Fidel Castro

The convenient thing is that once Castro dies, there'll no longer be a limit to how much you can exeggerate this guy's abilities. No weak, imperfect human to hold you back. A martyr either for until nobody has any use for the myths. I figure he'll be healing peoples' illnesses in ten years, then hobnobing with the other gods in a few decades ("One day Castro, Thor, and Mercury were traveling in the land of the running dog capitalists...") and creating the universe from pure thought and basic marxist-socialist principles in a few centuries.

I just got a cold chill reading Karls comment.

Given the coverage of Jimmy Carter's trip to the Middle East this week and the commenting that I've read in other places, I had a momentary brain fart. My eyes saw CASTRO, but I read it as CARTER. Oddly, Karl's comment rings just as true with Carter's name in there.

Try it.

The regime of Fidel Castro isn't any more or less libertarian than the Iraq War. Which is to say, neither one is libertarian at all. A lot of Republican and Republican-equivalent bloggers have said that you can support the Iraq war and still be a libertarian. If they were right, then you could also support the Cuban dictatorship and still be a libertarian. Why not? The pseudo-libertarian war boosters are basically saying that libertarianism can be whatever you want it to be.

The regime of Fidel Castro isn't any more or less libertarian than the Iraq War. Which is to say, neither one is libertarian at all. A lot of Republican and Republican-equivalent bloggers have said that you can support the Iraq war and still be a libertarian. If they were right, then you could also support the Cuban dictatorship and still be a libertarian. Why not? The pseudo-libertarian war boosters are basically saying that libertarianism can be whatever you want it to be.

This psuedoargument deflates when you realize that being "Libertarian" doesn't mean that you can't have other, sometimes conflicting beliefs. Nor does being Libertarian mean that you will (or can) ignore the actions of hostile governments elsewhere in the world.

A lot of Republican and Republican-equivalent bloggers have said that you can support the Iraq war and still be a libertarian. If they were right, then you could also support the Cuban dictatorship and still be a libertarian. Why not?

Because one of these things is not like the other?

Did you always do so poorly on that part of the intelligence test, Jim, or is it a recent affliction?

This psuedoargument deflates when you realize that being "Libertarian" doesn't mean that you can't have other, sometimes conflicting beliefs

I'll allow that. You can support anything under the sun, for instance the Cuban dictatorship, and still be libertarian otherwise. You could say, hypothetically, "I'm mostly libertarian because I'm all for free enterprise, individual rights, low taxes, and drug legalization. But I also think that Fidel Castro is a hero to his nation."

The fact remains that libertarians who support the Iraq war are a lot like the San Francisco religious group, Jews for Jesus.

It should also be noted that the Bush Administration has enlisted Fidel Castro as a passive ally in the war on terrorism. They have argued that US courts lack jurisdiction in Guantanamo because it's Cuban territory. The detainees should ask Fidel Castro about habeas corpus. So while most of can agree that Castro is a monster, even monsters have their uses. You can ponder whether this stance is compatible with libertarianism.

You could say, hypothetically, "I'm mostly libertarian because I'm all for free enterprise, individual rights, low taxes, and drug legalization. But I also think that Fidel Castro is a hero to his nation."

Yes, you could say that, though it has nothing to do with this post, which is about people who say that Castro himself is a libertarian. But then, we've already discussed your obvious difficulties with not being able to stick to the subject, or identify like things.

people who say that Castro himself is a libertarian

That's true, Rand, the previous point that I made is a little different. But the fact is that otherwise-libertarian war boosters are as likely to claim that the Iraq war actually furthers libertarianism, as to admit that it's a gigantic exception to libertarianism. The latter doesn't sound too consistent, but it is at least honest.

But the fact is that otherwise-libertarian war boosters are as likely to claim that the Iraq war actually furthers libertarianism, as to admit that it's a gigantic exception to libertarianism.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this post, but troll that you are, you have to turn every post topic into a discussion about your own little hobby horse. Didn't your parents ever teach you any manners?

When are you going to get your own blog, so you can post about whatever you want without trolling other people's? Maybe you can co-blog with this guy. He seems to be on the same wavelength as you.

Jim Harris if you're a libertarian I've got to ask you just what it is about the word and idea called liberty you don't understand.

A different ideology and set of principles --liberalism-- has been stamped into the mud by US leftists but similarly your ilk that cannot comprehend that liberty and hence libertarianism (and real liberalism for that matter) is a fundamentally transnational ideology based on the freedom of people everywhere, well you're doing exactly the same with libertarianism aren't you?

Not that I would call myself a libertarian (I'm closer to "classical liberalism" in US-speak i.e. a liberal in the rest of the world) but the word and ideology/principles actually mean something (and something sane). "Liberals" and "libertarians" who don't oppose dictatorships anywhere for anyone have gotten something fundamentally wrong.

"Liberals" and "libertarians" who don't oppose dictatorships anywhere for anyone have gotten something fundamentally wrong.

It's fine to oppose dictatorships anywhere for anyone. The problem is that the American right-wing version of it is propagandized and hypocritical to the point of being fake. Yes, Castro is bad, he's a dictator. But he's not particularly worse than a number of other dictators in the world, some of which are coddled to this day as "friends" and "allies". The word is out that it's easier to get political asylum in the US if you're Cuban than if you're almost anybody else.

Indeed, given the stance that Cuba is one of the world's worst tyrannies, it's so much the worse that the US government says that it's up to Cuba, and not American courts, to guarantee the rights of detainees at Guantanamo. Our Cuba policy has looked pretty cynical for a long time, but this last tactic has been the coup-de-grace. Especially now, the rest of the world, and many Americans too, hears Washington condemn Cuba over human rights, but it doesn't sound sincere, rather it sounds like a code for frustrated imperialism. It's not as if the US cared much for either Cuban liberty or sovereignty before Castro came to power.

That is why it's wise to take this topic with a big dose of libertarian skepticism. It's fine to oppose dictatorships and stand up for human rights everywhere in the world. That does not mean that you should drink in gallons of government propaganda, or partisan propaganda, in the name of that noble cause. Nobody who calls Pervez Musharraf a key ally or Vladimir Putin an honest friend, much less throws habeas corpus into Castro's lap, should be trusted to fight for liberty in Cuba or anywhere else.

It's not about Castro, Jimbo, although I'm sure you've railed against Villa Marista; The Cuban Government's Military Intelligence headquarters.
Mazorra, the state psychiatric institution, theCastle of St. Sebastian, or any of a dozen other sites in Cuba. (Crickets chirping)Actually read some law some time:href before spouting off more MoveOn crap.