October 14, 2009
The Third Source
"During my long journey through the world of evil, I had discovered three sources of power: the power of an individual's inner freedom, the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world."-- Natan Sharansky, "The Case for Democracy"
Cuban punk rocker Gorki Aguila credits the third source for his freedom after his arrest for "pre-criminal behavior" and "social dangerousness." What a great and sad story:
Hat-tip: Instapundit. Professor Reynolds nails it with "Compare to the “rebel” posers here in the States . . . ."
Cuba Posted by John Kranz at October 14, 2009 12:12 PM
I liken it to 'Footloose' with a different tyranny. File under "Freedom on the march."
It has to be highly unlikely that this fellow has read Atlas Shrugged, or even heard of it. And yet, he says that the most important thing for the future of Cuba is "Freedom, obviously. Individual freedom is very tied into development."
Could it be that the longing to be free is a universal innate trait of human beings? [Tongue>cheek] "Naah, couldn't be since Iraqi's aren't "ready" for freedom."
Viva Ricardo.
Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2009 1:21 PMSi. But don't forget about all that great, free, healthcare!
Posted by: jk at October 14, 2009 2:00 PMYes, Gorki did neglect to mention that. I suppose he forgot to acknowledge the healthcare utopia because he is young and healthy.
Posted by: johngalt at October 14, 2009 2:49 PMIs freedom an absolute, as in you have it or you don’t? I would think we all have some freedom, it is how much that makes the difference. Iraqi’s had some freedom under Saddam and the Afghans some freedom under the Taliban. Of course some was small and it was not equally distributed or guaranteed. It was you johngalt who said profoundly several years ago that for freedom to work it must be the most important value, above religion, family, tribe, etc. (And people say liberals and conservatives can’t listen and learn from one another) I have always thought the biggest problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the people are not ready for central government. They are still deep down a tribal culture. We still haven’t come to grips with the fact that boundaries were drawn often by outside forces and that the people within those boundaries do not think of themselves as part of the group that their border attributes to them.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 17, 2009 10:37 AMWow, your memory is better than mine Silence. But that does sound like something I would say.
Geopolitical boundaries is an interesting subject. Whether drawn by external or internal forces, they are drawn by force nonetheless, i.e. those with the power to do so. But these boundaries are only oppressive if the rights of individuals within them are not respected. When America's Constitution has been respected there was greater harmony amongst her citizens. When its restrictions on government power are strained and in many cases ignored we hear ideas like "secession" and "revolution" in the popular discourse. (And it was a dispute over the power of central government, not slavery, that precipitated America's Civil War.)
I'll also dispute your dichotomy of central government versus tribal rule. Tribalism is the most primative form of collectivism with the members of the tribe choosing to associate with those whom they are most similar to and acting to advance their collective causes at the expense of those who are different from them. The same principle lives in modern society with trade unions, retirement associations, race groups and religious associations. All of these entities thrive under a powerful central government because the attendant concentration of power simplifies the practice of currying favoritism.
Posted by: johngalt at October 18, 2009 1:54 PM | What do you think? [5]