It's pretty simple, in the end. People have a derivative (from their families and other natural social groups) right to self-government. (This is not the standard liberal or libertarian line, but what I have to say after is compatible with both. These views just presume the right to self-government.) Thus, if people give that right up, temporarily or permanently, to someone else, then that's their decision. How on earth can one justify intervening in that decision? Well, if the decision is coerced or not sufficiently informed, then one can. However, that's not the US argument against Cuba (or Iraq): the argument is that it's "for their own good". I sincerely doubt that the "good" of US-style "democracy" is really sufficient to justify this sort of strongly paternalistic intervention.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
US interventionism (and Cuba in particular).
I don't get the chip on the US' shoulder about Cuba. It's not a bad little country, from what I've heard. Decent health care. Nice beaches. Not so much with the civil liberties; but, then again, unlike some countries, Cuba doesn't really claim otherwise. So, what's Bush going to do? Take over. Really, when will the US government just butt out of other countries' business? If Cubans want democracy, I'm sure they'll let us know. Until that time, why, exactly, is it the US' problem what happens after Castro's death? And how dare the US government continue to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations?