Bravo!

Yeah, tis a good plan.

The alternative is to opress the Cubans so they never rise up against their dictators. Meh.

Sure, all that money Euros poured into Cuban hotels did SOOOOO much for freedom. Plah.

Look, at the very least, removing trade barriers means the US will gain a power hold against Cuba, preventing major conflict.  Think about it.  What will Cuba be exporting to the US that, if removed, will cause a US economic collapse?  Probably nothing.  Maybe cigars? 

What about US exports to Cuba?  We export agricultural machinery, agricultural goods of all types, provide capital investment, produce tons of industrial goods, and have a huge service sector.

Now, let's assume that Cuba does not reform.  That means one of a few things:

A: Cuba becomes uncompetitive relative to most other nations.  Game over.
B: Individual businesses may boycott Cuba themselves.
C: Cuba isn't an oil nation: It is an agricultural nation that requires workers to fuel its economic growth.  Thus, if it can retain a competitive advantage against other nations while retaining its communist society, then it would prove that us capitalists are wrong, at least in the context of the Cuban society.  Or, at the very least, it would mean there is nothing uniquely wrong with THEIR society, and we can move on with our lives.

Now, this argument assumes a relatively honest labor-business relationship.  If someone here is willing to argue that there isn't an interdependence between labor and business in Cuba (example: oil nations that use relatively little labor to achieve their economic growth), or a huge amount of coercion in the system (i.e. slavery), then it may be a different story.

How the hell do general embargoes fix human rights?

Look, Castro won't personally be affected.  He will just pull a Saddam: funnel his money wherever he wants to put it, and live rich while the people starve.  And he imports weapons from non-US nations, probably including black market sales, which means the possibility of a coup is reduced.

If anything, an infusion of global capital into Cuba empowers the citizenship by giving them economic clout.  This economic clout allows people to use their money and skills as tools against tyranny.

Don't inject this as part of the greater human rights debate, because it isn't.  At most, trade restrictions are just a way to say you don't like human rights abuses, without any practical influence.

1: Cuba's elite are already rich.  They export to countries outside the US (which, by the way, makes the US embargo obsolete.
2: That was tried against Saddam.  He became filthy rich via a black market, while his people were impoverished.
3: With such a huge income gap (I'm not talking US income gap... Cuba is like "either you're a billionaire or you're dirt poor, no middle class"), the poor can't accumulate the resources to organize a sustained coup.  Examples of large scale coups usually occurred with external factors in which the military was diverted.  For example, the Bolshevik revolution was made possible because the military was diverted abroad.  The only other method is when the military is the organization conducting the coup, which won't work in this case because the military is highly integrated with the government.
4: In the interim, you're causing further damage to an entire nation of already impoverished people.  This is the tiebreaker issue.
5: Once we open up trade with Cuba, in terms of the revolution, one of two things happens:
A: The government uses trade to boost its own power at the expense of the people.  If you win the argument that a poor population can overthrow a rich upper class with sophisticated weapons smuggled internationally, then the further exploitation of the people would further fuel the anger of the people.  In addition, businesses would avoid entering the Cuban market anyway because it's a bad investment due to the dictatorship.
B: The government will allow the people to gain wealth.  This means a few things:
1: What's the harm of the government then if they stop their abuses?
2: The people will wield more political clout against the government via their economic power.
3: If the government feels threatened by this, they could easily reform in order to retain power.
4: If the government feels threatened and decides to further impoverish the people, it would prove you right, at which point the US would be justified in putting the embargo back.  At this point, however, it actually becomes effective because trade became something Cuba would be dependent upon.  Think of trade like heroin.  If you tell a non-user that they can't have heroin, they'll say "okay."  But if you tell an addict they can't have heroin, they'll completely flip out because they're used to heroin.

You have conceded multiple arguments that allowing trade would increase the probability of freeing those people from the slavery you oppose.

That means, in your effort to make a statement that slavery is bad, you have entrenched slavery.

We do still have principles.  But principles are better guided by calculated action than blind emotion.

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> I did not concede the "increase the probability" argument. Because it's a matter of theory dependent upon many particulars over which Cuba has sole control, I do not presume that the Cuban authorities will make the mistakes which would allow free trade changes to threaten their power as you do.

I have presented multiple stories in which, whatever the government does, there is an increase in the probability of rights being renewed to the people.  You have done nothing on this subject.

I would rather not encourage slavery with my money (including federal money) on a matter of principle than engage in the immoral act of encouraging slavery by purchasing the products produced by slaves from their masters, regardless of whatever probabilities you figure might be the outcome.

Fancsali, you're a conservative, so I'll explain it this way.

Wars are bad, right?  In general, if it were possible to avoid all war and have no outside threats, that would be good, correct?
So if, let's say, the US were to fight a local war (think Afghanistan) to avoid a large scale conflict (think World War 2), would it be justified?

By not allowing the people a better shot at freedom, you are condemning them to the slavery you oppose.  THAT is an unethical principle.

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> Buying the products of slave labor does not give the slaves a better shot at freedom. I do not dispute that there is some merit to your claims. But I do not believe that betting on the ineptitude of the Cuban government is an ethical basis for buying the products of their human-rights-abusing country.

1: No.  It's free trade that gives them a better shot at freedom, by the merits of free trade which I said above.

2: Not betting on ineptitude.  It's a "no matter what they do, they're screwed" situation.  I said this twice now.  You're starting to act like xeno, so I'll make this extremely clear for you so you don't miss it.  LAY OUT A SCENARIO IN WHICH CUBA'S GOVERNMENT COULD COUNTERACT THE DIFFERENT ACTIONS I SPELLED OUT ABOVE!  IF YOU CAN'T, IT MEANS I AM NOT ASSUMING THEY ARE STUPID BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE ACTION.

As you said, they already export elsewhere. So what evidence is there that an additional increase in trade (with the addition of the US as a trade partner) would change anything of the current distribution of wealth? Current trade isn't creating a middle class already.

So we're just presuming that the increase in wealth in Cuba would suddenly cross a threshhold for revolution if only they traded with the US in addition to who they trade with now?

I still say we carpet bomb Cuba back to last month.