Debate : 12279


Off-Topic / Debate / 12279

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'd go with the utilitarian argument that people don't seem to have much in the way of choices, material goods, freedom of expression, action, or movement, and some desperately want to leave to the extent of risking their lives to do so. Will (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Pedro Silva

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) Wrong! Medicine is very good in Cuba. They invest heavily in Healthcare. Honest! A friend of my father went there for heart surgery and spoke wonders of the place! (...) It was the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I don't know--but if you take Cuba in comparison with the US pseudo-colonies in the Caribbean that masquerade as independent states, I'd much rather be Cuban. Compare Cuba with the Dominican Republic, Haiti, or even a place like Jamaica, (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —James Powell

in order to have a favorable opinion of (...) I'll add in here, that Libertopia is just as much of a separation from reality as a true communist nation. (hmm...and me in my Sun, Sea and Socalism t-shirt) :) I think that you need to see where the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. It doesn't claim to be a utopia and it doesn't claim to need ideal conditions in order to succeed and it doesn't depend on everyone being good, or being idealistic, or even having the same goals. Hope that helps. (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Dave Schuler

(...) Just a small quibble about that--if the Libertarian powers that be had wanted simply to establish a thought-model of a society in which Libertarian ideals had been fully realized it, and if they also meant no implication of "utopian" status (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Wait, Sun Yat-Sen wasn't a communist! :) (...) Oops! The Potato Famine is a case of imperial exploitation, not a failure of capitalism. It's also 1840s to about 1852, not 1857. :) (...) The question is what the basis for redistribution must (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) I think the keyword here is "seem." Your previous statements were concrete (Communism has failed), now are you saying Communism "seems" to have failed? If that is the case, then I can also say Democracy and capitalism "seems" to have failed in (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

Addendum to my previous post: After comparing other sources on unemployment rates in America and Cuba, I see my figures are way off. America's unemployment rate is about 4.5%, NOT 8.6%, but Cuba's is still about 6%. I apologize for my error. Cuba (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) But to have a fair comparison, one must compare quality of work as well as employment. I'd bet that the median (not mean, median) worker in Cuba has a much better lot than the median worker in the United States, even if they don't make as much (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) Excellent point, Lindsay! Dan (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. I understand that only ~8% of the Cuban GDP is agriculture based. (...) One could say the same about many political ideals. However, the fact is that some of the communist concepts do have a rather simple attractiveness to a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you can't define success, you can't define failure either. You asked me how I define failure, I answered. Remove "seems" if it bugs you that much and replace it with <null>. Doesn't change the definition at all. Communism has failed each (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

Larry, I'm not back-pedaling on any of my statements or trying to water them down. The sanctions have a PROFOUND effect on Cuba's economy. By imposing sanctions, America is not ALLOWING Communism to work in the country. Example: Imagine if Hawaii (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Dave Schuler

(...) I would revise that statement to say "The existence of US sanctions against Cuba prevents us from determining with certainty whether Cuban Communism would fail or succeed in the absence of those sanctions." Declaring that sanctions in (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Tom Stangl

One topic I haven't seen mentioned here is that even with all the sanctions, Cuba still relies heavily upon the US for cash influx. Most of it is through Cuban-Americans sending money back to relatives in Cuba. If that process were denied, then the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) Perfect! That's the main idea. Dan (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Maybe you should have said that in the first place instead of Standard Anti US Diatribe # 8294, then. However it's not a statement that I agree with, except inasmuch as it's not possible to determine with certainty (from any real world (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Mladen Pejic

Larry let me say that I'm proud of you for standing up for yourself, and believing in your own ideologies. To all the rest, why do you really care about Larry's opinions? Honestly, he's not going to change his mind, so why haven't all of you given (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Because, as wise spin doctors through the ages have said, the purpose of debate (and even .debate!) is *not* to persuade the other party--rather, it's to persuade the spectators, those who do not feel so strongly in X or Y direction and (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your personal values are based on individualism instead of the common good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's a self-replicating system, IMHO. (...) No more so (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Quick self-correction: Afghanistan. Can't forget Afghanistan! (But again, that territory was not intended to be appended to the USSR, so even that may not count.) best LFB (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I would reword that as "if your personal values say that others do not have the right to dispose of you and your property as they see fit". Wouldn't you agree? (...) Did you or someone you are closely related to live in a communist bloc (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Not "as they see fit." That again imputes capitalist values and a hierarchical structure to the actions of communist leadership. "For the common good" is more accurate. Now, *in practice*, it has often *been* "as they see fit," true...but (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That appears to be exactly what I did say. Put that way it's untrue and flat out wrong for me to have said it and I admit it without any prevarication, denial, or hiding behind "bad wording" defense. I am heads down on something (you can tell (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) LOL! Cute, Larry! Dan (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You find it funny that someone can admit they are wrong about something without being repeatedly prodded? (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, what *do* you do for a living? I thought you just built boats... Dave! FUT OT.FUN (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Oh, no. Not you too! First my own mother and now Dave! (See? I can work your name in too, Dave! Hey! I did it again!) In all seriousness, I'm a historian, primarily of Britain and imperialism in 19th- and 20th-C. Africa. Because I teach and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

I have been meaning to come back to this for some time (...) I am going to differ with you on this point. The Warsaw Pact nations, as far as I am concerned, during the period up until about 1989 or so, were so effectively under the control of the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Wow, has .o-t.debate become the busiest ng on LUGNET? I think it's very possible. (...) As it sort of answers your note, I'll make the very important point that not ONE serious historian (outside of those in the USSR and some of its satellites (...) (23 years ago, 15-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —James Powell

(...) I'd like to see how you prove happier from someone who lives in the projects, or in South Central LA, in comparison to someone who lives in Cuba. (...) Perhaps you are mistaking the political and economic systems? A Democratic Communist (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sum of total happiness will be higher, per capita. There may be individual excursions from the mean. In fact there better be! (...) Communism can't be democratic, freemarket systems can't be dictatorial. (...) Unless it is moral to dispose of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But it isn't clear at the extremities whether your implication of morality is correct. For instance, during the recent discusion of the handling of Ender by the powers that be, you acknowledged that they were not clearly evil because of the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK. Fair enough. If a system fails to live by its principles in extremis and acts in immoral ways, then it isn't perfect. But we can still quite easily judge it to be morally far superior to a system that systematically acts immorally. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Scott Arthur

(...) Slavery and theft indeed. How objective you are. Materialism in western society is the current norm. You should not feel that anything else is "immoral". It must be asked why the US victimises this country due to what you call "immoral" (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Thank you. (...) No idea what you're trying to say there. (...) Yes. The US is a mixed economy, not a libertarian one, or an anarcho capitalist one, or even a plain old capitalist one. Therefore its policy is not what you would see from any of (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Scott Arthur

(...) Look at it this way. You claim communism is "immoral" due to what you term "slavery and theft". Yet, my understanding of communism leads me to understand that it provides shelter, education and healthcare based on need. The system you favour (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I know that we've been around this bend in the river before, but what exactly are your objections to those terms? Checking the dictionary and massaging the concepts just a little (really just a tiny little bit) (actually, not much at all) they (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Scott Arthur

(...) I assume, after reading you text below, this is a rhetorical question? (...) I try my best Chris. (...) Because is is a argumant which has no logic. (...) By helping force them to leave? (...) I am not "slamming" (or at least I do not mean to) (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —David Eaton

(...) Huge clarification to inflict on you-- it makes evidenced communism immoral and evidenced capitalism moral (by utilitarian standards). To judge any system using utilitarian morality, one needs evidence of the happiness/unhappiness of the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) But I'm not using utilitarian morality (were there such a thing, which there isn't) here. My argument has several legs, each should be evaluated independently. The utilitarian argument (which makes no reference to morality) is entirely (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) I agree, but are you equating Communism-- that is to say the essential notion or theory of Communism/Socialism, not the current or former attempts at it-- with slavery? Slavery is the anti-thesis of Communism (and even Democracy) and therefore (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —David Eaton

(...) Not to speak for Lar, but I think the association for him was insofar as in communist governments that have existed, there is always a central dictating body which applies "equality" to the citizens (theoretically themselves too, one could (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —David Eaton

(...) Silly Larry! Of course there is! The more happiness resulting from an action there is, the more moral that action is, and visa versa, says utilitarianism. Actually, I associate utilitarianism first and foremost with its view on ethics... (...) (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Moral or Immoral (was Re: Cuba) —Carl Watson

Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GIsxC4.C4A@lugnet.com... [snipped] (...) well (...) based (...) [snipped] I'm not just picking on Larry here, but I think this is a good time to ask: Moral or immoral according to who? (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Moral or Immoral (was Re: Cuba) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The speaker/writer. An action is moral to the extent that it satisfies one's sense of aesthetic about how the world should work. So charging interest on a loan is moral to the capitalist who believes that this fuels the economy making greater (...) (23 years ago, 3-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not being bullheaded, I'm just pointing out your inconsistency. If you then take refuge in calling me names, so be it. Square "I never said in a general way that it's America's fault." with "By imposing sanctions, America is not ALLOWING (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) Well, you have ignored the basic point I tried to make in favor of complaining about and nitpicking my exact wording. So I conceed that I am not a good writer and I have not always been perfectly clear the first time I have said something (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I fail to see how calling you on the logical equivalent "It is the US's fault" vs. "It's not the US's fault" can be called nitpicking your exact wording. Rather it's pointing out glaring inconsistency at a basic level. Just admit you slipped (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) You are the king of obfuscation, Larry. You turn people's comments in every direction and ignore the core of the argument. (...) Of course, I already said that in the post before this (which you've snipped). I'm not the wordmeister here, never (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Patently untrue, the core of the argument has been addressed elsewhere in the thread. I would say, rather, that you are the one obfuscating at present. (...) Not trying hard enough, apparently. (...) I've given my arguments elsewhere in the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) We both have. (...) Lead me to water, then, and I'll drink. The well is dry if all your going to do is argue that Communism will always fail, no matter what, though you cannot possibly prove it in a million lifetimes. You're keen on telling (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <snip> I'm fairly happy with the accuracy of my characterization: you made a statement placing the entire blame for Cuba's woes here with the US instead of with their failed system, when challenged, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

(...) No, not entire blame. That's not what I think and I thought I made this clear by my explanation and favor for the way Dave! restated it. America is to blame for the sanctions and therefore it is not fair to call the Cuban government, Communist (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Daniel Jassim

Re: Cuba —James Powell

(...) Show me a case where the baseline statement of communism has failed (or been followed either!) `From each according to Ability, To Each According to Need' The closest to what I view of communism is either kibitz's (if I can spell that (...) (23 years ago, 29-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Cuba —Scott Arthur

(...) That's right. But it is partly due to the sanctions the US impose. If anyone is interested in the Cuban health care system, read here: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 28-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)