“Bad investments?”
Really?
I picture this phrase more aptly applied to a bad wheat crop and not theft.
MUGGER: Gimme your wallet or I’ll beat the shit outta you!
(later in court)
MUGGER: Six years seems harsh, judge, for what was simply a bad investment on his part.
Bricker, you’re still avoiding the toughest questions, IMO – how does your preferred policy WRT Cuba help anyone but the Castros and hardliners? Assuming that Cuban politics continue as it has for the last 50 years, how long would you support the embargo with no positive change? Another 50 years? 100?
You don’t understand free markets, and have no interest in learning.
For the purposes of my interaction with you just assume I have adopted the BigT mantra: “That which I aprrove of is Good and Just; that which I abhor is Evil and Wring.”
The Obama policy on Cuba? Evil and Wrong.
Do not personalize arguments in this fashion. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Story on CBS news radio about taxi-drivers, B&B hosts, tour guides, and restaurateurs (I really hate that word) already seeing decreases in business.
The question was “why should we let it go”, not “why are we not letting it go”. But another answer is “because, after 50 years or a failed policy, it’s time to admit the policy isn’t working”.
Jeez Bricker, are you going to keep ignoring my questions?
You speak of capitalism and free markets. One of the aspects of capitalism is risk, which can yield a bounty or it can yield a dud. If I owned a banana plantation in, say, Somalia, and then that country became dreadfully unstable, my deed would be a piece of paper that I could implore TPTB in Somalia to honor. But buying that plantation was a pretty big risk on my part, and sometimes risks fizzle. It is part of capitalism.
If I used to live in Somalia and fled the country to escape the troubles, which have dragged on for decades, now, it turns out, I have become an American citizen, have set up shop in America, and that place I own has been subsumed in the instability. Again, my claim on it amounts to little more than a piece of paper.
Many of the disaffected Cubans who had been deprived of their Cuban stuff, are generations removed from family property that they have never seen. Such claims are tenuous at best, especially in an environment where Cuban law is not actually required to be aligned with US law. Those people are Americans whose stolen property is basically words on pieces of paper that probably do not even exist anymore. If you had not what it took to hold on to what you had, or at least hold out in Cuba to struggle against the oppressors, you gave up what you had and there is a fair chance your grandchildren will not be able (or willing) to wrest it back.
Great way to win arguments there, Bricker.
If you’re not interested in arguing in favor of Trump’s Cuba policy, then the door’s thataway. Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to participate in this thread, do they?
I argue that the Obama policy also helps only the hardliners.
So no matter what policy we have, the Cuban government is firmly in control of Cuba, and we’re not going to be getting our sugar plantations back any time soon?
If our policy makes no difference, then why not treat Cuba the same way we treat all the other authoritarian third world shithole countries? Engaging won’t help, disengaging won’t help, so let’s stop pretending we’re going to fix Cuba and treat them like we treat everyone else.
And another risk is having a mugger take your wallet.
But if that happens, I predict you’ll seek redress.
“Free market,” is not anarchy. Free markets exist when there are frameworks protecting willing buyers and willing sellers.
You’re right. Punishment should fit the crime.
Judge: Make it 50.
No matter how often you say it, this remains a piss poor analogy for international politics.
No, it’s piss good.
(See, in debate, it’s not enough to hand-wave away an argument, because I can just wave it back. WHY is the analogy flawed?)
It is piss poor because the state itself defines property. You need either laws or, lacking those, a rough gang in order to own and control stuff. The mugger who takes your wallet is a subject of the state. If the state undergoes a change in leadership and decides to change its policy regarding property, everyone under the state either tolerates the change or has a mass uprising. Cuba did not have a successful mass uprising after the one in 1959, so their policy has become local canon, and most Cubans seem to be ok with it. If you want to call that a mugging, so be it. I consider that a ridiculous position.
By the same token, another state can consider the first state’s actions in seizing the property of its citizens and respond accordingly. Right? Can’t the state itself define those types of actions?
If Cuba can “change its policy,” concerning ownership of property then why can’t the US change its policy regarding travel to Cuba and investment in Cuba?
So how long until you’d consider changing the policy? Do you really think the rapprochement would have no chance of helping the Cuban people, or helping open up the society?
It looks to me like you’re putting remarkably little (and remarkably un-Bricker-like) effort into actually defending the embargo policy. What good did it to for 50 years? Why is Cuba better off now than it would have been had we ended the embargo 30 years ago?
Since America started life mugging the British, you’d think Americans would generally be a little more forgiving of Cuba. Well, I guess to be fair the majority of Americans do seem ready to move on.
Because it is not the role of the US government to protect the business interests of private citizens who choose to invest in foreign economies. But you know that. And yet you insist on testing people to see if they know that too. In service of what?