If the USA was a corporation, would it’s Land of the Free tagline stand up to any kind of Trade Description legislation bearing in mind its people are not allowed to visit Cuba?
As Einstein said, everything is relative, inclusing freedom. I would say that compared to China yes, the USA is the land of the free. That may change in the coming decades though.
Would you care to provide a cite for the claim that Americans are not allowed to visit Cuba?
Perhaps you meant to say that Americans are not allowed to spend money in Cuba. It’s a small distinction, but relevant.
- Rick
Everything anyone ever needs to know about traveling to Cuba:
http://travel.state.gov/cuba.html
So Bricker is basically correct.
“Land of the Free” does not mean “Land Where You Can do Whatever the Hell You Like”. That said…other than not being able to spend money in Cuba or commit a number crimes like rape, murder and theft, or enter the country without permission how do you feel America as “Land of the Free” is misleading?
Freedom is the absence of coercion. (How can people be free if they are coerced?) There are too many government coercions to list.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**Everything anyone ever needs to know about traveling to Cuba:
http://travel.state.gov/cuba.html
What I see here is tantamount to a travel ban by the general population.
When compared to the rest of the world, on average, “Land of the free” is probably reasonable. However, Americans are fooling themselves if they think the country is the epitomy of freedom. There are many, many restrictions on freedom. Some examples:
- visiting Cuba, as mentioned
- allowing random stops by police checking licences, insurance, registration, seat belts or alcohol levels, despite these stops being clearly against the 4th amendment
- my county even mandates the maximum length the grass on your lawn can be
- seat belt and crash helmet laws in most states (an example of freedoms being eroded)
- Bush/Ashcroft riding roughshod over the constitution in the name of security
- restrictions on buying goods from out-of-favor countries e.g. Iran
- although not mandated by law, the constant demands to show ID or to present a social security number are oppressive (The Prisoner: I am not a number).
And as if there weren’t enough government-imposed regulations, large numbers of Americans gang together in groups called “Homeowners’ Associations” to further subjugate everyone to the approved way of living.
In an absolute sense, Afghanistan is probably one of the ‘most free’ nations in the world, but that doesn’t mean people are flocking there.
Most people accept a reasonable restriction on freedom as neccesary to live in a peacefull and prosperous society. Not that I am saying that all of our restrictions are ‘reasonable’.
Hong Kong comes closer than the U.S.
Historically, many native indian tribes were much freer, they were nearly Libertarian both governmentally and socially, and gave many more individual liberties and accepted varied individual lifestyles, free election of leaders, no income tax, etc, than the United States government as set up in 1789.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Rider *
**
Good. Then please provide the specific law or regulation under which I would be charged if I traveled to Cuba next Friday, stayed with my cousin, and then left.
Thanks!
- Rick
If you spent even one cent, or, say, paid your own departure tax at the airport, you could be charged under the Trading With the Enemy Act. And you would at least be very likely subject to considerable harrasment on your return home. This doesn’t spell f.r.e.e.d.o.m to me. Check it out http://www.sangfroid.com/cuba/go.html
If you want to go to Cuba, take a flight to Mexico or Brazil and get on a flight to Cuba from there. Seems like if there is really that much harassment going on, this would circumvent it. Right?
Er, Rick? To travel directly to Cuba from America, you do have to go under the auspices of a group that has a license from the U.S. Treasury Department. You can’t just hop a plane in Miami for Havana to visit your cousin.
http://www.destinationcuba.com/
…which is here…
http://www.destinationcuba.com/whocanvisit.htm
Followed by a great deal of dense bureaucratic prose, plus charts and tables and things. If you wanna wade through all that and find a loophole that allows you to hop a plane to visit your cousin, feel free. Just Copy and Pasting it gave me a headache.
I’m not sure this would be high on many lists, but if you think it is important you have probably been writing your congressman, right?
This bothers me too. I believe the problem is that the police are betting you won’t take it to the Supreme Court. We should write our congressmen.
I’d have been in trouble a couple of times this summer, under your laws. But that’s the point, the voters in your area have the right (freedom) to vote in such laws. You’re a voter, change the law.
Well in most states the voters must feel that they don’t want to have their taxes and/or insurance rates raised to pay for the medical expenses of people not wearing seat belts or helmets. Again, work to change law or move to Montana.
This primarily applies to alien’s rights and I personally do not think that the Constitution was meant to give the same rights to aliens as to citizens. They want to do away to “what” rights we have and in turn use them as a means of doing so. Screw that!
This falls under the visit Cuba above. Except I would like to add that I used to think I was missing something in not being able to buy Cuban cigars. Then I visited Mexico and found out they aren’t all that good (plus they’re expensive even in Mexico).
There you go, this is not mandated by law. It is because with computers and a number information can be found out. You can refuse to give your number out, but you won’t get the services you are accustomed to when using the numbers.
Do you want to take away this right? How do you feel about the Augusta National excluding women? Do they have the right to do that or should an individual woman have the right to join?
You are right, laws are a pain in the ass, but not having them would bring on bigger pains in the ass.
There just is no way that you can compare a tribal society with a government such as the one established in 1789. None of us would really want to live in a tent and have to carry everything from point to point (no you can’t have a horse), but that doesn’t mean that their way was worse. If you say that Native American culture should be the model, then communism would be more logical than capitalism. That is the kind of thing you come up with when comparing apples and oranges.
DDG:
The link you provided makes clear that one exception is:
As I said initially, the prohibition is not exactly on travelling to Cuba, but on spending money on the trip. I grant it’s a small distinction, as I also did above, but the fact remains that as long as my cousin lets me stay at his place and covers all my expenses, the trip is legal.
- Rick
It has already been established that the ban is on spending money, not visiting.
It is not permissible for the police to make “random stops” to check licenses, insurance, registration, seat belts, or alcohol levels. This is a lie. Also, untrue.
- Rick
Cool loophole, Rick! I didn’t know that. So, why is this information not more widely disseminated? If you look up Cuban travel on the Internet, all you get is the official “you gotta have a license from the Feds”–nobody mentions that if you can get your trip underwritten by somebody at the other end, you can go.
Actually, I’m not. But it is a terrible argument anyway - “it must be OK because the voters vote in people that set these laws”. I don’t think so.
So what? It is still a limitation of freedom.
You seem to be saying that it is OK to limit freedoms if the majority (i.e. the voters) don’t want those freedoms. That’s oppression of the minority by the majority. Rights are defined in the constitution to protect individuals from such oppression.
It applies to citizens also, for example, increasing the rights of the government to snoop into citizens’ private lives. Add in what Poindexter wants, and you can see it affects us all.
And Ashcroft believes he has the right to declare a citizen to be an enemy combatant and therefore not qualify for protection under the constitution.
No, I do not want to take away the right to form Homeowners’ Associations. People are free to choose whether to live in such communities or not. My point is that the high prevelance of these associations (often mandating myriads of petty rules) makes the United States feel less free - the citizens like to have lots of rules and will impose them themselves where government doesn’t.
AN has the right to exclude women. It is a private club.
I am not advocating anarchy - just a large reduction in government restricting individual freedoms.
Yeah, but see what’s happening, Amarone? I exercize my freedom, but it diminishes your freedom. You exercise your freedom, but it diminishes my freedom. I have the freedom to exclude you from my club, but if I do, you lose the freedom to join my club. Or you are guaranteed the right to join my club, but then I lose the freedom to chose who I want for my club.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom in a society with more than one member. Even hunter-gatherer societies are bound by customs so entrenched that they aren’t even recognized as custom, but instead seem to be laws of nature.
Perhaps you could point to a modern industrial society that has a better record of freedom than the USA. I imagine your pick will be at odds with what other people might pick.