Why Socialist Cuba Prohibits Internet Access and Social Media: The Regime Couldn't Survive It
Marco Rubio in a WSJ interview with Mary Anastasia O'Grady:
"There's a reason the people in Cuba don't have access to the Internet. It is because the government couldn't survive it.
It isn't communication with the outside world that the regime fears the most, but Cuban-to-Cuban chatter. I think Raúl Castro clearly understands that his regime cannot survive a Cuban reality where individual Cubans can communicate with each other in an unfettered manner. Unfiltered access to the Internet and social media is Cuba's best hope of avoiding a stagnated dictatorship for the next 50 years....."
34 Comments:
Yet another excellent posting Dr. Mark...
Thanks...
In the 80's Reagan had backed various right wing dictatorships in Latin America that pursued right wing economic strategies. Very business friendly, anti-union, low taxation, low tariffs, etc. Take El Salvador as an example. Early in the 80's they did have a couple of independent newspapers. They were destroyed. Offices raided. Bombings. An editor and photographer were simply hacked to death with machetes in public. Why did they do that? Was it because they didn't think these right wing governments could survive free and open debate?
The Catholic Church generally sided with the poor and against the "business friendly" governments. A few days after the fall of the Berlin Wall 6 Jesuit priests and some of their family members were murdered by hit squad trained by the US at the School of the Americas. Did our government somehow feel that their favored government couldn't survive the criticisms coming from these priests? It was the same story with regard to murdered nuns.
Would the US favored governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt, or Jordan survive an open debate and free elections? Of course not. The only Muslim governments in the region that have actually been voted in by the people in elections regarded by international agencies as free and fair are Hezbollah and Hamas. What's the US response? These must be terrorist organizations.
But we're supposed to ignore all that and focus on the fact that Castro limits internet access. Only look at what others do and pay no attention to what our government is responsible for. We're definitely supposed to ignore Jesus teaching that we should look at the beam in our own eye before the speck in the neighbor's eye.
Jon, dictators create a great deal of damage, whether they're "right wing," socialist, or whatever.
I'm sure Reagan would've preferred better politicians to support, but you had to take what you could get, to win the Cold War.
I was motivated by the post to go look at the rest of the countries in the world in terms of governance and happened across the Wiki article entitled:
List of countries by system of government
http://goo.gl/Pgk5y
in which they have a neat geographic color-coded map of the world.
check it out!
Very interesting map, Larry. Thank you very much for sharing. One take-away I had was how many of the de jure presidential republics are de facto dictatorships.
But we're supposed to ignore all that and focus on the fact that Castro limits internet access. Only look at what others do and pay no attention to what our government is responsible for.
Methinks you may have missed the entire point here, Jon.
One of the tenets of the philosophy we expound is limited government exactly so that the abuses you outline are never committed. No one is brushing over that fact.
Regardless, that point is irrelevant to this particular discussion. The point here is that censorship is often the tool of the oppressor and that free speech is fearsome to him. And do you blame them? Facebook has started revolutions. No wonder the Chinese ban it.
Monarchs have always feared the printed word. That's why there has been book burning, forced illiteracy, propaganda, censorship, and the like since the beginning of time. When people have the ability to read and interact with ideas, freedom expands, regardless of what those ideas are. When censorship is enacted, regardless of the reason, than knowledge and freedom disappear. As human beings, we have been endowed with sense, reason and intellect. To deny people the complete use of these facilities is not only illogical, but immoral.
What I'm saying is we should pay attention to a very basic moral principle. Our first concern should be the actions we are responsible for and we can control. That's kind of what Jesus did. He's not running around criticizing pagans or atheists. He looked inward at his own community.
There is none of that when it comes to right wing politicians and their apologists. When did Mark Perry mention the fact that in the US our citizens can be targeted for assassination based on a secret panel unaccountable to anyone but the President? I don't see any mention of that. That's something Mark Perry can influence. He lives in the US and people in the US listen to him. But he doesn't mention that. Instead he says that Castro blocks travel for Cuban citizens, a much lesser injustice than what his government does to its citizens. This is basic morality that the right wing rejects.
Ever heard of Sakharov? He was a dissident in the Soviet Union. His critics were much like Mark Perry. All they would talk about was American atrocities. They called Sakharov anti-Soviet because he focused on Soviet atrocities. But that was right. That is what he should have been doing. It wouldn't matter if American atrocities were even worse than Soviet atrocities. He is not American, isn't responsible for American atrocities, and has almost no influence in American life. If you want to have a positive impact you must focus on the things you can influence. Looking instead to Castro is precisely what Sahkarov's critics would do.
Jon-
That makes absolutely no sense.
We call into question presidential powers all the time. You happen to agree with them, so you dismiss it. In this one instance, you choose not to focus on one point and focus on another? That's a strawman.
There are many "right-wing" folks who attack the president's killing of an American citizen: Don Bordeaux (Cafehayek.com), Judge Andrew Napolitano, George Will, Russ Roberts, half of freaking Congress (although that one, admittedly, is based more on politics), Ron Paul, the list goes on.
Besides, this is an economics blog, not a political one. All the arguments made are based on economic principles. Sure, in the comments it get's political, but everything in the posts are math/statistics/market related. If you want a political blog, go somewhere else.
One final point: your argument of "he didn't mention it so he doesn't care about it" is illogical. This blog has not had a post about the holocaust. Does that mean he doesn't care about it? This blog has not had a post about the French election. Does that mean he doesn't care about it?
Look, everything, including time, is scarce. Dr. Perry posts about the things he has knowledge of. He doesn't get paid for this, he has a full time job. There simply isn't enough time in the day to discuss everything going on in the world. I know you have a blog of your own. I am glad. But please, if you have something you want to discuss, discuss it there. No one wants to wade through comments that have nothing to do with the post.
Ever heard of Sakharov? He was a dissident in the Soviet Union. His critics were much like Mark Perry.
Jon. You're a little POS. 5 year olds like you read LewRockwel dot com and think you understand the world.
Just as a friendly reminder you little s**t; some of us are from former communist countries, and your dribble sounds more like the ramblings of deranged communists, than anything else. Keep that in mind, before comparing Mark Perry, or anyone else, to yourself.
Jon, your idiotic ramblings make no sense whatsoever, for one simple reason: you and your pathetic friends at LewRockwell dot com, are incapable of understanding alternatives.
Said otherwise, in your tiny brain, the only actions of any consequence are those of the US. Everything and anything, has to be anti-American. It never crosses your brain (admittedly, its so tiny, the chances of an idea colliding with it, are slim!) what the...alternatives...were in El Salvador or Nicaragua. Of course, if it were communists killing in the name of stealing property and taking away rights, it would have no consequence for you. If its "right wingers" killing to defend property and defend rights, then its something for you to get upset about (25 years after the fact. but its ok, I guess you JUST covered that topic in your 7th grade World History class, so I'll give you a break)
Hey, have you ever spoken to a Nicaraguan?
Another thing that is incredibly amusing, is how the young bright-eyed minds of LewRockwell types take everything they read on the internet, as the word of god. "There were a couple of independent newspapers!". Says who? Wikipedia? Every newspaper in El Salvador, or everywhere else, claimed to be "independent". I'm sure you can't answer this question, since you only read it in an article written by someone who read it in an article who read it in an article written by someone who heard it from his uncle's cousin's friend who learned Spanish in 12th grade for a semester and did study abroad in Costa Rica for a summer.
And I'm also sure that your only agenda here is to be an anti-American prick, because that's what you do. Congratulations; you've succeeded.
Jon, you're right. Time is scarce. So why does MP focus on the petty crimes of those he can't influence and for which he's not responsible as opposed to the enormous crimes that he can control and for which he is responsible (as we all are)?
Of course we know the answer. There's three kinds of atrocities.
1-Benevolent. Those are the ones we do, like killing priests and nuns. Providing weaponry for the Mubarak regime to attack protestors in Egypt. Bombing Palestinians.
2-Evil atrocities. Those are the ones done by official enemies of the state. Castro or Ahmadinejad. These are useful for the propagandist because he can emphasize them to further his goals.
3-Then there's the benign atrocities. Ones that basically serve no propagandistic purpose. Say a massacre in Burundi. Who cares?
MP and many right wingers focus only on type 2 atrocities. Useful atrocities committed by official enemies of the state. Ahmadinejad, Castro.
Hey, I respect Napalitano. But I'm going to call out the hypocritical propagandists that never see an atrocity unless it serves a propaganda function. They don't actually care about atrocities. They don't actually care about suffering people. They care about one thing. Serving power. When noting an atrocity serves power they talk about it. Otherwise they say nothing. If they really cared about atrocities they'd talk about the ones they could influence. They only talk about the ones they can't influence, but they are useful for propaganda. They aren't iinterested in reducing suffering. If they were we'd hear about murdered priests. That's why nobody here has ever heard of Oscar Romero.
Oh yes, I forgot. Besides not comprehend alternatives, you're also incapable of comprehending magnitudes.
Comparing as moral, or practical, equivalent a regime that has killed tens of thousands of people for no other crime then their desire to defend their property and rights...with a government that has killed 1 or 2 individuals for the crime of murder and attempted murder of innocents; is downright silly.
But, I have yet to meet a Leftist Lew Rockwell child who has expressed the capacity for understanding both alternatives and/or magnitude.
That's why nobody here has ever heard of Oscar Romero.
Yes. None here has gone through 8th grade yet. Congratulations for reaching that landmark. Next year, you'll learn algebra. Be careful, its hard.
-------
Let me rephrase something for you; it is not morally equivalent to fight or kill someone to take away their property and their rights...with fighting or killing someone who is trying to take your property or your rights.
Killing a communist, or an islamic terrorist, is not the same thing as a communist or an islamic terrorist killing you.
But children don't understand such subtleties.
Jon-
I cannot speak as to why Dr. Perry chooses the topics he does, but I assume they are because he wants this blog to be about economics and their social aspects, not political fodder.
Unrelated, I think your analysis is a little simplistic. Everyone, not just right-wingers, just focus on type 2 atrocities. When things accomplish what we want, we tend to overlook the crimes committed (see TSA, Homeland Security, PATRIOT Act, Jim Crow, Guantanamo, gay marriage, Japanese internment, wealth redistribution, et al.). This is hardly a political phenomena and certainly not the hallmark of one party.
Let me pose this question to you: I recently presented a paper for a conference in Las Vegas. I chose to focus on a potential lemon market in Major League Baseball. Does that mean I do not care about market solutions to ending poverty?
Of course, Jon doesn't mention in this thread that Castro is his hero, and has pointed to the bearded dictator's little island paradie in previous threads as an ideal.
Uh, that may influence his insistence that we pay no attention to Castro's boot on the neck of the Cuban people.
"The Catholic Church generally sided with the poor and against the "business friendly" governments."
Yes, the Catholich church is filled with radical nuns and priests. They picked a side. It shouldn't be a big surprise then that this happened: "A few days after the fall of the Berlin Wall 6 Jesuit priests and some of their family members were murdered by hit squad trained by the US at the School of the Americas."
Those Jesuits weren't standing around doing nothing. They were aiding left wing guerillas. I don't condone their killings, but it's not as black-and-white as little Marxists like Jon like to paint it.
Those Jesuits weren't standing around doing nothing. They were aiding left wing guerillas
Yes but that's ok, because those guerrillas weren't trained by America, so their murders weren't written about in the NYT, and no one ever made a movie of their killings. And that's understandable, given that they killed people who were even peripherally supported by America. Killing them is ok, because its their own fault for not giving up their rights.
When things accomplish what we want, we tend to overlook the crimes committed (see TSA, Homeland Security, PATRIOT Act, Jim Crow, Guantanamo, gay marriage, Japanese internment, wealth redistribution, et al.).
Yes. The "crimes" of the TSA are quite comparable to Jim Crow. Almost the same I'd say. No wait, I take that back. They are the same.
ugh. No wonder people think "libertarians" are a joke.
Yes. The "crimes" of the TSA are quite comparable to Jim Crow. Almost the same I'd say. No wait, I take that back. They are the same.
I would say they are the same thing. Both encourage racial profiling. Both imposed travel restrictions. Both were done in the name of public safety. Both are violations of basic civil liberties.
Regardless, that was not the point of what I was saying. I wasn't trying to compare the magnitude of the crimes being committed, I was just demonstrating that we often overlook crimes committed in that which we believe. Jon was saying it's a primarily right-wing thing, but my list covers a range of political issues.
Jon Murphy, the events I described are just as much economic as the Castro issues. What we were dealing with in Latin America is the imposition of neoliberal policies. Our government wanted to impose the kind of economic policies that people like Mark Perry prefer. Low tariffs, small government, little regulation, low taxes. These make for profitable conditions for US investors. The assassination of the priests was an effort to impose those policies. Obviously highlighting the violence involved in imposing neoliberalism does not help impose neoliberalism, so it isn't discussed. But it's just as much economics as anything else.
As far as your lemon market, if you work in an area where you can influence something like this for the best then this is exactly what you should be doing.
But what if you have identified a lemon market and you show up at a conference to discuss it and you say "I'm really outraged about safety in our nuclear plants." Then I would object. You can see a real problem. You're in a place where you can address it and possibly influence it for the better. Instead you are talking about something you can't control and for which neither you nor the people in the room are responsible. Why are you wasting your time with that?
Like I said, we know why Mark Perry does that. He's not concerned about human rights. He's attempting to further the interests of certain investors. If he really cared about human rights he'd address the human rights violations that he's responsible for and he can influence. So we should dismiss his faux concern about human rights with contempt.
Yeah...you're insane. I've already wasted too much time on this. Moving on.
Jon,
Instead of trying to change the subject (like you always do), why don't you attempt to stay focused on the actual topic and just tell us why it's a good thing that people in Cuba live largely as prisoners.
Then we can talk about how the US government killed Paul McCartney and replaced him with an imposter or whatever you'd like.
"Hey, I respect Napalitano"...
ROFLMAO! Thank you jon both the chuckle and an insight to your world view such as it is...
"That's why nobody here has ever heard of Oscar Romero"...
As usual you're wrong again jon but hey! You're used to that...
Oscar Romero the 'clueless, social justice clown' in El Salvador shot while saying mass back in '79 or '80...
The guy could never figure out that one shouldn't bait the bear in its own den...
In fact there was a nice little riot for his funeral if memory serves and a bunch of folks got killed in it...
I've often wondered what the final body count was due to the actions of Romero...
Yeah, I'm guilty of changing the subject sometimes. That's because I think the focus is sometimes misplaced.
Sahkarov's critics would have said the same to him as they focused laser like on US atrocities. He'd say "Why don't we look in our own back yard" and they'd say "Don't change the subject."
Jon Murphy says I'm insane. Meanwhile others in this thread cheer on the murders of priests, nuns, and their relatives. You people are frightening.
The guy could never figure out that one shouldn't bait the bear in its own den...
In his defense, the injustices he was protesting were very real. His solutions may have been a little...radical at times, but I'd say he certainly didn't deserve to be assassinated.
Meanwhile others in this thread cheer on the murders of priests, nuns, and their relatives.
Yes I have no problem with violence against those who are trying to steal other people's property and rights. In fact, its very admirable.
"You people are frightening."
Says the Marxist punk who applauds Fidel Castro's island prison.
"That's why nobody here has ever heard of Oscar Romero."
Jon's obnoxious and repeated "none of you have ever heard of X" routine usually comes back to bite him in the ass when we rub his nose in the fact that not only have we heard of these rather well known individuals, but we also know he only cribbed the rather incomplete commie notes.
Better luck next time, Jon!
"In his defense, the injustices he was protesting were very real. His solutions may have been a little...radical at times, but I'd say he certainly didn't deserve to be assassinated"...
Never said they weren't jon m did I?
Nope, Romero's solutions by our standards were't the least bit radical...
Oscar Romero was for want of a better description was almost 'criminally' naive in his actions...
In '79 the ousting of one Carlos Romero by the leftist army officers (yes, it was coup) were the same officers (Ramos & Martinez if memory serves) who already had a bloody track record of using death squads...
Now I ask you, do you call these kinds of people out publically (it was a rightous call too) for their actions but leave yourself no safe harbor aftewards?
Really? What does that type of suicide actually accomplish except make it easier for the black hats?
One more thing to consider, the Catholic church in El Salvado had its own conflicting groups, many that did not agree with Oscar Romero...
Basically Oscar Romero built his human rights castle on a foundation of sand...
I must confess that I did not expect people here to know Oscar Romero, so if you did know without Googling I tip my hat to you. I did not learn about this in grade school and had never heard of it until doing my own research.
For those that offer apologetics for the murder of priests, I will try and stay out of your way.
"I did not learn about this in grade school and had never heard of it until doing my own research."
I read Granma for fun sometimes. Jon reads it for the "research."
"For those that offer apologetics for the murder of priests, I will try and stay out of your way."
What a joke. Romero was a Liberation Theologist, as were scores of LA Catholic laity, some of whom took up arms on behalf of Marxist combatants in places like El Salvador.. The Colombian terrorist organization ELN,for example, was founded by Catholic priests who were inspired by the Cuban revolution. The Nicaraguan Sandinistas were aided and abetted every step of the way by Catholic priests steeped in Liberation Theology.
*Meant to write "clergy" not "laity."
"Yeah, I'm guilty of changing the subject sometimes. That's because I think the focus is sometimes misplaced."
It's not your blog, Jon. The focus is what Mark wants it to be. Of course that kind of describes lefties in general. It's not what YOU want so you disrupt any delivery of information that YOU don't approve of and then scream freedom...perfecto!
"I must confess that I did not expect people here to know Oscar Romero..."...
jon I personally knew man, knew him quite well in fact...
El Salvador is a very small country...
I knew many people who ended up at the hands of the death squads or had family members end up that way...
It wasn't pretty...
Not exactly the exciting days of yester_year...
BTW paul's comments regarding a clergy we in this country wouldn't recognize are spot on...
You can actually watch mourners at the funeral of Oscar Romero being gunned down here.
Post a Comment
<< Home