Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atlas and Cuba

stripe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#51

Post by reis4g »

amazon_not wrote: post #18
allr wrote: post #17

Cuba will have to step up its game with their Internet access, which is almost non-existent.

That assumes that the Cuban's in charge want to get it fixed. The Internet is not non-existent in Cuba because of some technical problem.

Almost right. It's both a political and a technical issue. Like you don't get a whole country with access to the internet from one day to the other without signing a contract with the devil (whatever that is). So, it takes time, but it is happening, Cuba is getting online, and there's no step back.

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#52

Post by reis4g »

13thLetter wrote: post #21
toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to list them? I've been interested in packing a backpack and heading to Cuba for a bit.

Allowing political dissent would be a good start. (Are you really not aware that Cuba is a dictatorship?)

Yeah well, on 2016, the ability a Cuban citizen has to change it's surroundings on certain aspects is probably higher than that of an US citizen with the same aspects/surroundings, so, if proven, is US a dictatorship in a mask?

Your statement is at the very least, buggy.

Political dissent is allowed, not encouraged. Another thing is the US gov investing gazillion dollars on busting the career of a dissident blogger and hence everybody (lazy) reading shitty news... Why not invest it on the very successful Cuban research on Cancer? A mistery?

And if you go to Cuba and talk with Cubans you will see most of us want more BUT love what we have. And in general, we are happy people, look at statistics, look at health charts, education, poverty, suicide charts if that's your thing... so, yes, dictatorship.

Also, things have been and are changing... Raul Castro said he would be stepping out after 5 years and I believe he will, and then all the "representative" democracy elections that won't solve anything.

Democracy per se is not a good thing, but it is the perfect instrument for those able to influence masses.

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#53

Post by reis4g »

wildmusings wrote: post #13
k-mcgrady wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Many of small actions by a small number of focused people in Washington, in the Whitehouse, and entrepreneurs and bankers, may have a profound impact on millions of Cuban lives in a very short period of time." While this is true don't forget that this also applies to the last several decades in Cuba too. They're fixing something that they created in the first place.

Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why would Cuba have been any different but for the embargo?

What's that communism thing you talk about anyway? Doesn't sound like the Marx I read.

Also, please, define "disaster".

Since by my knowledge, Cuba is neither a disaster, nor a communist country...

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#54

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #28
davidw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cuba Embargo was started in 1960. Barack Obama was born in 1961. So there are some different sets of 'they' around.

I didn't think it was necessary to be more specific in my post but I was wrong. By 'they' I meant the US government.

After how much time can an organization's past actions cease to be attributable to its current members? Why not also just blame the current human race for everything bad done by humans >100 years ago?

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#55

Post by amazon_not »

reis4g wrote: post #51
amazon_not wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes that the Cuban's in charge want to get it fixed. The Internet is not non-existent in Cuba because of some technical problem.

Almost right. It's both a political and a technical issue. Like you don't get a whole country with access to the internet from one day to the other without signing a contract with the devil (whatever that is). So, it takes time, but it is happening, Cuba is getting online, and there's no step back.

What contract with which devil?

Cuba already has a fiber optic cable to Venezuela, so they can get all the Internet they want and need into the country.

Cuba already has a national backbone, so they can get the bits distributed to every city.

Cuba already provides Internet access to government and educational institutions and some businesses, so they already have the capability to provide intenter access, even if so far it's been in limited quantities.

There are plans to provide ADSL service and Internet access can also be provided via existing wireless networks. There are also informal wireless networks that could be used to,get Internet out there to the people.

The Chinese will sell them as much network equipment as they want. They already provide the most of it anyway.

There are very few technical issues. All the Cuban powers that be need to do is unrestrict access and allow the use of existing infrastructure.

EDIT: all of Cuba could have some level of Internet access right now if they just allowed satellite usage.

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#56

Post by reis4g »

reis4g wrote: post #52
13thLetter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing political dissent would be a good start. (Are you really not aware that Cuba is a dictatorship?)

Yeah well, on 2016, the ability a Cuban citizen has to change it's surroundings on certain aspects is probably higher than that of an US citizen with the same aspects/surroundings, so, if proven, is US a dictatorship in a mask? Your statement is at the very least, buggy. Political dissent is allowed, not encouraged. Another thing is the US gov investing gazillion dollars on busting the career of a dissident blogger a…

erratum: "dollars on busting" should be "dollars on boosting"

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#57

Post by reis4g »

amazon_not wrote: post #55
reis4g wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost right. It's both a political and a technical issue. Like you don't get a whole country with access to the internet from one day to the other without signing a contract with the devil (whatever that is). So, it takes time, but it is happening, Cuba is getting online, and there's no step back.

What contract with which devil? Cuba already has a fiber optic cable to Venezuela, so they can get all the Internet they want and need into the country. Cuba already has a national backbone, so they can get the bits distributed to every city. Cuba already provides Internet access to government and educational institutions and some businesses, so they already have the capability to provide intenter access, even if so…

Nice. And you didn't take my parenthesis as a warning! Give me 10..

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#58

Post by oblio »

reis4g wrote: post #53
wildmusings wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why would Cuba have been any different but for the embargo?

What's that communism thing you talk about anyway? Doesn't sound like the Marx I read. Also, please, define "disaster". Since by my knowledge, Cuba is neither a disaster, nor a communist country...

Nobody has implemented Communism or Capitalism exactly as they are defined in their textbooks. The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice.

The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people.

We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point.

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#59

Post by the_af »

wildmusings wrote: post #46
the_af wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you'd prefer Pinochet there's little left to say on my part. Pinochet was a monster, a torturer and a traitor to his country, and along with many murderous dictatorships in South America (like in my country, Argentina) enacted the infamous "Plan Condor" for the assassination of dissenters, as well as the illegal detention and forced disappearance of students and political opponents. It's really hard to come…

Your response here is intellectually dishonest. Of course Pinochet was bad, and I was very clear about that. My point is that Allende was and would have been worse. Allende was so bad that the Chilean Supreme Court and Congress called for his forcible removal from power by the military. He was ignoring court orders and ruling by diktat. He was turning Chile into Cuba and was close allies with Castro. Today, one count…

No, what you're saying is terrible.

Allende was, good or bad (I think more good than bad) a democratically elected president. In contrast, Pinochet was a brutal dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat and enforced his rule via bloodshed, murder and repression of dissidents, students and anyone he didn't like; this included a clandestine plan of cooperation between intelligence agencies of neighboring dictatorships to kidnap and murder dissidents abroad (so that if you were a Chilean dissident living in Argentina, "Plan Condor" ensured you'd be captured and/or murdered there).

There is no possible comparison between Allende and Pinochet.

Being "close allies with Castro" isn't a crime, and to think so reeks of ideological persecution -- the very thing you accuse Cuba of! In democracy, if you don't like a president you wait for your turn to vote a different one. If the president does something grossly illegal, there are legal procedures to remove him from power, like impeachment.

Removal by military force, assassinations and political repression IS NOT AN OPTION IN DEMOCRACY. No matter how allegedly ruinous a government is removal by military force IS NOT AN OPTION. That's not how democracy works! There is no possible crime a democratically elected president can commit that justifies a military coup, the banning of all political parties and clandestine torture centers. Nothing.

At this point you might tell me that you don't think democracy is above all possible problems, that some emergencies may justify suspending the rule of law... but in that case, your criticisms of Cuba and Fidel ring very hollow. You'd be on very shaky ground.

You disgust me. We have nothing in common. I'm stopping this discussion now.

Re: Atlas and Cuba

#60

Post by wildmusings »

the_af wrote: post #59
wildmusings wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response here is intellectually dishonest. Of course Pinochet was bad, and I was very clear about that. My point is that Allende was and would have been worse. Allende was so bad that the Chilean Supreme Court and Congress called for his forcible removal from power by the military. He was ignoring court orders and ruling by diktat. He was turning Chile into Cuba and was close allies with Castro. Today, one count…

No, what you're saying is terrible. Allende was, good or bad (I think more good than bad) a democratically elected president. In contrast, Pinochet was a brutal dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat and enforced his rule via bloodshed, murder and repression of dissidents, students and anyone he didn't like; this included a clandestine plan of cooperation between intelligence agencies of neighboring dictato…

You realize that Hitler was elected, right? Democracy is not the be all and end all. It's great because of all of the wonderful things it has done for us. Self-representation is a good in itself, but not greater than human prosperity and freedom. And loyal opposition only works when everyone agrees on the sanctity of the system. I believe in liberal democracy, where the sovereignty of the people is limited by institutions like a constitutional court and a general separation of powers. An elected dictatorship (especially one like Allende's, elected on a slim plurality) has no legitimacy in my eyes.

Allende had effectively made himself dictator by ignoring the Congress and the Supreme Court. That doesn't justify Pinochet creating a military junta after the coup, and it certainly didn't justify his political death squads. But again, I'd rather live under a traditional dictatorship, that seeks to preserve society's structure and institutions, than a Communist dictatorship that has social and economic upheaval (destruction in practice) as its agenda. It's not a choice I want to ever be in a position to make. But man has lived and prospered under unfree governments throughout history. Man has never prospered under Communism.

It's disappointing that someone who's clearly intelligent can't have an intellectual disagreement without attacking the other person's moral integrity. Personally, I'll take it as badge of honor to be called 'disgusting' by someone who defends Castro and Allende and their ilk.

Post reply on HN