*Lib:
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.
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
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.)
Father, Phil
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.
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…
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
Libertarian said:
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.
. . . 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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…
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
*
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.”
