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?!
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.
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
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.
Here’s yesterday’s column from Charley Reese, 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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
