So, basically, your position is that there's no such thing as human rights?
Yeah, I'm not asking you to play devil's advocate here. I'm not asking you about his intentions (though I find your interpretation of them highly credulous, given the obvious benefits to himself). I'm asking you to defend the idea that he was a good leader who helped his people, rather than one who consistently oppressed them.
He forbid people from leaving the country and sometimes murdered them and their families for trying. So, knowing that, is this freedom suddenly moved to the list of "subjective" freedoms we only like because we're taught to?
Because any "freedom" that only exists at the whim of a dictator isn't really a freedom at all. Therefore, the freedoms held in the highest esteem are the one which safeguard all the others. It's not arbitrary, and it's not just a cultural inclination: it's literally the only prioritization that prevents tyranny.
The difference being, my ideology says I should let them disagree, and theirs says they should be allowed to kill me if they think I'm persuading people with my arguments.
Which side of that do you take? And how many social welfare programs do they have to favor before you switch to the other side and say maybe killing me is worth it?
This is literally just another way of saying "he killed them for protesting because he was afraid they would persuade people."
First: he promised free elections, which means at minimum he was lying about what kind of government he planned to install.
Second, is this really supposed to explain why he didn't hold free elections in 50 years?
His intentions have nothing to do with the question. I am asking you to assess the results of his decisions: do you think he made the Cuban people "more free overall" by denying them the right to free speech, to a free press, to free assembly, to due process, and so on, in the name of socialized medicine?
[quote]He was in charge for 50 years! Your argument is that what he did was reasonable because it might have worked if he'd only been allowed to oppress people for another half-century?[quote]
Yes, because the point is that the next 50 years would have been nothing like the previous 50 in terms of the world situation, the country is less at war, Obama looked like he wanted to improve relations and so on.
You know, I'll bet I could convince people I was doing a good job if I killed the people who said I was doing a bad job.
Infant morality is affected heavily by what you count as a newborn to begin with, for one. And it's a little difficult to take such statistics seriously coming from a government that claims, with a straight face, that Castro regularly receives 100% of the vote.
As I indicated in my last response, I think that's of dubious value when you're controlling what people are allowed to read.
If you think a higher literacy rate justifies what Castro did
the obvious question is: why did he have to stop people from leaving? Tens of thousands of Cubans literally risked their lives (and many died) just for the chance of not living there any more. It doesn't take much humility to decide that it must not have been a very good deal, given the actions of the people who it was forced on.