies. Libertarians hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women... Prominent Female Libertarians who support these [policies] include... Christina Hoff Sommers, Carla Howell..."
--Libertarian Women Online
"Howell is coy about whether her position on abortion (no laws against it...) prevents her from snatching an even greater percentage of Bay-State conservatives away from the Republican party. She defends her position as being consistent with her stance on government deregulation in other areas. Like drug use. "
--National Review Online
"The race for Governor of Massachusetts. Last week Libertarian Carla Howell spoke to the [feminist] readers. "I’m basically pro-choice; I support the laws on the books..." she said simply on abortion, refusing to clarify the statement"
-- Tolman, Warren in the Press
And less than Kalifornia or Taxachussets.
Nice, succinct retort. This LP press release is just their typical, perennial whine: "You're not the boss of me!
Hmmm. Am I the only one here who remembers the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Or how about just because Castro is a jerk.
Harboring or conducting a "voluntary transaction" (vague as that is). Not much difference in the essense of what you're asking, really. Still the analogy is weak and the fact that you'd turn it around to denigrate my politics is really an admission on your part of how weak the analogy is.
So, tell me, what exactly does it tell you about my libertarian convictions, since you didn't offer that?
I have traveled extensively in Rhode Island since the 60's. Not once did I ever see evidence of missile silos being built to house Soviet missiles. Did I miss something?
Though I am not sure I agree with the embargo, I have to point out that while the goals of the embargo included the ouster of the Castro regime, it also was supposed to help prevent Cuba's ability to convert other Latin American countries to Communism.
And in that way it can not so easily be said to have failed.
As usual, no intelligent comment on the article, just the usual Jr. High wisecrack.
As usual, no intelligent comment on the issue, just off topic drivel.
As usual, no intelligent comment on the issue, just off topic drivel.
I told you a few days back that the LP does a fine job of marginalizing itself. Here's a perfect example.
As usual, no intelligent comment on the issue, just off topic drivel.
As usual, no intelligent comment on the issue, just off topic drivel.
As usual, no intelligent comment on the issue, just off topic drivel.
Typical misrepresentation of the issue and the accompaning incorrect conclusion.
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.