Definition of a free country

Originally posted by generalissimo
It wasn't necessarily my intention to provide justification for the Castro regime, I was simply explaining how Cuba can be said to have its own brand of freedom, within the perimeters of the revolution, in the same way that other countries also have their own freedom within their constitutional framework.
The question of whether one finds the Castro r ...[text shortened]... e sake of economic equality and the realization of socialism is ultimately a matter of opinion.

Indeed. It's a matter of opinion. Here's mine: Cuba does not provide any kind of "definition of a free country", as requested by this OP, in any shape or form whatsoever. We can agree to disagree.

Originally posted by FMF
Indeed. It's a matter of opinion. Here's mine: Cuba does not provide any kind of "definition of a free country", as requested by this OP, in any shape or form whatsoever. We can agree to disagree.

Cuba's definition of freedom doesn't meet the requirements of the OP, which was very specific in its referrence to the fate of the unpopular. On the other hand, given the objective of the thread is (I imagine, and Teinosuke can correct me if Im wrong) to expound on the definition of a free country we shouldn't limit ourselves to the OP's quote, freedom comes in a variety of packages.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Cuba's definition of freedom doesn't meet the requirements of the OP, which was very specific in its referrence to the fate of the unpopular. On the other hand, given the objective of the thread is (I imagine, and Teinosuke can correct me if Im wrong) to expound on the definition of a free country we shouldn't limit ourselves to the OP's quote, freedom comes in a variety of packages.

Cuba does not provide any sort of "definition of a free country" whatsoever.

Originally posted by FMF
Cuba does not provide any sort of "definition of a free country" whatsoever.

For those of us who can only find virtue in the market-driven liberal democratic brand of freedom that may well be the case, others may disagree.

Originally posted by generalissimo
For those of us who can only find virtue in the market-driven liberal democratic brand of freedom that may well be the case, others may disagree.

People are in gaol in Cuba for "finding virtue in the market-driven liberal democratic brand of freedom" and for opposing the regime's economic model. You cannot squeeze that reality into any valid or real world "definition of a free country". Those "others [who] may disagree" that you mention, are not offering a credible "definition of a free country". Do you think Cuba is a "free country", generalissimo?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Cuba's definition of freedom doesn't meet the requirements of the OP, which was very specific in its referrence to the fate of the unpopular. On the other hand, given the objective of the thread is (I imagine, and Teinosuke can correct me if Im wrong) to expound on the definition of a free country we shouldn't limit ourselves to the OP's quote, freedom comes in a variety of packages.

My intention in starting the thread was certainly in part to enquire as to whether there are aspects of freedom not covered by Stevenson's definition. But I think your assertions regarding Cuba fall into the trap palynka warned against - when the concept of freedom has become so vague as to allow us to define Cuba as "in some sense free", then that concept no longer has much use or value.

All societies make tradeoffs between "freedom" and other goods, and I'm certainly not saying that freedom is the only good that matters (and nor was Stevenson). There are other goods I value, such as equality, which are apparent in post-Revolutionary Cuba. But I don't think that it's helpful to seek to include these within an impossibly broad definition of freedom.

However, I have now lived to see the day where generalissimo is outflanking FMF from the left, and that in itself justifies this thread from the point of view of entertainment value. Have you considered changing your user name to "guevara"?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
My intention in starting the thread was certainly in part to enquire as to whether there are aspects of freedom not covered by Stevenson's definition. But I think your assertions regarding Cuba fall into the trap palynka warned against - when the concept of freedom has become so vague as to allow us to define Cuba as "in some sense free", then that concept ...[text shortened]... view of entertainment value. Have you considered changing your user name to "guevara"?

There are other goods I value, such as equality, which are apparent in post-Revolutionary Cuba-Teinosuke

After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Communist government arrested gays and sent many to labor or "re-education" camps.

Originally posted by utherpendragon

There are other goods I value, such as equality, which are apparent in post-Revolutionary Cuba-Teinosuke

After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the Communist government arrested gays and sent many to labor or "re-education" camps.

I am well aware of that, and that was, of course, a bad thing. It's worth noting, though, that in 1959, when the Cuban Revolution took place, sodomy was a felony, and punishable by a prison sentence and/or hard labour, in every state of the United States. It was certainly not very safe to be sexually unpopular in the US when Stevenson made his comment, nor for several years afterwards.

Needless to say, I wasn't defending the Cuban regime either, whose violations of basic freedoms are too extreme to be justified by the successful provision of other goods that I value, such as equality.

Originally posted by FMF
People are in gaol in Cuba for "finding virtue in the market-driven liberal democratic brand of freedom" and for opposing the regime's economic model. You cannot squeeze that reality into any valid or real world "definition of a free country". Those "others [who] may disagree" that you mention, are not offering a credible "definition of a free country". Do you think Cuba is a "free country", generalissimo?

It is lamentable that the suppression of liberty and free speech of dissidents has to take place for the preservation of the quality won through the revolution and the system it established, but this doesn't in any way translate into a reality where there is no freedom, it translates only into a reality where the welfare and interests of the collective take precedence over those of the (blatantly subversive) individual. If the Cuban authorities judge the actions of certain individuals to be dangerous to the survival of the egalitarian conditions they have fought hard to preserve throughout all these years then I respect their decisions.

Peppering your post with terms of approval like "valid" , "credible", and "real world" doesn't change the fact that if you dispute the central principle behind that particular framework of government ultimately you'll only be able to find fault with it, these terms are all subjective.

Originally posted by generalissimo
It is lamentable that the suppression of liberty and free speech of dissidents has to take place for the preservation of the quality won through the revolution and the system it established, but this doesn't in any way translate into a reality where there is no freedom, it translates only into a reality where the welfare and interests of the collective ...[text shortened]... s they have fought hard to preserve throughout all these years then I respect their decisions.

So that's a yes, then? You think Cuba is a 'free country' despite what you admit is its "suppression of liberty and free speech" of "individuals" as the government sees fit?

Who is it, in your view, that is "free" in Cuba, then? The 'government is free to decide', is that what you mean? Cuba is a 'free country' because its government has free reign to preserve and defend its system by restricting its citizens' freedom? Is that what you mean?

As [what is presumably] a bit of Devil's Advocacy on your part, generalissimo, this seems awfully flat-footed.

Originally posted by FMF
So that's a yes, then? You think Cuba is a 'free country' despite what you admit is its "suppression of liberty and free speech" of "individuals" as the government sees fit?

Who is it, in your view, that is "free" in Cuba, then? The 'government is free to decide', is that what you mean? Cuba is a 'free country' because its government has free reign to ...[text shortened]... of Devil's Advocacy on your part, generalissimo, this seems awfully flat-footed.

As I have said previously, the people of Cuba are free to do as they wish within the perimeters of the revolution, just as the people of America are free to do as they wish within the perimeters of their constitutional framework and body of laws, and so on.

As [what is presumably] a bit of Devil's Advocacy on your part, generalissimo, this seems awfully flat-footed.
Again, these expressions of opinion do little to bolster your side of this argument.

Originally posted by generalissimo
As I have said previously, the people of Cuba are free to do as they wish within the perimeters of the revolution, just as the people of America are free to do as they wish within the perimeters of their constitutional framework and body of laws, and so on.

Can you name any countries around the world that are 'not free' according to your apparently tongue-in-cheek concept that 'citizens are free to do as they wish within the perimeters set by government'? Or do you see every country as being a "free country" according to your definition?

Originally posted by FMF
Can you name any countries around the world that are 'not free' according to your apparently tongue-in-cheek concept that 'citizens are free to do as they wish within the perimeters set by government'? Or do you see every country as being a "free country" according to your definition?

All countries in the world impose curbs on freedom in order to promote a certain set of principles of governance and values for individuals to aspire to abide by. The question of whether one finds a particular system to be more justified than the other is a matter of opinion, and in a sense I agree with palinka's statement that to speak of a country to be free or unfree is to express support for a system above others.

Originally posted by generalissimo
All countries in the world impose curbs on freedom in order to promote a certain set of principles of governance and values for individuals to aspire to abide by. The question of whether one finds a particular system to be more justified than the other is a matter of opinion, and in a sense I agree with palinka's statement that to speak of a country to be free or unfree is to express support for a system above others.

The term "free" is not merely an expression of approval, it also describes certain objective conditions. Freedom is not the only value worthy of admiration; and the relative lack of freedom in certain societies does not mean that those societies lack all merit; but to assert simply that "all countries in the world impose curbs on freedom" is imprecise. Some countries impose a lot more curbs on freedom than others. Cuba is one of these.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
The term "free" is not merely an expression of approval, it also describes certain objective conditions.

What are those conditions?