Taking exception to the exception

Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:

If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.

Raul Damas’ article in Brainwash today takes exception to some of the points I made in my article last week about Fidel Castro’s calculated crackdown on non-violent dissidents. Not to turn this into an infinite back-and-forth — because Raul and I agree on principle and I agree with everything else in his article — but I wanted to address the couple of points on which he challenges me directly.

First, Raul says that everyone understands that only Castro is responsible for the Cuban people’s economic hardship, so it’s silly to say that the embargo provides him an excuse for the consequences of his failed policies. But this is circular reasoning: “it’s not an excuse because people know it’s just an excuse.”

I would submit that there are many militants, on the island and off, who honestly believe the embargo is the root cause of the Cuban people’s hardship (in fact, it probably is the cause of at least some hardship owed to higher costs). More importantly, however, are the millions of intelligent but uninformed people around the world (especially in Europe, Canada, and the blue states here) who believe Castro, if misguided, is working for the people but is stymied by the U.S. Also, whether it’s a good excuse or not, the fact is Castro does use the embargo as an excuse in every one of his speeches. So, why allow him to have this excuse (especially since it comes at a cost to the American economy)? His policies would continue to fail.

Second, Raul writes, “While I strongly affirm the right of individuals to travel freely, I also believe in the right of our government to place restrictions on those freedoms in the name of a good higher than cheap sun, surf and child prostitution.” To this I would simply say that governments don’t have rights, only powers and that those powers stem from the consent of the governed. Last time I checked, we (via the Constitution) never gave Congress or the president the power to decide what are higher moral goods. If government where to decide that complete income equalization via redistribution was a “higher good” would Raul support government’s “right” to restrict his property rights?

Apr 21, 2003 | Comments

Related entries

  • No related entries

2 comments posted

  1. Posted by bmoeasy - 05/02/2003

    As an intelligent, well informed and well travelled Canadian let me just say there are parts of South Carolina less ‘free’ than Cuba. Granted, the governor of SC isn’t incarcerating dissidents, but then again there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of voluble unrest either. But, hey, either way the people are sweet. Bush/Castro: flip side of the same wooden nickel, baby.

  2. Posted by Jerry Brito - 05/03/2003

    I appreciate your comment, and I realize that there is plenty of racism still around in the old South. However, I think you do the Cuban people a disservice when you say that they are more free than some parts of South Carolina. They’re not more free. You admit this much yourself when you note that people in South Carolina don’t get incarcerated for peaceful protest. You qualify that by saying that there isn’t much “unrest” in South Carolina either. Is the implication of this that if there were unrest in South Carolina that the governor would then be justified in incarcerating people like Castro is justified? Additionally, perhaps the reason there isn’t “unrest” in South Carolina is precisely because there aren’t vindictive incarcerations there like there are in Cuba? And last, let me point out that in Cuba, this “voluble unrest” you speak of is just peaceful protest mostly in the form of petitions and uncensored news articles. I’m glad, however, that you think we’re a “sweet” people.

Subscribe to this entry's comments

Post a comment