Fidel Castro Resigns: Tuesday Marks Historic Moment

[CaptainQuasar]

I have to quote myself bucko, you won't.

I'm the one not responding to you? Is this a justification for the font theatrics earlier? I'm confident enough to let the readers of the thread decide who is honestly responding and who is throwing up chaff and dodging questions.

You can pretend that you don't know what aspect of the Clinton administration I speak of, but we both know that that is another reason I tie you with it.

Actually, I don't. You're being too oblique again and I'm not going to go read a whole bunch of stuff about the Clinton administration to try to figure out what you're talking about. Was there an ex-Cuban or an ex-communist member of the Clinton administration?

Wait - is it because I think corporations often do bad things?

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

You know what question everyone in Cuba is asking now: so how 'bout them Yankees?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You know what question everyone in Cuba is asking now: so how 'bout them Yankees?

Do you think they are confused by the noise that freedom entails. Why would that be?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

You know what question everyone in Cuba is asking now: so how 'bout them Yankees?

LOL Yonoz, great - both a defusion of tension and reference to the fact that Cubans love baseball too.

⚛​

 

[Yonoz]

Thankyou, I do Bar-Mitzvahs and circumcisions (male only).

 

[vanesch]

Freedom for me is something totally different than the way of organizing economical relationships. For me, freedom is in the first place, the ability to speak freely, to walk freely (so one should limit private property somehow, to keep enough of it public) etc...

There's of course a DIFFERENT question, which is: is freedom the highest good ? If you live in total economic misery, maybe freedom comes after food on your list of priorities.

As to capitalism, for sure in certain areas it has shown to be a very efficient economical organisational process, but I fail to see the link with freedom. After all, the biggest dictatorship in the world (China, but take Russia in too) are ultra-capitalistic at this moment. Of course there is a limited form of "freedom" involved in a capitalist organisation: the freedom to set up your own way of trying to make money. But most people, even in capitalist countries, don't seem to take that freedom at heart, given that they work as employees (so they don't use their "freedom" to set up a business). So although the capitalistic principles can be *efficient* (mainly by eliminating very BAD practices, not so much by only keeping the best), I don't know in how much we should think of them as the ultimate pinnacle of *freedom*.

That said, on poor people's priority list might be in the first place some economic improvement (which can maybe be brought in by some form of capitalism) over genuine freedom, which only means something once you've got filled your stomach.

To the Burger King/Mc Donald dispute, I'd say: the real form of economic freedom here would be to be able to open your *OWN* traditional restaurant and undergo fair competition with the hamburger conglomerates, so that you don't suffer unfair competition because of their financial muscle and publicity.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

To the Burger King/Mc Donald dispute, I'd say: the real form of economic freedom here would be to be able to open your *OWN* traditional restaurant and undergo fair competition with the hamburger conglomerates, so that you don't suffer unfair competition because of their financial muscle and publicity.

Would you be willing to hobble your *OWN* traditional restaurant if it were moderately successful, but a smaller restaurant wanted to open in the same town? How much financial muscle is OK with you. Where does that muscle come from? What about the freedom of the customers? Must they eat at restaurants that they don't like in the name of fairness?

I don't know how it is in the real world, but here in the People's Republic of Northern South Jersey, most restaurants are NOT chains. For instance, we have a lot of diners. They compete with the chains, the fancy restaurants, the greasy spoons, and each other and do quite well. People here enjoy the food and the atmosphere. Do they fly under your radar?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does anyone here know how many McDonalds restaurants there are in China?

http://www.lifeintheusa.com/food/chinese.htm" .

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Does anyone here know how many McDonalds restaurants there are in China?

That's an interesting question, I am curious too. Per this http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=528311" shows China with the least expensive Big Mac worldwide in dollars.

McDonalds is also http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/news/corppr/2007/la_announcement.html", listing almost 1600 restaurants there in April 2007.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

639

Compared to 41000 Chinese restaurants in the US. Who is forcing what on whom?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Compared to 41000 Chinese restaurants in the US. Who is forcing what on whom?

You're right. We've been invaded! Run for the hills! Or better yet, gather up the torches and pitchforks and we'll burn down all the Chinese restaurants.

The reason why we have many personal freedoms here in the U.S. (as U.S. citizens, at least) is not because there are lots of Chinese restauraunts. And call China free if you wish https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2196.html", no matter how many McDonalds are there and whether or not they go out of business.

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

The reason why we have many personal freedoms here in the U.S. (as U.S. citizens, at least) is not because there are lots of Chinese restauraunts.

Yes, that was my point. It seemed that the benchmark for ultimate freedom was the competition between two chains of fast food restaurants, which I objected to, for two reasons:
1) they are not really a sign of fully running economic freedom, because they are just a battle of big corporations, where publicity and so on are probably more important than genuine product/price quality

2) I don't consider economic freedom as the pinnacle of freedom by itself (and most people don't, as most people don't start a business).

The proof is indeed that both conditions are entirely satisfied in countries where genuine freedom is very low on the list of priorities, China on top.

That doesn't mean I have anything against McDonalds (I sometimes eat there too), or that I have anything against economic freedom (call it capitalism if you want). But it is not what I would take as a benchmark for freedom, at all.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You thought that I mean freedom entailed allowing these two particular chains to operate and no other other restaurants? How could anyone take that meaning?

1)they (I'm not sure what 'they' refers to) are not really a sign of fully running economic freedom, because they are just a battle of big corporations, where publicity and so on are probably more important than genuine product/price quality.

Hershey's didn't advertise for most of their history. And their chocolate rots too. Yet they are big.
I never meant that only big corporations should be allowed to compete. You must realize though that if a small entity competes and wins, it will become big. I don't think you can define genuine quality (you didn't mean that you would dictate what was genuine quality did you?) except by allowing companies to compete and allowing customers to decide what they want. Allow, not force.

2) I don't consider economic freedom as the pinnacle of freedom by itself (and most people don't, as most people don't start a business).

Will you increase my freedom by preventing me from listening to the music of my choice (I don't play), preventing me from living in the house of my choice (I don't build houses), going to the restaurant of my choice (I don't own a restaurant)? Perhaps what you really mean is that most people wouldn't fight for other people's freedoms.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Will you increase my freedom by preventing me from listening to the music of my choice (I don't play), preventing me from living in the house of my choice (I don't build houses), going to the restaurant of my choice (I don't own a restaurant)? Perhaps what you really mean is that most people wouldn't fight for other people's freedoms.

If you're saying this in the context of communism, it seems to me that you're implying that the object of socialism and communism is to prevent people from doing things. It's not, any more than the object of capitalism is slavering oppressive greed. Most of the communist societies have been lead by totalitarian states that liked to prevent people from doing things, yes - but as vanesch points out they're just as enthusiastic about preventing people from doing things now that they're capitalist.

The basic tenet of communism is: no matter how smart or ingenious the person providing the capital for an operation is, the workers who actually do the work are the ones who should primarily benefit from the enterprise. Not that you can't have the music or the house you want or can't go to a particular restaurant - just that the workers in those restaurants or who make the music and CD's or who build the houses should be the ones receiving the benefits of doing a good job, rather than some owner who bankrolled the operation. So communists think that the state should be the one to bankroll every commercial operation.

Now I personally think that this philosophy is ignoring much of the real, tangible dynamism and momentum that entrepreneurship infuses into an enterprise. And I think that in practical terms the wealth-generation benefits of modern capitalism over the implementations of communism which have been tried so far pretty clearly outweigh the down side of putting power and a bigger cut of wealth in the hands of banks and industrialists.

But since I don't think that these economic arrangements have anything in particular to do with freedom, I don't think it's kosher for the U.S. at this point to be saying to Cubans, “You guys are just so wrong about that whole communism thing, so we're just going to fix that for ya. We're going to apply political pressure until you go capitalist and let all our big businesses back in.”

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

...

[edit] Letting that last one go.

 

[russ_watters]

Basically, everything I've seen about Cubans from music stuff to doctors and scientists to a couple Cubans I've known has shown me that they're really great people and they've got a rich and vibrant culture on their own. I think they ought to get free elections and more freedom of the press and other things. But I think that they ought to be able to remain communist if they want to, or shift to capitalism if they choose to.

Yes! Now you're getting it!

That said, I do have two small quibbles with your understanding of the concept of freedom:

1. Commercial freedom is a kind of freedom (yes, that's redundant), so they cannot truly be said to be free unless they get it.

2. Freedom is an individual thing. You cannot vote on it. You cannot vote to remain Communist because in so doing, you are infringing on peoples' individual rights. Even if only 1 person in the country wants to start his own business, saying you have a free society requires that you let him do it.

 

[russ_watters]

Two different ways of saying the exact same thing. I think you've been playing us.

He hasn't been playing us - sometimes people just get caught up in their dislike for American and run off on tangents. That's what happened here.

 

[russ_watters]

I would still say that the United States has proved through many of its actions that we are far from the paramount authority on or champion of freedom. Saying that Cuba ought to have more freedom of the press or more internal political activity is not the same thing as saying it needs to be taught some lessons about freedom and democracy by the United States.

The United States is particularly bad about teaching lessons of freedom and democracy to 3^rd world countries, it always seems like somehow in the course of the lesson whoops! all of the wealth and natural resources of the 3^rd world nation somehow ended up in the hands of U.S. corporations and banks, or the corporations and banks of other 1^st world nations.

You'r'e sliding off on that tangent again. The only thing Cuba needs to do to learn from us is crack open a history book. None of that other stuff has any relevance here whatsoever. (and btw, since when would learning not include learning what we did wrong?)

 

[russ_watters]

My, spare on the words, aren't we? I get the feeling you're still expecting something someone else has said to make your arguments for you.

Since you didn't bother to elaborate further despite my request that you do so, I will take the liberty to do it for you. You're saying that capitalism has to be forced on Cuba regardless of what the Cuban people might decide collectively, and that's freedom.

If you want to live with the fantasy that the U.S. invading and intervening in other countries and deciding for them how they ought to be governed somehow makes us champions of freedom, be my guest. But somehow I don't think that the people whose affairs we go mucking around in would have such high praise for it.

⚛​

There's that tangent again, CaptainQuasar. No one has suggested that the US invade Cuba and impose a Constitution on them. Indeed, the US has never done that and shouldn't ever do that. Change has to come from within to be real.

Jimmy is simply pointing out that without economic freedom they aren't free. He's not suggesting that we force it on them. You're jumping to that conclusion because you assume an imperialistic intent from America and Americans.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You cannot vote to remain Communist because in so doing, you are infringing on peoples' individual rights.

This exact thought had crossed my mind. If you want to become (or remain) Communist, join a commune. All it takes is one other like-minded person. Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes. If you can't find even one other person that wants to join you in a commune, then I extend my sympathy to you, but look on the bright side. You live in a particularly free society.

 

[russ_watters]

As to capitalism, for sure in certain areas it has shown to be a very efficient economical organisational process, but I fail to see the link with freedom.

The link is simple: The freedoms typically listed (choice, expression, the press) require capitalism to be self-consistent. You cannot have freedom of choice without a McDonalds and a Wendy's (not to mention that mom-and-pop restaurant of yours) on opposite corners from each other. You cannot have freedom of choice without the choice to start your own business and set your own prices for the goods you sell (within reason). [edit] Btw, that also makes high taxes an infringement on freedom of choice.

After all, the biggest dictatorship in the world (China, but take Russia in too) are ultra-capitalistic at this moment.

I'm not sure how you could say such a thing. It's a contradiction in terms and quite wrong. [edit] Just to be clear: You cannot say you are "free" without economic freedom. You also cannot say you are "free" without political freedom. So even if it were true that China had a high level of economic freedom (and it isn't), it would not show a contradiction in the positions being discussed here by capitalists. We understand that both are required. We're not the ones suggesting you can have one without the other...

Of course there is a limited form of "freedom" involved in a capitalist organisation: the freedom to set up your own way of trying to make money. But most people, even in capitalist countries, don't seem to take that freedom at heart, given that they work as employees (so they don't use their "freedom" to set up a business). So although the capitalistic principles can be *efficient* (mainly by eliminating very BAD practices, not so much by only keeping the best), I don't know in how much we should think of them as the ultimate pinnacle of *freedom*.

You're view is very narrow, particularly where your country falls short on freedom. The choice of where to work is huge. In a capitalist society, you are free to quit your job and find a new one if you want. I recognize that that freedom doesn't really exist in France, but that is a shortcoming of France's level of freedom, not a shortcoming of capitalism. In the US, many people covet that freedom. And yes, it is also true that like in France, many people fear that freedom. But I think statistics show that it works (which doesn't have anything to do with it being right or wrong, just that the fear is unfounded).

And it is true that freedom often breeds apathy, but so what? That really doesn't have anything to do with anything.

That said, on poor people's priority list might be in the first place some economic improvement (which can maybe be brought in by some form of capitalism) over genuine freedom, which only means something once you've got filled your stomach.

That's true and that's where capitalists and socialists start to differ. It's a whole 'nother discussion too, because a die-hard capitalist like me believes that in a capitalist society, even poverty is largely a choice.

To the Burger King/Mc Donald dispute, I'd say: the real form of economic freedom here would be to be able to open your *OWN* traditional restaurant and undergo fair competition with the hamburger conglomerates, so that you don't suffer unfair competition because of their financial muscle and publicity.

Yes, the McDonalds example is a little underdeveloped here.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yes! Now you're getting it!

That said, I do have two small quibbles with your understanding of the concept of freedom:

1. Commercial freedom is a kind of freedom (yes, that's redundant), so they cannot truly be said to be free unless they get it.

2. Freedom is an individual thing. You cannot vote on it. You cannot vote to remain Communist because in so doing, you are infringing on peoples' individual rights. Even if only 1 person in the country wants to start his own business, saying you have a free society requires that you let him do it.

I have to point out that those are opinions on your part, not generally agreed upon principles. The latitude for a few people to get to do exactly what they want frequently gets limited for the sake of the good of many or of all society. Don't pretend that just happens in communist countries or something.

Many people consider the right to work that is guaranteed in some communist countries far more important than the right to start a small business that is somewhat provided for in some capitalist countries. (And I'm a small business owner, so let me assure you that this right is no means guaranteed here in the U.S. - there are all sorts of loopholes to jump through and all kinds of ways the government can stop you from doing it, although from what I've read the climate for starting a small business may be better here than anywhere else in the world.

That's basically what I mean when I say that the U.S. is not an expert or authority on freedom - we have no justification to tell other countries that the way they value the right to work so much more than us is wrong and that they need to rearrange their priorities to better suit our philosophy on freedom.

You'r'e sliding off on that tangent again. The only thing Cuba needs to do to learn from us is crack open a history book. None of that other stuff has any relevance here whatsoever. (and btw, since when would learning not include learning what we did wrong?)

I don't know what you mean about learning, I didn't say anything about learning.

What the U.S. has done in the past in pushing around much smaller countries, and what it has done to promote freedom and what it has done to destroy or prevent freedom, are entirely relevant to discussing what attitude should be adopted towards Cuba and what the reaction to Castro's resignation should be.

I would appreciate it if you guys would stop stating or implying that I hate the U.S. or something. I don't have to like everything the U.S. has ever done to be proud of my country. I have family members in harm's way in Iraq right now and to attack my opinions on Cuba by insinuating that I hate the U.S. is a s▒▒▒ty rhetorical tactic, you have no more justification to imply you're the one who really loves freedom or our country than I would.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

insinuating that I hate the U.S. is a s▒▒▒ty rhetorical tactic.

Yeah, I hate it when people do that. By the way, nice font trick.

 

[russ_watters]

This exact thought had crossed my mind. If you want to become (or remain) Communist, join a commune. All it takes is one other like-minded person. Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes. If you can't find even one other person that wants to join you in a commune, then I extend my sympathy to you, but look on the bright side. You live in a particularly free society.

This is a common shortcoming in peoples' understanding of how Democracy works and I don't understand why because it is taught in schools. People should remember such basic things - I haven't taken an American history [intro poly sci would cover it as well] course since freshman year in college.

Anyway, this is a common criticism of democracy and one people just don't realize has already been dealt with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

 

[CaptainQuasar]

No one has suggested that the US invade Cuba and impose a Constitution on them. Indeed, the US has never done that and shouldn't ever do that.

I take it that you aren't familiar with the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the previous regime change before Castro.

And seriously - we've deposed or at least helped to depose the elected Prime Minister of a country and restored monarchy there (Mossadegh in Iran), but we just don't invade places and impose constitutions? The Iranian coup is not some fringe conspiracy theory, check out any encyclopedia.

If you want to become (or remain) Communist, join a commune. All it takes is one other like-minded person. Voting for Communism means that you want other people to live in communes.

You're putting words in the mouths of Cuban communists again, just like you said that they want you to not be able to pick your music or your house or choose what restaurant to eat in.

There was a http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4DA1030F933A05757C0A96E948260" introduced many state-capitalized activities that would probably look like freedom (or capitalism, at least) to you guys.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yeah, I hate it when people do that. By the way, nice font trick.

I was thinking of making the asterisks that vBulletin put in into size 7 bolded blue text, but instead I just replaced them with my own character.

⚛​

 

[russ_watters]

I have to point out that those are opinions on your part, not generally agreed upon principles.

Wrong. On two levels. The first is the simple logical level. You're arguing against logic. Logically, this is 1+1=2 simple. If you don't have freedom you aren't free. Actually, I guess that would be 1=1 simple.

You are also wrong about whether this logic is "correct". The idea of individual rights has been accepted as the global standard: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

That's all there is to it. So to sum up:
1. Freedom has to include freedom to be freedom.
2. The world community demands that people be free.

The latitude for a few people to get to do exactly what they want frequently gets limited for the sake of the good of many or of all society. Don't pretend that just happens in communist countries or something.

I never suggested it didn't. Jeez, you really do jump to a lot of conclusions here.

Many people consider the right to work that is guaranteed in some communist countries far more important than the right to start a small business that is somewhat provided for in some capitalist countries.

That's simply their misunderstanding of what rights are. Rights are negatives. They are protection against the government.

What you are talking about is entitlements.

That's basically what I mean when I say that the U.S. is not an expert or authority on freedom - we have no justification to tell other countries that the way they value the right to work so much more than us is wrong and that they need to rearrange their priorities to better suit our philosophy on freedom.

We have several(already listed):

1. Our system works.
2. Our system (of rights) was adopted by the UN.
3. We're willing to fight to uphold it, even when the UN isn't (See: Kosovo again).

I don't know what you mean about learning, I didn't say anything about learning.

Then you're missing the point of what we've been getting at.

What the U.S. has done in the past in pushing around much smaller countries, and what it has done to promote freedom and what it has done to destroy or prevent freedom, are entirely relevant to discussing what attitude should be adopted towards Cuba and what the reaction to Castro's resignation should be.

Why!?

You keep saying these things: Connect them to the discussion!

I would appreciate it if you guys would stop stating or implying that I hate the U.S. or something. I don't have to like everything the U.S. has ever done to be proud of my country. [emphasis added]

The comment wasn't just about you and there are several degrees here. There are people in this discussion who actually do hate the US and I know you are not one of them. That's why I didn't use the word "hate".

Btw, just in case you missed jimmy's sarcasm, the only person to use the word "hate" here is you. It's the same as you've been doing the entire thread: you are reading things that people didn't say. The word I used was "dislike" and you affirmed that it is the correct word (in bold).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

This is a common shortcoming in peoples' understanding of how Democracy works and I don't understand why because it is taught in schools. People should remember such basic things - I haven't taken an American history [intro poly sci would cover it as well] course since freshman year in college.

Anyway, this is a common criticism of democracy and one people just don't realize has already been dealt with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

So, is this a concession that this doesn't only happen in communist countries? If you think that it would represent an absence of freedom for Cubans to be allowed to vote on whether to retain communism you ought to be opposed to half the laws and policies that have been enacted in U.S. history, or at least say that many of the actions of the Founding Fathers and the government since then have compromised freedom.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Wrong. On two levels. The first is the simple logical level. You're arguing against logic. Logically, this is 1+1=2 simple. If you don't have freedom you aren't free. Actually, I guess that would be 1=1 simple.

You are also wrong about whether this logic is "correct". The idea of individual rights has been accepted as the global standard: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

That's all there is to it. So to sum up:
1. Freedom has to include freedom to be freedom.
2. The world community demands that people be free.
I never suggested it didn't. Jeez, you really do jump to a lot of conclusions here. That's simply their misunderstanding of what rights are. Rights are negatives. They are protection against the government.

What you are talking about is entitlements. We have two (already listed):

1. Our system works.
2. Our system (of rights) was adopted by the UN. Then you're missing the point of what we've been getting at. Why!?

You realize that the Soviet Union and Communist China were both major contributors to the U.N.'s doctrines on human rights, don't you?

Check out Article 23 in the document you linked to. The right to work. Which you just declared cannot be a right and must be an entitlement.

The U.S. system of rights was adopted by the U.N., eh? Not quite as simple as you think, dude. You are totally deceiving yourself with this belief that the U.S. is the preeminent authority on freedom in the world. I think we're pretty good at freedom but what you're saying is just blind hyperbolic nationalism.

You keep saying these things: Connect them to the discussion! The comment wasn't just about you and there are several degrees here. There are people in this discussion who actually do hate the US and I know you are not one of them. That's why I didn't use the word "hate".

The comment “He hasn't been playing us - sometimes people just get caught up in their dislike for American and run off on tangents.” may not have been directed exclusively at me but I'm sure as heck going to respond to it.

Btw, just in case you missed jimmy's sarcasm, the only person to use the word "hate" here is you. It's the same as you've been doing the entire thread: you are reading things that people didn't say. The word I used was "dislike" and you affirmed that it is the correct word (in bold).

In the bold I said that I dislike some of the things this country has done. That is not the same thing as saying I dislike this country.

Jimmy has spent a great deal of this thread trying to cleverly imply things, refraining from saying what he actually meant by his statements, and refusing to answer straighforward questions that would clarify what he has actually meant, falling back to mostly making sniping comments that convey further insinuations. I'll leave it to the readers of the thread to decide whether he may have been trying to insinuate things other than a dislike for the U.S. on my part and whether he was maybe guessing that I haven't sent off my own flesh and blood to fight this country's wars. I would stand and let my patriotism be measured up to either of yours any day of the week if you're going to question it.

Russ, with the above U.N. thing you have demonstrated that you do not understand international opinions and conventions about freedom and human rights.

⚛​

 

[DrClapeyron]

The system in Cuba is stuborn towards the representation of people and their ablity to choose a head of state figure (like president or parliaments ablity to choose a minister).

 

[CaptainQuasar]

The system in Cuba is stuborn towards the representation of people and their ablity to choose a head of state figure (like president or parliaments ablity to choose a minister).

If I'm understanding you correctly, DrClapeyron, I agree with you that the Cuban people should have more freedom to select their officials and heads of government. They also ought to have more freedom of the press.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jimmy has spent a great deal of this thread trying to cleverly imply things, refraining from saying what he actually meant by his statements, and refusing to answer straighforward questions that would clarify what he has actually meant, falling back to mostly making sniping comments that convey further insinuations.

What I said was

Freedom isn't when they build a McDonalds, or a Burger King. Its when they build both of them and one goes out of business.

Clever indeed. It is you that have implied things, telling everyone what I meant by my statement and sniping at my font choices. I don't like it any more than you do. All this stuff about forcing the Cubans to do something came from you , not me.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Clever indeed. It is you that have implied things, telling everyone what I meant by my statement and sniping at my font choices. I don't like it any more than you do. All this stuff about forcing the Cubans to do something came from you , not me.

Jimmy, you are trying to prove your points with font size there rather than explaining your viewpoint. I apologize for using the pejorative phrase “temper tantrum” but like I said, I had already acknowledged your point about restaurants going out of business when I said that you're saying “freedom is commercial competition.”

Instead of responding to my requests that you clarify what you meant or how competition between McDonalds and Burger King constitutes freedom, you simply repeated yourself. In size seven, bold, blue letters. And then you insinuated some connection between me and the Clinton administration, which you also refused to explain. If you'll explain what you meant by the Clinton thing, I'll gladly respond to it, as I gave you multiple opportunities to explain whether “McDonalds and Burger King is freedom” means that capitalism should be forced on Cuba. (I think you might've finally done that and said “no” recently, but I don't want to put words in your mouth if you're actually willing to speak for yourself on this.)

I apologize, re-reading now it was Russ who said something about me disliking the U.S., twice - you weren't the one making that comment either time.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I said that you're saying “freedom is commercial competition.”

I don't want to put words in your mouth

You have been putting words in my mouth since post #20. Stop it.

 

[russ_watters]

So, is this a concession that this doesn't only happen in communist countries?

No, in dictatorship, it is a tyranny of one.

Tyranny of the majority is a problem unique to democracy.

If you think that it would represent an absence of freedom for Cubans to be allowed to vote on whether to retain communism you ought to be opposed to half the laws and policies that have been enacted in U.S. history, or at least say that many of the actions of the Founding Fathers and the government since then have compromised freedom.

⚛​

I am against quite a few laws in the US that have infringed upon our rights, yes.