The Sun Hasn't Yet Risen [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

techchick68

04-22-2000, 03:32 PM

I REALLY hate to say this Lib, but in response to your words:1. Since when is a rescue from tyranny a kiddnapping?

When it violates the rights of the father to be a father. There is reportedly no determination that his father is a bad father and regardless of our political beliefs, a parent has more rights to his son than we do to "protect" a child from a communist society. My understanding is, the child's parent has more rights than a political system, unless it is proven the child is being deprived, abused or otherwise harmed. Politically speaking, Castro is a tyrant, but we can not compromise the rights of the father under these circumstances, his rights stop where ours begin. But in the truth of freedom Elien is six years old, is the blood and flesh of his father and this father should be the sole determiner of who is to raise his son reagardless of policital issues in Cuba.

I realize that under Casto's rule, the Cubans have little choice, but I can't for the life of me accept a political system that keeps a child from his parents. The act of taking a child from the US to another country is looked down upon here, so why should that be any different in this case? His mother wanted better, I understand, but she apparently took him without consent of the father. Again, if the countries where reversed, the US citizens would cry out and ask why the government doesn't do more to get the child back.

In my eyes, if a father is a fit father then political beliefs should never come into play.

Elien's relatives had plenty of notice that it was time to return him to his father. They understood the consequences if they held on to him. They used the government's generousity to keep him away from his father, in my eyes.

I agree, the govt. used excessive force but under the climate of Little Havana, I am not sure they had a lot of choice. People who are entrenched in one way of thinking tend to react violently rather than rationally in these sorts of issues and in this case I think the government was erring on the side of caution to ensure the safety of all in the area.

pldennison

04-22-2000, 03:38 PM

And to think, it was only Jaunary when Lib was defending the right of Elian's peaceful, honest father to have his child back, when he said:This miserable saga is the consequence of a shameless pissing contest among chest-pounding politicians. If the boy's father is peaceful and honest, then any decisions with respect to the boy ought to be his.

The right decision was made by INS, not from principle, but because of sureptitious deals made by men behind the curtain. Whenever nation states interfere with the affairs of families, it is often the children who suffer.

I'm reminded of a couple of things: (1) Phil's statement about battles over piddly shit, (2) a blind pig finding the trough, and (3) political expedience drives the machine.

And now the big flip-flop, simply because he hates the government so much. Suddenly, the father has no say because he happens to be Cuban. Wow, nice to see that everyone eventually succumbs to expediency.

meara

04-22-2000, 04:39 PM

I've got to weigh in against you, Libertarian.

The relatives were keeping a child from his father who had traveled to this country to be with him. They were clearly in the wrong and yet were shown incredible leniency by both the government and the father. I was personally astonished that the negotiations were pursued at such great length even after it was clear that the relatives were stalling and going back on their stated word.

A few days ago, Juan Miguel even promised not to take the boy back to Cuba until appeals were exhausted, and yet still there was no cooperation. Numerous attempts were made to schedule a peaceful transition, and the relatives were invited to accompany Elian to D.C. In the end, they are to be blamed for necessitating this unfortunate raid.

I believe people have the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. However, when it comes to other people's children, possession is not 9/10ths of the law. By libertarian standards, those who infringe upon the rights of others sacrifice some of their own. In truth, the Miami relatives got off very easily for what would normally be prosecuted as kidnapping.

(And yes, regardless of ideological differences, it is kidnapping. I would not want my child held hostage by fundamentalist Christian relatives just because they believe he will have a better (after)life with them.)

abderian

04-22-2000, 04:48 PM

Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by
peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant.... Society is asleep, and the sun hasn't yet risen.

But amid this sweet peaceful scene, the photographer from the Associated Press is ever-alert, camera in hand, lurking in the boy's bedroom.....

Gimme a break. I can't buy this. I make no claims to understand this situation, but the 'peaceful' relatives knew something like this was gonna happen. The camera did not ride into the boy's room on the back of a government agent.

One thing I am certain of, none of this is as black/white as it appears. And it looks like neither side cares much about the welfare of the boy. (If they did care, then why on earth are we even discussing the matter in the first place??? We don't even know these people!)

Children should not be used as pawns for political statements.

SingleDad

04-22-2000, 05:26 PM

Libertarian: You have committed a fallacy, albeit eloquently: the fallacy of Misleading Vividness.

The assertion that we should not permit Elian to return to Cuba can be debated rationally. But the inflammatory propaganda you present in your OP is not an argument in support of that assertion.

Neither is it accurate. The use of force was to return Elian to his father's custody, not to enforce a return to Cuba. This action was taken in accordance with the law and proper procedure.

The question of whether Elian should be allowed to return to Cuba is still at issue.

------------------
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

RM Mentock

04-22-2000, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Libertarian:
Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant.

I'm on your side with this one, Lib, though it took me a little while to understand. From someone else's post, I gathered that you agreed that the boy should be with his father.

Why was the extrication done this way? The use of guns was justified by a rumor that some people in the crowd would have guns. So, why were they brandished inside the house?

That, apparently, is the way they were trained to do things. That's not just Reno--she inherited that mindset.

------------------
rocks

tracer

04-22-2000, 06:38 PM

Nen wrote:

If this kid were twenty years older, would this issue be an issue? Why doesn't a forty year old Pakistani with an Aunt in the U.S. get the same press?

Because he's not a cute little boy. I mean, duuuuuh.

kaylasdad99

04-22-2000, 09:26 PM

Because he's not a cute little boy. I mean, duuuuuh.

Speaking of cute little boys, Elian's little half-brother is just adorable! Can we keep him too?

SingleDad

04-22-2000, 09:45 PM

Guns were used because of the significant danger of violence from the protesters surrounding the house.

In general, when using force to uphold the law, it behooves the authorities to use overwhelming force to discourage resistance. If people feel they have the opportunity to resist and do so, loss of life or injury might result.

Given the inflammatory and sometimes violent rhetoric that's been bandied about, I don't see that the marshalls had any choice but to use a SWAT team.

If the parents had really wanted to avoid such a confrontation, they would have brought the boy to the authorities themselves, and the protestors would not have impeded the marshalls enforcing a lawful directive of the court.

If you wish to defy the law, that's your perogative as a free being. But you must expect whatever consequences ensue. You may not argue that the law does not apply to you in a particular cirucumstance.

------------------
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!

techchick68

04-22-2000, 09:58 PM

If the parents had really wanted to avoid such a confrontation, they would have brought the boy to the authorities themselves, and the protestors would not have impeded the marshalls enforcing a lawful directive of the court.

Um, SingleDad, in this case it was the aunts and uncles or such, not the parents...just a little correction.

SingleDad

04-22-2000, 10:12 PM

techchick: My bad. Thanks for the correction.

techchick68

04-22-2000, 10:22 PM

Anytime SingleDad, I just hope that I am correct when I make a correction :)

techchick68

04-22-2000, 10:24 PM

If not, draw right foot back and kick me squarely in the ass....sometimes I need it.

BobT

04-23-2000, 01:06 PM

Brandishing weapons is SOP according to law enforcement authorities in this type of situation, which they regarded as a hostage situation.

People who are scared out of their wits have a distinct aversion to fighting back apparently.

If the operation had proceeded slowly, a crowd would have formed, people would have started throwing things or even grabbing weapons.

David B

04-23-2000, 01:31 PM

Sorry, Lib, but you are just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong about this one.Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant.His father is a tyrant? Hmmm. Must have missed that one in the news.The house is torn apart. The headboard is broken off the boy's bed. Doors are lying in splintered pieces in the wake of the army's invasion.And why is that? Because the kidnappers inside didn't open the doors when they were requested to do so. They did not follow the law and turn over the child as they had previously promised to do. They were in complete control of the situation until that point, and they could have avoided it by simply obeying the law and turning over the child to his father.

You know, this whole thing is very simply answered if you can honestly answer the following question:

If it were your son, what would you think?

I bet you wouldn't be criticizing the police and federal officials who have enforced the law and court's decision to give the child back to his father.

Liberal

04-23-2000, 06:21 PM

Phil

Shame on you.

All

"Those who keep clamoring for Juan Gonzalez's parental rights are in desperate need of a reality check. There are no parental rights in Castro's communist Cuba. Elian will be a ward of the state. For those who love liberty and care about children, this is simply unacceptable." — David Limbaugh, World Net Daily

The above pretty well expresses my sentiments.

Liberal

04-23-2000, 06:25 PM

[b]David[b]

{quote]If it were your son, what would you think?[/quote]

Hmmm. I would think along these lines:

'Since I know that if I take him back, I will have to give him over to a heartless tyrant who ones both me and him, I prefer to give up my own life and freedom in order to secure his.'

How 'bout you?

Threll

04-23-2000, 06:38 PM

If Communisum has done one thing for Cuba it has helped it. They now have public schools, hospitals, and are starting to raze a strong economy dispite the usa. Once Castro and the santions are dead Cuba will become a more free county. Look at it this way the kid is 6 and Castro is past 60.

Smartass

04-23-2000, 07:24 PM

I'm not ashamed to say that when I first saw the post, I was a little excited: A Libertarian poet! We definitely need a few of those.

Having read further, I'm a little disappointed. The poetry stopped; still waiting for the Libertarian part.

How is it that being a Cuban citizen means you have no parental rights? Are we going to adjudicate this according to US law or Cuban law? Hypothetically, if he has no right to life in Cuba, is it kosher to kill him?

------------------
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.

David B

04-23-2000, 07:36 PM

Lib said:Hmmm. I would think along these lines:

'Since I know that if I take him back, I will have to give him over to a heartless tyrant who ones both me and him, I prefer to give up my own life and freedom in order to secure his.'

How 'bout you?I'm sorry to be blunt, but: Bullshit.

You don't know anything that you are claiming. Do you have any actual evidence that his father will have to "give him over" to Castro?

Unless you have evidence that the father is not fit (and I doubt you do, other than that he doesn't subscribe to your political leanings), there is simply no reason the father should not have him back.

Now, maybe if you were the father, you would use the opportunity of going to America to stay here. But Elian's father obviously wants to go back. It is not your place to question why. For all you know, he wants to help freedom expand when Castro eventually dies or is deposed. Or maybe not. Maybe he's a godless commie. If he is, so what? Last time I checked, freedom including a freedom to disagree with the Libertarian viewpoint.

bantmof

04-23-2000, 07:39 PM

The above pretty well expresses my sentiments.
Which is fine, but do understand that you do not have the right to force other people to give up their own children just because you think they might have a better life living somewhere else. That is not, and will never be, your decision to make. The boy's father just wanted his kid back (and it sure looks like the kid is awfully happy to be back in his dad's arms). By virtually any moral or legal standard in any nation, he has that right, and no one has the right to kidnap his child due to differences in political ideology.

If you wouldn't want someone to take your children away from you because they didn't like your politics or your government, then perhaps you should consider granting the same basic right to your fellow human beings.

Your user ID is "Libertarian", but you seem to espouse a viewpoint more commonly associated with the most repressive of dictatorial regimes.

--
peas on earth

Liberal

04-23-2000, 07:53 PM

How is it that being a Cuban citizen means you have no parental rights?

Well, Smartass, since you asked...

Here's a few exerpts from the U.S. Department of State, Cuba Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 (http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1998_hrp_report/cuba.html), Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, February 26, 1999:

Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel Castro, who is Chief of State, Head of Government, First Secretary of the Communist Party, and commander in chief of the armed forces. President Castro exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organizations, the government bureaucracy, and the state security apparatus. The Communist Party is the only legal political entity, and President Castro personally chooses the membership of the Politburo, the select group that heads the party. There are no contested elections for the 601-member National Assembly of People's Power (ANPP), which meets twice a year for a few days to rubber stamp decisions and policies already decided by the Government. The Party controls all government positions, including judicial offices. The judiciary is completely subordinate to the Government and to the Communist Party.

Although the Constitution provides for the inviolability of a citizen's home and correspondence, official surveillance of private and family affairs by government-controlled mass organizations, such as the CDR's, remains one of the most pervasive and repressive features of Cuban life. The State has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.

The Government severely restricted worker rights, including the right to form independent unions. The Government employs forced labor, including that by children.

Citizens do not have the legal right to change their government or to advocate change, and the Government has retaliated systematically against those who sought peaceful political change. The Constitution proscribes any political organization other than the Communist Party. While the Constitution provides for direct election of provincial, municipal, and National Assembly members, the candidates must be approved in advance by mass organizations controlled by the Government. In practice, a small group of leaders, under the direction of President Castro, select the members of the highest policy-making bodies of the Communist Party--the Politburo and the Central Committee.

Education is free and is grounded in Marxist ideology. State organizations and schools are charged with the "integral formation of children and youth.

There is no societal pattern of abuse of children, other than in the area of prostitution, where young girls form the bulk of the large number of prostitutes catering to foreign tourists. It is illegal for a child under 17 years of age to engage in prostitution, but the police do not actively enforce this law.

The Government prohibits forced and bonded child labor; however, it requires children to work without compensation... The Government prohibits forced and bonded labor by children; however, the Government requires children to work without compensation. All students over age 11 are expected to devote 30 to 45 days of their summer vacation to farm work, laboring up to 8 hours per day. The Ministry of Agriculture uses "voluntary labor" by student work brigades extensively in the farming sector.

---

Questions:

Is the father free to leave the Cuban enclave where he is currently held, and travel and speak freely?

Is the family of the father, left behind in Cuba, safe if the father defects to join his son?

When they return to Cuba, will the father be allowed to raise his son in whatever way he sees fit?

Convince me that the answer to any one of those three questions is "yes", and we will change our minds right here on the spot.

Check out the State Department's report.

— Mr. and Mrs. Lib

Smartass

04-23-2000, 08:45 PM

Thanks for clarifying that he has no parental rights in Cuba.

He still has them here.

And he is not required to disprove your charges to exercise those rights. I'll ask again, you want to go by Cuban law or US law?

The reason why parental rights are so important is that it's not for you to say what's best for another man's child. Just as it is not for him to say what is right for yours?

Obviously, his decisions are complicated and involve trade-offs that we think are unfair. He still gets to make them, though. If he really thought that his son would be in danger in Cuba, do you really think there is any amount of pressure or coercion that could force him to take the child back there?

------------------
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.

bantmof

04-23-2000, 08:54 PM

When they return to Cuba, will the father be allowed to raise his son in whatever way he sees fit?
That's rather an ironic question given that even in this country there are people who would take his child from him just because they don't like the country he's from.

--
peas on earth

David B

04-23-2000, 09:24 PM

I think Bantmof hit the nail on the head here:you do not have the right to force other people to give up their own children just because you think they might have a better life living somewhere else.Awfully funny for a guy who espouses libertarianism every chance he gets to now be saying he should force his views on somebody else...That is not, and will never be, your decision to make. The boy's father just wanted his kid back (and it sure looks like the kid is awfully happy to be back in his dad's arms).Precisely. I truly fear the day when the government will get to decide who is or is not a fit parent based on their political beliefs. Apparently, despite his chosen alias here, "Libertarian" can't wait for that to happen.By virtually any moral or legal standard in any nation, he has that right, and no one has the right to kidnap his child due to differences in political ideology.Precisely (again).

andros

04-23-2000, 09:38 PM

Phil

Shame on you.

No, Lib. The correct response was:

"You're right, Phil. My apologies."

What the hell should he be ashamed of, Lib? Pointing out an inconsistency in you posts? Geez louise, it happens, just accept it and move on.

And don't you think it's interesting that you're so quick to cite a US Government Agency report on Cuba after spending so much time decrying Government inefficiencies and abuses?

-andros-

David B

04-23-2000, 09:49 PM

Wait a minute! I just figured it out! I know what's up with Lib.

For those of you who didn't already know, Lib got married this morning. Obviously, his brain is addled with love. That is certainly the only way to explain him taking such an anti-Libertarian stance here.

Phew! Good thing we got that straightened out...

tracer

04-24-2000, 12:06 AM

Actually, Libertarian's take on the issue is quite straightforward:

Agents of the Federal Government took Elian from his grandparents and gave him to his father.
Everything the Federal Government does is wrong.
Therefore, taking Elian from his grandparents and giving him to his father was wrong.

See?

RM Mentock

04-24-2000, 12:57 AM

SingleDad

But, why were the guns brandished inside the house?

------------------
rocks

Liberal

04-24-2000, 05:46 AM

Phil

Okay, I'm willing to listen to you because I trust you.

Based on what I've listed as my reservations, please explain what I am missing. Specifically, how is it that the father is not merely a tool of The State, being used for the purpose of returning the boy to slavery and oppression? You understand, of course, that if the father were a free man, I would be the first to recognize the INS as a liberation force. But if the father is merely Castro's fly-catcher (because he rightfully fears for the safety and welfare of his family in Cuba), then why does that not bear on the matter?

RM Mentock

04-24-2000, 06:21 AM

I feel so ... used.

Lib

How do you reconcile your posts to this topic with your words quoted by pldennison 04-22-2000 03:38 PM? Is it really only that you've been recently educated by the writings of David Limbaugh?

------------------
rocks

pldennison

04-24-2000, 07:06 AM

[b]Lib[/i]:

First prove to me that you truly love and want to be with Edlyn. Then we'll take up the issue of proving whether or not Juan Miguel Gonzales really loves and wants to be with Elian.

After that, we will remember that if Juan Miguel Gonzales truly desires to live in Castro's Cuba (and we have no information to the contrary), then he is a volunteer, and as such you must respect his right to be one and his roght to speak for his minor child.

Needs2know

04-24-2000, 08:40 AM

My brother-in-law agrees with Libertarian on this issue. For slightly different reasons but the essence of his argument is the same. He hates the CLINTON government, not the government in general. As for the parental rights he believes that Juan gave up his rights because he has heard that the man hasn't actually seen his son in three years anyway. As for the Government granting automatic asylumn to every Cuban who makes it to our shores regardless of age, I question this, why? Is this true, do all Cubans get automatic asylumn? Why Cubans? Because it's closer? Because we've been in a pissing contest with Castro for 40 years? What's the deal? Why don't Chinese guys get in automatically or anyone else for that matter? Anyway, the discussion yesterday became so heated that my bro kept shouting and finally called me stupid because I am not a conservative republican or something like that. I didn't even want to talk about this damned kid! My aunt brought it up. I went back to grilling the burgers and dogs. Oh yeah, he also had some idea that the kids was doomed to a life of slavery in some work camp when he turns 11. Has anyone heard this? Or is my brother-in-law getting his information at that Southern Baptist, fundamentalist church of his again? I didn't even bother to ask, didn't feel like shouting that loud. And certainly didn't feel like getting into the topic of religion.

Needs2know

pldennison

04-24-2000, 09:16 AM

It also just occurred to me to wonder why Lib would believe a single word of the State Department's report, since it was written and vetted by politicians, who we have been taught are ruled by whatever is expedient. Since expediency, in this case, is guided by The Continuing Battle Against Global Communism, that certainly makes the report suspect. (Not that I don't believe it, necessarily; I merely question why he suddenly believes what The Government tells him about Cuba.)

Liberal

04-24-2000, 09:34 AM

Father, Phil

How do you reconcile your posts to this topic with your words quoted by pldennison 04-22-2000 03:38 PM?

The essence of what I wrote in Phil's quote is this: "If the boy's father is peaceful and honest, then any decisions with respect to the boy ought to be his."

---

Those decisions OUGHT to be his, but in point of fact, THEY ARE NOT HIS, but rather, they are FIDEL'S.

---

What it is I have learned since January is that when he returns to Cuba, Elian will be "re-educated" (a process that has likely already begun). I have learned that, thanks to his cooperation with Fidel, Juan Gonzales and the immediate family have been accorded special priviledge, which translates to an apartment big enough to live in and enough food to survive. I have learned that the basic right to life, given to us all by God or nature, does not exist where they are taking the boy. Lives there belong to The State. All "rights" are doled out by The State, with rampant discrimination based on factors of expediency. I have learned that boys there are forced into farm labor from the ages of 11 to 14.

I have learned that Juan Gonzales is not operating in the capacity of a father, but rather in the capacity of Fidel's agent. His very inability to come here until now is testament to that fact, even without the corroborating evidence to which I have linked you.

Yes, I am sure the father might likely love the boy, despite his being caught between a rock and a hard place. But I say this: free the father first. Then, he can make decisions with respect to the boy.

I tied the father's position to a context of peace and honesty for a reason. As it happens, the father lives his life in a context of coercion and fraud. Recall that the very definition of freedom is the absence of coercion and fraud.

Free the father first. Then, give his son to him.

Liberal

04-24-2000, 09:48 AM

Phil

I believe that the report was drawn up outside the administration's real agenda, which clearly is to legitimize the tyrannical government of Cuba by recognizing it.

I do not believe that the report, released last February, would even be released today. Do you? I trust the report precisely because it flies in the face of what the administration is presently spinning.

Even a blind pig...

Jodi

04-24-2000, 10:16 AM

Those decisions OUGHT to be his, but in point of fact, THEY ARE NOT HIS, but rather, they are FIDEL'S. . . . etc. etc.

Do you have reasonably unbiased citations for any of this? Because I, for one, would love to see them.

Who are you to decide that Juan Miguel lives in an atmosphere of fraud and coercion, when he avers to the contrary? Who are you to put conditions upon the return of his child to him? By this entire thread, you betray the libertarian principles you purport to hold dear, and reveal yourself to be just another fanatic who believes the Federal government can do no right. Not one of the other (reasonable) libertarians on this board have agreed with you -- for the obvious reason that they can't, because your present position is entirely inconsistent with the principles of libertarianism.

------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

Gadarene

04-24-2000, 10:29 AM

Libertarian said:
I have learned that, thanks to his cooperation with Fidel, Juan Gonzales and the immediate family have been accorded special priviledge, which translates to an apartment big enough to live in and enough food to survive.

You do realize, don't you, that Juan Gonzales was part of Cuba's small yet existent middle class--living in a home with more space than that of Elian's Miami relatives--before this whole fiasco?

There are many, many more things wrong with your previous couple of posts, but I have to go to a staff meeting. If someone else hasn't debunked them by the time I get back, I'll give it a shot.

pldennison

04-24-2000, 10:54 AM

. . . and I reiterate, if that is what Cuba is truly like, and if Juan Gonzales truly desires to live there, he is a volunteer. But of course, if he says that's what he wants, you won't believe him anyway, and will take his child from him. Shame on you for wanting to separate a father from his child for political reasons, and for wanting to use a nonlibertarian government to do so. How . . . expedient.

Spiritus Mundi

04-24-2000, 11:03 AM

My goodness. It seems that Libertarian has subverted consistency and honesty to ideology once again. Color me surprised.

We now, according to Libertarian have license to override the rights and choices of any person who lives under a form of government we consider coersive.

But wait!! Libertarian considers the US Government coersive. None of us are safe. How can we be trusted to determine our lives when we are not free by Libertarian's standards? Far better for all of us if Lib and his perfectly free, perfectly peaceful and perfectly honest utopians come and take custody of all out children. After all -- wouldn't every parent voluntarily surrender his child to the hope of a better existence?

Fair warning, Lib. Don't try it in my neighborhood.

sqweels

04-24-2000, 11:41 AM

What makes anyone think the Elian, of all people, will be enslaved and opressed when he returns to Cuba? He's a hero over there, while Castro is an old man. Chances are that Elian will one day become president of Cuba.

DSYoungEsq

04-24-2000, 11:44 AM

It never ceases to amaze me how some in this country treat Cuba and its leader as if Castro were Satan (apologies, Dark One!) personified and that everything everyone does on that island is all orchestrated by him, leaving no one on that island with any choice whatsoever.

Does Castro control the island? Yes. Is it a one-party state? Yes (so was Mexico until a few years ago; I didn't see anyone complaining). Do those who oppose the official regime suffer under the rules and structure? Yes. Is this the antithesis of what America stands for? Yes.

But that doesn't mean that no one in Cuba gets to choose anything, it doesn't mean they all live in poverty, and it doesn't mean that life there is so terrible that no right-thinking person could possibly want to live under such a system. Cuba remains populated by a significant number of Cubans, and given the results in Russia and other countries through time, oppressive regimes last only as long as the people collectively are willing to have them last (see France). Would I want to live there, no. Do I think it unconscionable that Elian's father wants him to live there with his dad? No.

The Miami relatives had temporary custody granted by the INS at a time when the legal situation of the boy vis-a-vis his father was uncertain. That status was revoked. The relatives refused the lawful request of the government to return the child to INS for placement as the agency saw fit. The government was forced to retrieve the child so that his father could regain temporary custody. Had the relatives complied with the law, the raid wouldn't have been necessary. Had the relatives let the agents in, the door wouldn't have been busted down. Had the relatives not hidden the child in a closet, the agents wouldn't have had to search the house for the child. In short, had the relatives done what we expect Americans to do, instead of behaving totally un-American, the child would have been with his father without having to endure the nightmare of the raid.

And if some people in this country had the backbone to ignore the attempts of a vocal minority to demonize the whole country of Cuba, we would long ago have obtained a relationship with that country which would have precluded the whole sequence of events from ever occurring.

divemaster

04-24-2000, 11:44 AM

[qoute]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those decisions OUGHT to be his, but in point of fact, THEY ARE NOT HIS, but rather, they are FIDEL'S. . . . etc. etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have reasonably unbiased citations for any of this? Because I, for one, would love to see them.[/quote]

Well, it seems to me that the best sources are those who actually lived in Cuba and know about such things first-hand. Unfortunately, many who disagree cop out by saying "biased!"

Just one example was a letter to the editor published in the paper a few weeks ago. It was from someone who actually lived in Cuba, but was able to escape. Is this a biased source? Of course. I mean, what would he know about conditions in Cuba? :rolleyes: After all, I'm sure the American press and inelligensia know oh so much better.

And wasn't it just two weeks ago that a Cuban Official stated outright that Cuban citizens, and specifically Elian, were "possessions" of the Cuban government?

I think just about anyone you talk to who has escaped a totalitarian regime will tell you of the fact that individual decisions that go against the will of the state can cause one to be exiled or killed. So, by that token, yes, I do believe that Fidel is holding the decision-making strings (not to mention family members in "protective custody") in this whole scenario.

Liberal

04-24-2000, 11:52 AM

We now, according to Libertarian have license to override the rights and choices of any person who lives under a form of government we consider coersive [sic].

Spiritus has missed the point and misassigned his own interpretation of it to me. Again. Color me decidedly not surprised.

I'll reword his misstatement of my position so that it rightly reflects it: "We now, according to Libertarian have license to override the annulment of rights and choices of any person who lives under a coercive form of government."

Phil

... and I reiterate, if that is what Cuba is truly like, and if Juan Gonzales truly desires to live there, he is a volunteer.

Agreed. But how will you determine "truly desires" if that is what Cuba is "truly like", i.e., Fidel truly does hold his Cuban family hostage, pending the outcome of Juan's "visit"?

But of course, if he says that's what he wants, you won't believe him anyway, and will take his child from him.

That is wrong. And you know better.

If he makes his decisions as a free man in a context of peace and honesty, rather than mouthing the decisions of the tyrant who holds the key to his life, then everything changes.

Shame on you for wanting to separate a father from his child for political reasons, and for wanting to use a nonlibertarian government to do so.

That is not what I want to do. I want to separate a tyrant from his slave. From both of them, actually. The father and the son.

How . . . expedient.

Phil, if you really think I am that far off-base, then you know, or ought to know, that I am missing some piece of information. Instead, you are assuming the very worst about me. I already asked you what I was missing, based on what I said to you. Rather than play Spiritus against me, why don't you fill me in? You, of all people here, ought to know that I will admit my error, if any, and change my mind.

Gilligan

04-24-2000, 11:59 AM

Apparently Lib and Edlyn believe that the Gonzales family in Cuba will be made to suffer if Juan and Elian choose not to return; that Juan’s choice to return is thus not a free one. Further, they believe that Juan is not obtaining custody of Elian, but merely returning him to the “custody” of the Cuban government. These beliefs may be wrong; I don’t know all the facts so I can’t judge whether they are right or wrong. But if Lib and Edlyn believe them, how could their opinion be any different than what it is? If they believed that Juan was a child molesting murderer, should they say, “Well, we believe it, but we can’t prove it, so go ahead and give him his kid back and let’s hope for the best.”

Gilligan

04-24-2000, 01:33 PM

Now, jodih, I never said I thought Juan would hurt his son, or that Elian shouldn’t be returned to him. I’m saying IF I believed he would be harmed, I would believe he shouldn’t be returned. (And by harm I don’t mean living in a poorer or unfree country.) Personally, I happen to think he should be with his father, but I hardly think it’s outrageous that someone else would believe otherwise. It’s not like all the facts about the matter are obvious and known.

pldennison

04-24-2000, 01:57 PM

Lib, it's not that I think you're missing any information (although I wholeheartedly endorse DSYoung's post, and again point to the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, which helps to keep tens of thousands of Cuban children destitute).

I understand your need to speak against tyranny and injustice (you convinced me of the merits of the noncoercion princinple, remember?). But I really resent the fact that you're asking this man to run the 200-meter philosophical high hurdles in order to achieve his goals.

From the outset, he has clearly said that he wants to be reunited with his son. The pictures released over the last two days clearly show that father and son love each other. Sometimes, just sometimes, things are exactly what they appear. Juan loves his son, wants to be with his son, and wants to remain in Cuba. To ask him to meet your criteria for proving it is somewhat heartless, in my opinion.

Spiritus Mundi

04-24-2000, 03:14 PM

What Lib believes, apparently, is that his distaste for a form of government justifies ignoring the expressed wishes of a father to raise his son.

Does Lib have direct evidence that Juan Miguel's family is being held hostage? I have yet to see any.
Does Lib have direct evidence that Juan Miguel is "mouthing the decisions" of castro rather than expressing his own views? I have yet to see any.
Does Lib have direct evidence that Elian will be taken away from his father and raised by the state as soon as he returns to Cuba? I have yet to see any.

I have seen, however, that Libertarian feels that his own extrapolations of Juan Miguel's situation justify overriding the presumption that he is able to speak for his own interests. I find Libs rewording above to e enlightening. To remind:

We . . . have license to override the annulment of rights and choices of any person who lives under a coercive form of government.

You will note, please, that the right he speaks of overriding is the right of a father to raise his son. You will also note, please, that Libertarian feels it is not necessary for the person in question to ask for our intercession. Libertarian feels justified in taking away your children because his judgment is more important than your expressed wishes.

Now, from most people who claim a libertarian ethic I would be amused by the irony of this support for paternalistic interference in the affairs of a family. It is an interesting image, is it not, mobs of libertarians forcefully separating children from families because the families do not live in an environment of which the libertarians approve. But I long since gave up hope that Libertarian was peaceful and honest, so perhaps the irony here is that there is no irony to his position.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

oldscratch

04-24-2000, 04:57 PM

I don't know about Libertarian but I wouldn't want the child to grow up in a society where "Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant."
:)

Hardwood Paneling

04-24-2000, 05:07 PM

I’m going to go out on a limb here, Lib, and presume that you do not have any children. I do. I am, in fact, an excellent parent.

Let us pretend for a moment that you have, say, a four-year-old son. And that you and your son watch “Barney” on TV.

Now, I am convinced that Barney is not good for your son. You say you disagree. I can cite sources indicating why and how Barney is destructive; and I believe Barney that is coercing you into watching, with, um, subliminal suggestion. My children, of course, do not watch Barney, which provides us a host of benefits, one of which is that we are able to think freely and critically about Barney.

Should I not, by your own argument, be justified in taking your son from you?

I guess what I’m saying is that regardless of what you think of the “regime” in which my children are being reared, should you try to take them…God help you.

[switches hats]

Keep it up, man. You always inspire me to think, and I really enjoy your impassioned and poetic writing style.

Congrats on the nuptials. What the hell are you doing here?!

------------------
Sincerely,
Hardwood Paneling

Hardwood Paneling

04-24-2000, 05:13 PM

Wait a minute.

Is this a troll? Is Lib playing devil's advocate to see how many closet Libertarians there are out there?

Now I'm confused.
:p

------------------
Sincerely,
Hardwood Paneling

bantmof

04-24-2000, 05:18 PM

Lib - even if this man is being coerced to return to Cuba (and I see no reason to believe that's the case), it is still illegal and immoral to take his child away from him.

Many, many years ago, I met a research chemist who lived in one of the Soviet republics, long before they could travel freely. He lived under a system of government that was, by my standards, oppressive. There were some indications that his entire family was not allowed to travel to the US at once, so that there would be a compelling reason for him to return.

However, in no way would that have made it OK to take his children from him while he was here. Doing so would have made us worse than the society we claimed to be better than. No matter how repressive his government was, he was a good guy, one of the kindest people I had ever met. And even his repressive government did not take his children away from him! How could you possibly justify engaging in acts vastly more reprehensible than any his own government ever did to him?

If we so easily engage in the practices we claim to despise in others, then we are no better - perhaps worse, because we would also be hypocrites, claiming to support a freedom that we rationalized discarding on a whim. I would really rather see this country uphold a higher standard, not engage in the sort of petty tyranny that's still all too common in the world. "The ends justify the means" is the mantra of the worst offenders of human rights on the planet - those who torture, deny freedom of speech, and yes, even take children from their parents for ideological reasons. It should not be ours as well, or we have sunk to their level.

--
peas on earth

Liberal

04-24-2000, 06:57 PM

Jodi

Please don't be angry. Our concern is for the child and his father. Fidel is irrelevant, except that he insists on making himself relevant.

Gilligan

Thanks for restating clearly (and accurately) how we feel.

Phil

From the outset, he has clearly said that he wants to be reunited with his son. The pictures released over the last two days clearly show that father and son love each other. Sometimes, just sometimes, things are exactly what they appear. Juan loves his son, wants to be with his son, and wants to remain in Cuba. To ask him to meet your criteria for proving it is somewhat heartless, in my opinion.

You make a good point. I'll reconsider my position in light of it. Please understand that, were the father free, there would be no question here. Of course, America is becoming more totalitarian by the day, and so perhaps this government offers little more freedom than Fidel's.

Hardwood Paneling

Even Spiritus has not yet called me a troll.

Spiritus

I am glad that you alone bear the weight of your foolish grudge.

jab1

04-24-2000, 07:01 PM

Here's yesterday's column from Charley Reese, (http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/columnists/2000-04-23/OPEDreese23042300.html) who is, I'd bet, one of Libertarian's favorite writers, assuming he's even heard of Reese. (And any of you who have never read the ignorant, ill-thought screeds written by Reese before, just click on the links on the right side of the column. You won't believe your eyes. It's astonishing that this man has found employment as a writer.)

In the column Reese claims that Big Business is behind the efforts to return Elian to Cuba to make it possible to drop the Cuban Embargo so Big Business can exploit Cuba. He specifically charges the chairman of Archer Daniels Midland, Dwayne Andreas. ADM would open a molasses plant in Cuba if there was no embargo. Andreas also happens to contribute heavily to Brown University where Elian met his grandmothers. And his lawyer, Gregory Craig, works at a firm that has represented ADM in the past.

Thing is, even if all that is true, the boy belongs with his father. And the father has the right to decide where they will live.

------------------
Sig Alert!

Jodi

04-24-2000, 07:05 PM

What makes me angry, Lib, is that this thread unfortunately reveals your total hypocricy. Apparently, individuals are allowed to live their lives free of coercion so long as you, personally, okay it. If they cannot prove that they are freely and willingly embracing a system you do not happen to agree with, you endorse imposing the vilest and most draconian coercion of all upon them -- to remove their children from them "for the children's own good." It bugs me because nine times out of ten you would be the first to argue that no one but the parents have the right to determine what is in their child's best interest but now, all of a sudden, you're saying "The heck with what the father says! He's being coerced into saying it!" when there is ZERO evidence to show this. It's so anti-libertarian I just can't stand it.

Let me ask you this: I suspect you of beating your wife, and I determine that she should be removed from your house for her own good because of it. I talk to you and you say you are NOT beating her, but of course I don't believe you because you would lie about it. So then I talk to her and she denies it, but I don't believe her either because I somehow know you are coercing her into denying it. There's no evidence of this, of course, but I'm personally sure of it, so off she goes. I cannot believe you of all people see nothing wrong with this.

------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

Jodi

04-24-2000, 07:07 PM

Okay, so there wasn't a question in that last paragraph, but I assume you take my point.

------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

Liberal

04-24-2000, 07:09 PM

Phil

One more question, please. This is a hypothetical. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the State Department's February, 1999 report of rights abuses in Cuba is at least substantially true. Suppose further that Juan knows about these abuses. And suppose that he does indeed want to defect and take custody of his son here.

Given all that, how, if you were he, would you proceed?

Liberal

04-24-2000, 07:19 PM

Jodi

But there is evidence of rights abuses in Cuba. Please read the link provided to the State Department's report on the previous page. I do believe, of course, that Juan ought to have all rights with respect to his own son, but as Gilligan has explained, I believe that there is ample evidence that Juan is being used by Fidel, whose own diplomat announced to the NY Times that Elian is the property of Cuba.

I thought you and I had got beyond the point of assuming the worst about each other. What Edlyn and I care about is the same thing you do: the child. If the father is free, then the child belongs with the father. But if the father is a prisoner, then the child belongs with family who is free. Remember, the mother, who had custody of Elian, had sought this freedom for him. Had she made it here, would you not award custody to her?

You make good points, and we make good points. Why then not let a family court hear all the evidence, and decide how best to secure Elian's rights? Why turn him will-nilly over to a man who, at the very least, has a reputation as a dictator who couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone's consent? Can we at least agree on this?

Liberal

04-24-2000, 07:22 PM

jab

And the father has the right to decide where they will live.

Not according to the Cuban constitution, he doesn't.

kaylasdad99

04-25-2000, 12:35 AM

I guess what Fidel needs to do (to demonstrate that Juan is acting freely when he expresses his desire to return to Cuba) is allow everybody that Juan Miguel is related to to leave Cuba, and voluntarily return at the end of it. But those people probably are being coerced with the threat of harm to teir friends and loved ones, too, huh?

The six degrees of seperation that people talk about are quite likely to be far fewer than six when you're talking about the population of a relatively isolated island nation.

Soooo. Fidel Castro has to let EVERYBODY in Cuba go to Florida to prove that Juan Miguel Gonzales is sincere about wanting to live with his son in Cuba. It occurs to me that this might put a bit of a strain on the capacity of the infrastructure in Florida.

Wait a minute. That's probably been Castro's intention all along! Diabolical.

OTOH, if Castro does depopulate the island for the purposes of this demonstration, maybe we could round up a few Cuban exiles, arm them to the teeth, and have them retake Cuba (Para Dios, la libertad, y Proctor y Gamble).

Yeaahh, that's it. We could land them at the Bay of Pigs...

Jodi

04-25-2000, 12:37 AM

DIVEMASTER says:

[qoute]Well, it seems to me that the best sources are those who actually lived in Cuba and know about such things first-hand. Unfortunately, many who disagree cop out by saying "biased!"[/quote]

Excuse me, but how is this a cop out? Obviously, people who are unhappy with how a particular government is run are the first to tell you how awful it is. Meanwhile, thousands of Cubans continue to live in Cuba in evident peace and relative contentment. I certainly don not consider Cuban exiles to be unbiased sources on this subject. When I see hot-button words like "Fidel's agent," "forced in to farm labor" and "discrimination based on factors of expediency" I suspect rhetoric that cannot be backed up. So I ask Lib, and you -- back it up. Show me some evidence that Juan Miguel is not speaking freely. Not suspicion or speculation -- evidence. I mean, it seems the least you could do since you propose to take his child away from him for political reasons.

And wasn't it just two weeks ago that a Cuban Official stated outright that Cuban citizens, and specifically Elian, were "possessions" of the Cuban government?

This was never said, and again I'd like a cite. The original Spanish statement was that Elian "belonged" to (and in) Cuba, in the sense of being a Cuban citizen and a child of all Cuba. The "possession" spin can only be put on that statement by willfully mistranslating its intended meaning -- which, of course, Cuban ex-patriots are entirely willing to do.

I do believe that Fidel is holding the decision-making strings (not to mention family members in "protective custody") in this whole scenario.

And don't get me wrong: he might be. But our government can only ask Juan Miguel if he is acting freely and and without coercion and respect his declaration that he is. I mean, how can Juan Miguel ever prove he's not being coerced? Our government cannot presume coercion when no evidence of it exists, and use that extremely flimsy excuse to insist that this child remain in America. Keep in mind, Juan Miguel enjoys (and has enjoyed for years) a relatively high standard of living in Cuba. He is a member of the Communist party and, again, has been for years. It is ridiculous to believe that he could not be perfectly happy in Cuba simply because you or I could not be.

LIB says:

I'll reword his misstatement of my position so that it rightly reflects it: "We now, according to Libertarian have license to override the annulment of rights and choices of any person who lives under a coercive form of government."

This makes me so mad I could just hop out of my chair. How do you know that Juan Miguel did not give up his rights voluntarily, as you have asserted any free individual can do? How do you know his rights under the communist system he chooses to live with have been annulled? How do you know he is being coerced? You don't. You are speculating. You are putting yourself in the position of judge in this case to separate a boy from his father because you personally don't like the political beliefs of the father. The audacity of this is breathtaking, and breathtakingly anti-libertarian.

Agreed. But how will you determine "truly desires" if that is what Cuba is "truly like", i.e., Fidel truly does hold his Cuban family hostage, pending the outcome of Juan's "visit"?

Sigh. There is no indication that Juan Miguel's family is being held "hostage." There is no indication that Juan Miguel is not voluntarily going back to Cuba. And, again, he might not be -- he may, in fact, be being coerced. But we, as Americans, have only one way to evaluate this, and that is to ask him. You appear to be stating that he could not possibly really mean what he says; he couldn't really want to return to Cuba. Of course he could, and he may. In the absence of anyevidence to the contrary, we must assume he means what he says.

If he makes his decisions as a free man in a context of peace and honesty, rather than mouthing the decisions of the tyrant who holds the key to his life, then everything changes.

How can he ever prove to your satisfaction that he has done so? As long as he avers that he wishes to return to Cuba, you assume (without evidence) that his decision is not made "in the context of peace and honesty." Again, there is NO evidence to support this rank speculation on your point.

That is not what I want to do. I want to separate a tyrant from his slave. From both of them, actually. The father and the son.

Under your own philosophy of libertarianism -- you do remember it, don't you -- a slave has every right to live as a slave if he freely chooses to do so. Even assuming Juan Miguel is Castro's "agent" or "dupe" or "slave," show me some evidence that he does not play that role voluntarily.

Phil, if you really think I am that far off-base, then you know, or ought to know, that I am missing some piece of information.

You are not missing any information; you have, in fact, made up "information" that is not there -- that is, that Juan Miguel is not freely and of his own volition choosing to return to Cuba to raise his son. Since when does libertarianism allow you to second-guess the apparently-freely made declarations of any individual?

GILLIGAN says:

Apparently Lib and Edlyn believe that the Gonzales family in Cuba will be made to suffer if Juan and Elian choose not to return; that Juan’s choice to return is thus not a free one.

They may "believe" whatever they like, but in the absence of any shred of evidence, they cannot use these speculative "beliefs," without more, to force Juan Miguel to stay in the States or to divest him of his right to parent his child as he sees fit, and wherever he sees fit.

But if Lib and Edlyn believe them, how could their opinion be any different than what it is?

They might start by forming their beliefs based on what we know, and reasonably can know, as opposed to basing them on speculations that have no basis in fact. This is especially important when Lib wants to use that rank speculation to separate a child from his only remaining parent in the name of "freedom."

If they believed that Juan was a child molesting murderer, should they say, “Well, we believe it, but we can’t prove it, so go ahead and give him his kid back and let’s hope for the best.”

This is obviously such a poor analogy as to hardly merit response. There is no indication that Juan Miguel has or would hurt Elian. Lib just doesn't happen to like the Cuban government because he considers it coercive. Personally, I don't think our government (or any government) is justified in removing a child from the care of a parent who is ready, willing, and able to be a parent just because the government of the individual's country is not to our liking.

------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

Gadarene

04-25-2000, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Libertarian:
Why turn him will-nilly over to a man who, at the very least, has a reputation as a dictator who couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone's consent? Can we at least agree on this?

Agree on what? That Juan Miguel Gonzalez is a "dictator who couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone's consent?" You know, this reminds me of media coverage of the Gulf War and the subsequent sanctions on Iraq--the phrase, "the United States is imposing sanctions on Saddam Hussein" kept being repeated in one permutation or another, as if the man was the sole inhabitant of Iraq. We've got a tendency, in this country, to personify things a little too much. Elian is not being "turned over" to Fidel Castro any more than we were bombing Slobodan Milosevic in the war on Kosovo. He's being reunited with his father, and his father lives in a country with a dictatorial regime. Just don't act as if Castro is a more important player in this little melodrama than the people whose lives it's actually affecting.

What I'm saying, Lib, is that you can't judge the character of a nation's inhabitants by the tenor of their political leader. You should know that better than anyone, shouldn't you? It's a mistake to think of things in such stark terms.

kaylasdad99

04-25-2000, 12:45 AM

Lib,

You continually revert to the "no true Scotsman" form of argument, with your assertion that Juan Miguel Gonzales cannot possibly meet your standards for peacefulness and honesty. My new hero, Singledad, would be able to put this so much better than I can, but he's not here right now, so let me see what I can come up with.

While the "no true Scotsman" form of argument may not be, in itself, a logical fallacy (that is, it does not necessarily contradict itself or its founding assumptions), the fact that one is resorting to it can be interpreted as evidence that the one is unable to support one's position with rational argument and verifiable fact, and is therefore relying on dogmatic axioms.

Speaking solely for myself, I must say that I had formed an opinion of you, your debating style, and your intellectual honesty that would place you above such tactics. I would be saddened to have to accpt evidence to the contrary.

whitetho

04-25-2000, 03:56 AM

Of course, America is becoming more totalitarian by the day... [snip]

Which is why the news media wasn't allowed inside the house. And the photographer was blocked from taking any pictures. And why, after taking the pictures, the camera was taken away so no one could see them. And no TV stations, magazines, newspapers or web pages were ever allowed to show the pictures. And radio talk shows weren't permitted to talk about them. And we aren't discussing this on the internet.

It's this kind of overwrought slippery-slope hysteria which causes the right-wing to lose credibility. They managed to increase Clinton's popularity in the Monica case, and now are giving Castro an opportunity to hold a few more rallies before adoring crowds.

I've lived long enough to know that this garbage talk about a concentration-camp-America is somewhere between scare tactics and wishful thinking, by people who can only view their political opponents in the most evil-minded of terms. For some people it may seem a "recent profound revelation", but its a tired old line that has been trotted-out for decades, and ignores the great progress and strengths of the United States, its traditions, its leaders, its government, and its people.

An intransigent group overplayed their hand, and the authorities responded in a completely lawful and responsible manner. But because things didn't turn out they wanted, i.e. their showpiece was taken away from them, and it was done in a way that didn't result in Clinton's destruction, that must be a sign of the triumph of evil over good. It's time to put this political soap opera behind us, before any more damage is done.

David B

04-25-2000, 07:10 AM

Lib said:But there is evidence of rights abuses in Cuba.And there is evidence of rights abuses in the U.S.

Therefore, we must assume that you would be against any father in the U.S. getting custody of his child.

RM Mentock

04-25-2000, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Libertarian:
Father, Phil

Recall that the very definition of freedom is the absence of coercion and fraud.

Free the father first. Then, give his son to him.

Be very careful of this position. Taken to its logical conclusion, you would take my sons and daughters from me.

And I live in the USA.

------------------
rocks

RM Mentock

04-25-2000, 07:22 AM

I meant, be very wary. Be wery wery wary.

Liberal

04-25-2000, 07:24 AM

Okay, people. You can stop with the "Lib, if you're saying what I think you're saying, then I'm disappointed" stuff.

I am not saying that Juan Gonzales is a dictator (where the heck did that one come from?). I am not saying that Juan Gonzales ought to have no rights with respect to his child. I am not saying that Juan Gonzales does not love his son.

How about dealing with what I am saying, instead of these weird misprojections and misparaphrases of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that when a slave speaks, he does not speak for himself. THAT IS THE NATURE OF SLAVERY. When a slave speaks, he speaks for his master only. EVEN IF IT IS NOT HIS DESIRE TO DO SO. The master controls the slave, oppresses the slave, and uses the slave as a tool for his own ends. Fidel is the master; Juan is the slave.

I don't know whether it's your youthful naivity, or simply that you don't want to hear what I'm saying. But there are those of us old enough to remember the Cuban revolution, the seizing of power by Fidel, and the subsequent enslavement of the Cuban population.

To all libertarians: if you believe that Cuba is a dictatorship, and if you value noncoercion, then I call upon you to advocate freedom for Juan Gonzales. Advocate whatever force necessary to suppress the tyrant, Fidel Castro. Advocate whatever force necessary to free Juan. And then advocate whatever force necessary to give him back his son.

But please, please do not advocate surrendering Elian to his father's master.

pldennison

04-25-2000, 07:30 AM

One more question, please. This is a hypothetical. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the State Department's February, 1999 report of rights abuses in Cuba is at least substantially true. Suppose further that Juan knows about these abuses. And suppose that he does indeed want to defect and take custody of his son here.

Given all that, how, if you were he, would you proceed?

If I were he, I would already have defected.

In any case, his Miami family is neither peaceful nor honest anyway. Lazaro Gonzales is a multiple DUI offender, as is his brother; and two of Elian's cousins are mutiple felons including robbery and firearms charges. One of them appeared on TV some time ago making the "V-for-Victory" sign over Elian's head. You don't see him on TV anymore. Wonder why.

Liberal

04-25-2000, 07:47 AM

Father

Taken to its logical conclusion, you would take my sons and daughters from me.

Not so. If you were enslaved, your sons and daughters would not belong to you anyway, would they?

I do not advocate taking sons and daughters from their parents. I am advocating taking sons and daughters from tyrants who hold their parents in slavery. No parents would want their sons and daughters owned by their government.

If Bill Clinton's diplomat or the U.S. Constitutions said that your sons and daughters "belong to the United States", how would you react? Would you give them up?

I'm not going to fight this any longer. It's worse than LBMB. You people want to deal with what Spiritus says I am "apparently" saying, or what you "suspect" I am saying, and not with what I am saying. At least the disappointment I take from here is with what you have actually said.

You may now begin your gloatfest.

pldennison

04-25-2000, 08:01 AM

If Juan Gonzales WANTS TO LIVE IN CUBA, he is a slave VOLUNTARILY, and as a volunteer, according to you, has the right to make decisions with respect to his minor children.

But of course, if he says he wants to live in Cuba, he doesn't really mean it, because he's a slave.

He can't win with you UNLESS he defects, can he? Nothing he can say concerning his wanting to live in Cuba can be true unless he doesn't want to live in Cuba. You have created for him a Catch-22. Congratulations.

pldennison

04-25-2000, 08:05 AM

But there are those of us old enough to remember the Cuban revolution, the seizing of power by Fidel, and the subsequent enslavement of the Cuban population . . .Advocate whatever force necessary to suppress the tyrant, Fidel Castro.

Yes, let's all return Cuba to its former days as an island paradise ruled by the military dictator Batista and the Cuban and American mafias. Come on, Lib. Be realistic, here.

pldennison

04-25-2000, 08:52 AM

I apologize for that last post, Lib, it was way too harsh. The sad fact is that, in our hemisphere, countries where Spanish is the primary language tend to end up as military dictatorships run by one extreme wing or the other. There's no guarantee that whatever replaces Castro wouldn't be ten times as bad as you imagine he is.

In anycase, I really do believe you want to create a Catch-22 situation for the Juan Gonzales. If he loves Cuba just the way it is, he is a volunteer and thus as a peaceful honest person has rights with respect to his son. (Actually, in real life, he does anyway. He doesn't live in Libertaria and neither do we.) But if he says he really loves Cuba, he can't be telling the truth, because he lives in Cuba. So the only way for him to be believed is to defect. But if he really loves Cuba, he doesn't want to defect. But if he says he really loves Cuba, he can't be telling the truth, because . . .

How many more hoops do you want the man to jump through before he gets his son back and gets to return to his home? Everyone said, "We want to hear it from the father," so the father appeared on TV. Then they said, "Well, he's a tool of Castro. Let him stand on American soil and say it." So he came to America. Then they said, "Well, he's a tool of Castro. Let him defect and say it." Why does this man have to do parlor tricks for you anymore?

Hardwood Paneling

04-25-2000, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Libertarian:

Hardwood Paneling

Even Spiritus has not yet called me a troll.

You're right, I'm sorry. That came off mean spirited, but was meant to be a joke.

Lib, you are right in saying that no parents wishes his children to live in slavery. And I would grant that Juan may secretly want to defect to the USA. I would be happy to see the whole family living in freedom...

But what if you are wrong about Juan prefering Cuba?

I think it is just that possibility that has everyone so riled up. If you're right, and Juan is a mouthpiece for Castro, then I'm right with you. But if you're wrong, you're making a terrible mistake in wrenching father from son.

Of course we cannnot know Juan's heart. If we assume Juan prefers Cuba, and we deliver Elian to him, and our assumptions are wrong, we send the boy back into slavery like you're saying. If we assume Juan tells the truth and we keep Elian from him, then we are worse than Castro for destroying that family, and hypocrites to boot.

Which error is better?

------------------
Stop the violins!

RTFirefly

04-25-2000, 11:25 AM

First of all, Lib, congratulations to you and Edlyn on the occasion of your recent nuptials.

Now, back to disagreeing with you, as usual:

Pardon me, but haven't you been pretty emphatic in the past concerning the tyrannical nature of the U.S. government? I mean, we've been 'round that bush more than a few times. IIRC, I had (on multiple occasions) suggested that standards of comparison were in order; that, compared to most other countries (now and throughout history), the USA in 1999/2000 was/is a very free place, and hardly tyrannical at all. Your response more or less amounted to: tyranny is tyranny.

Now I'm perplexed: you seem to be the one either ignoring the tyrannical nature of the USA, or conceding the relevance of a comparative approach - essentially arguing that the USA (however tyrannical it may be) is so much less tyrannical than Cuba that taking a child away from his Cuban parents is fully justified, in order to raise him in the tyrannical (but much more modestly so) USA.

Do I read you correctly with one of these either/or's?

------------------
Homepage: www.galacticgovernment.gov (http://www.galacticgovernment.gov)
Occupation: Galactic Emperor
Location: Trantor
Interests: Palace intrigue, hereditary successors
--Profile by UncleBeer

RTFirefly

04-25-2000, 11:34 AM

BTW, I have to interject that I consider the World Net Daily to be nearly as authoritative and unbiased a source as Charley Reese. ;)

[/hijack]

tracer

04-25-2000, 01:23 PM

Has anyone in this whole fracas ever asked Elian who he would rather be with? Or do his opinions not matter, because he's under 18 and therefore a piece of property?

Spiritus Mundi

04-25-2000, 04:32 PM

Lib, many people here have been addressing what your position. You, it seems, have been mae uncomfortable by the consequences of your own reasoning. As I have so often witnessed when this is the case, you now accuse others of ignoring what you really meant (as if your failure to communicate clearly were the fault of others). You then "took your ball and went home".

Fine. I am not at all surprised that you have grown tired of trying to defend removing a child from his loving father as a Libertarian position. Neither am I surprised that you have no wish to defend the absurd proposition that a slave is incapable of ever speaking for himself. It does give you a lovely little pedestal from which to dictate which of your fellow human beings can be allowed to express their own will, though. Hmmmm -- that sounds suspiciously like something a dictator would do, doesn't it?

Of course, tou have huffed your way home by now and will not be gracing this thread with your reply. I cannot tell you how much that disappoints me.

Oh, before I forget. Thanks for the concern, but I bear you no grudge and suffer under no burden. When I thought you were a reasonable man, I wasted much time in discussion with you and sufered much anguish over our failed attempts to communicate. Once I realized that you subjugated integrity to ideology, it actually eased my burden considerably.

I do appreciate the concern, though.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

Jodi

04-25-2000, 07:24 PM

Lib, surely you can see that "human rights abuses in Cuba" is not the same as "wide-spread slavery" and not alone enough to trasform Juan Miguel into Castro's "slave." As David B. pointed out, there are human rights abuses everywhere; that doesn't make all the citizens who live in the various countries where they occur bad parents.

The fallacy of your argument -- and it's a pretty big one -- is that there is NO EVIDENCE that Juan Miguel IS Castro's "dupe" or "slave" or whatever you want to call him. To assert that his is is nothing more than the rankest speculation on your part, based on no evidence whatsoever. How can you possibly justify coercing a man on the issue of raising his own children, based solely on your own opinions and the most over-generalized of "facts"? Again, your opinion is totally inconsistent with libertarianism. Totally. And, by the way, let me point out that it blows to hell your assertion that any man may choose the system he lives under (even to be a slave) so long as he does so freely. Under your new iteration, he has the "right" to do so as long as he understands that you will take it upon yourself to remove his children from him if you don't happen to like the political system he chooses. I mean, c'mon -- it's indefensible, especially for a person who purports to follow the libertarian ethic of minimal government interference on the rights of the individual. Please answer this question: How can an individual ever prove that he or she chooses to live in a society with anything less than perfect freedom, if you conclude from the lack of perfect freedom that any answer they give must be coerced?

------------------
Jodi

Fiat Justitia

David B

04-25-2000, 07:56 PM

Lib, we (or at least I) know what you are saying -- and we (or at least I) still disagree. You seem to be assuming that we couldn't possibly disagree if only we understood. Well, you're wrong. I understand what you're saying, and I think you're still just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. As RM Mentock said:Be very careful of this position. Taken to its logical conclusion, you would take my sons and daughters from me.

And I live in the USA.That is exactly where this leads -- to having children taken away because the government doesn't like the parents' political leanings. I mentioned that to you before and you managed to ignore it. You can claim slavery all you want, but the man is here, and he is apparently freely making his decisions. You don't know what's going on in his mind. All you know is your assumptions, and from that you would take a child away from his father.

What if I assume that since Libertarians are for drug legalization, that means they all must be druggies and not fit parents? Does that mean we take away the children of all registered Libertarians? Or anybody we suspect of being a Libertarian?

Try looking at it from a point of view other than staunchly anti-Castro. Try looking at it as a father. Or better yet, try looking at it as a Libertarian...

jab1

04-25-2000, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by pldennison:
Lazaro Gonzales is a multiple DUI offender, as is his brother; and two of Elian's cousins are mutiple felons including robbery and firearms charges.

On Politically Incorrect, Bill Maher refers to them as Elian's "crazy cousins and drunk uncles."

I love that show. It's like a half-hour version of Great Debates, though it sometimes becomes a BBQ Pit!

------------------
Sig Alert!

RM Mentock

04-25-2000, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Libertarian:
Not so. If you were enslaved, your sons and daughters would not belong to you anyway, would they?

In my mind, they would. That my government would take them from me is no different from your government taking them from me. That is the way societies grow--through their children. Everybody should have that right.

I do not advocate taking sons and daughters from their parents. I am advocating taking sons and daughters from tyrants who hold their parents in slavery. No parents would want their sons and daughters owned by their government.[/QUOTE]

Hmm. I know this is thin ice, here, as you've said that we've misinterpreted your words, but I think you've said that Cuba owns the children of its inhabitants. And of course, Elian's dad is ready to take him back to Cuba (there could be more suprises yet). Given that, there seems to be an inconsistancy in what you're saying there.

Perhaps, Elian's dad doesn't want his son "owned" by the government--maybe he wants to work against that government, with his son at his side, for as long as possible.

Or maybe he is a complete dupe of the system, and wants to do everything in his power to promote and extend that system. Are you saying that such a person has no right to have children?

------------------
rocks

Liberal

04-30-2000, 05:59 PM

Phil

Why does this man have to do parlor tricks for you anymore?

I had to chew on that question for a long time. I believe that, essentially, your argument is correct. If Juan is indeed a voluntary slave, then he has surrendered his rights willingly and freely to his master. I can hardly disagree with an argument that I myself have made from time to time.

Likewise, it is unfair, as you point out, to demand that he jump through any hoops to prove anything. I certainly would have been less wary had he come here immediately. But there might be many reasons why he didn't. My concern, of course, is that he didn't because he wasn't allowed to, or else, that he didn't because he didn't want to.

All that said, I still believe that the courts are the best place to determine the issue, because there are counter-charges of tyranny. In Libertaria, of course, there would be an arbitration ruling before any enforcement of any kind could take place.

Jodi

I'm very relieved that you and I are reconciled. I don't know how you put up with me for so long. You must be a good-hearted Sanguine. When I think of how much time I wasted throwing up my defensive shields based on multiple levels of misassumption, I just shake my head. Clearly, you and I still don't see eye to eye, but I no longer interpret your passion as acidity.

Hardwood Paneling

Of course we cannnot know Juan's heart. If we assume Juan prefers Cuba, and we deliver Elian to him, and our assumptions are wrong, we send the boy back into slavery like you're saying. If we assume Juan tells the truth and we keep Elian from him, then we are worse than Castro for destroying that family, and hypocrites to boot.

Which error is better?

Neither. I believe that priority one, at this point, as far as arbitration is concerned, is to ascertain Juan's true wishes. But that cannot (and ought not) to be done by the Justice (sic) Department, while Juan is captive in a Cuban enclave. That ought to be done by a family court, where Juan is free of any coercions, real or perceived.

RT

Pardon me, but haven't you been pretty emphatic in the past concerning the tyrannical nature of the U.S. government?

A valid point, and put best by:

OldScratch

"I don't know about Libertarian but I wouldn't want the child to grow up in a society where "Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant."

Thanks for helping me get my bearings back.

As it turns out, this all is, after all, a pissing contest between two tyrants, thereby validating my original instincts.

tracer

04-30-2000, 08:03 PM

Anybody here see this week's episode of South Park? They parodied the whole Elian Gonzales affair to a "T" -- except they substituted Romanian quintuplets with a dead grandmother for a Cuban boy with a dead mother.

Given how he feels about Juan in this thread, I'm sure Libertarian would get a kick out of the Romanian government holding a gun to the quintuplets' dad's head and forcing him to beg the quintuplets to come home. ;)

Spiritus Mundi

05-01-2000, 12:28 PM

As it turns out, this all is, after all, a pissing contest between two tyrants, thereby validating my original instincts.

Thanks, Lib. I needed a smile today, and your unerring ability to see self-justification in fallacious reasoning was just the ticket.

This is not at heart a "pissing contest between two dictators". It is at heart a child custody case. Your inability to view the situation except through the lens of your political ideology is nicely representative of the Cuban exile community. You, like the mayor of Miami and Castro and Gore and Bush, are unwilling to acept the human elements of this case at face value. For you, as for them, the political elements of the case are more important than the individuals.

You see validation of this position in the facts that neither the US nor Cuba has a overnment of which you personally approve. *chuckle*

You also argue for this issue to be decided by the courts *before* any final custody decidion is implemented. You seem blind, of course, to the fact that the government raid succeeded in restoring exactly that environment which you claim to favor. The initial coersion in this case occurred in the instant that the Miami relatives refused to surrender Elian to the appropriate custodial authority, which was either the father or the INS.

jab1

05-01-2000, 03:01 PM

That rifle held by the INS agent that was pointed at the guy holding Elian has a Safety and it was ON. It's visible in the photos taken at the scene. The photos were shown on Nightline last Thursday.

The agents were under orders to leave their rifles on "safe."

RTFirefly

05-01-2000, 04:04 PM

RT

Pardon me, but haven't you been pretty emphatic in the past concerning the tyrannical nature of the U.S. government?

A valid point, and put best by:

OldScratch

"I don't know about Libertarian but I wouldn't want the child to grow up in a society where "Jackbooted thugs in battlegear smash down the door of a private home, inhabited by peaceful people who shelter a little boy from a tyrant."

Thanks for helping me get my bearings back.

As it turns out, this all is, after all, a pissing contest between two tyrants, thereby validating my original instincts.

OK, so in the end, you can't recognize gradations of 'tyranny'; everything's either black or white, good or evil. A moment ago, the USA was the white knight in shining armor, rescuing Elian from the tyrannical dictator of Cuba; now it's back to being the evil, tyrannical, liberal government you'd previously claimed it was.

That's cool with me. Happy to provide you with the refresher.

Following your earlier logic, though, I guess your Libertaria should kidnap children from their American parents willy-nilly, to rescue the kids from the tyrannical Amerikan government. After all, you seem to be pretty firm on the principle that free countries have the right to take kids from parents who are governed by tyrants. Your claim that the Elian matter is just a pissing match between tyrants doesn't afect this underlying principle of yours.

In Libertaria, of course, there would be an arbitration ruling before any enforcement of any kind could take place.

And in Freedonia, of course, no injustice could ever possibly happen in the first place. My imaginary country can beat up your imaginary country, neener neener neener. :)