Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Helms/Burton law

 Greetings All wrote:
 >Hello Rathwig,
 >I said:
 >     >>To attribute to the totalitarian dictatorship that rules
 >     Cuba with an iron hands the rights which accrue to the
 >     citizens it keeps in bondage, is a travesty.  It is like if
 >     your house was >broken into by a group of thugs and you and
 >     your loved ones were >kept prisoners, then, when faced with
 >     those that want to free you >and your family, the thugs were
 >     to claim your rights as the owner >of your house for
 >     themselves.  Lets get real here!<<
 >Then you said:
 >     >>This has nothing to do with thugs or hime invasions, this
 >     has to do with Law, and the rule of Law. Whether you like a
 >     particular regime or not does not matter one iota when you
 >     are discussing States  inalienable right to sovereignity.
 >Now I say: (This is getting complicated):)
 >The point I made was that for a State to claim sovereignty it
 >must do so because it derives its rights from the freely given
 >consent of those it represents, and  not from holding a gun to
 >their head.  To do otherwise is to encourage a return to the law
 >of the jungle, and sow the seeds for future wars. The State is
 >not a piece of dirt, mountains, rivers etc, it is people.  To
 >think otherwise, is only arrogance.
 >Your analogy about the United States seem outdated, and not on
 >point. The revolution that took place in the United States was
 >one carried out to establish a system of government in which the
 >PEOPLE would have a right to "life liberty and the pursuit of
 >happiness", it recognized and affirmed that  "people are endowed
 >by their creator with certain inalienable rights".  These
 >concepts were latter enshrined in a constitution, that had as its
 >cornerstone a bill of rights to protect the individual. That is
 >not the situation in Cuba. I am not challenging the right of the
 >Cuban people to be free and sovereign, I am challenging the right
 >of a totalitarian dictator to claim for himself the rights that
 >accrue to those he controls by the use of the gun, the stick, the
 >jail, the mental wards, and the threat of exile.  
 >It is to inmaterial to me the reason why a country does that
 >which is morally right (and to punish those that would trade
 >and/or profit with property stolen by a thug is moral in my
 >book), I am satisfied that it does, and it escapes me the reason
 >why those that should know better as they enjoy of that which the
 >Cuban people are denied, are willing to participate in profiting
 >from their enslavement.
 >As Henry Ward Beecher said, "A law is valuable not because it is
 >a law, but because there is right in it."
 You are making the assumption that the Republican (as in political system,
 not political party) government of the United States of America is the