A few weeks ago I was able to interview Michael Moynihan, one of the editors of Reason magazine.  Michael laid out the libertarian argument against the embargo.  I think it was one of the best Babalu Radio Shows that we've done.  But if you listen to it, I think you'll agree that his arguments don't stand up to real world scrutiny.

Today in a post at the Heritage Foundation's blog we Ray Walser explains the conservative viewpoint as to why freedom for Americans to travel to Cuba as tourists won't translate in freedom for Cubans:

Ultimately most arguments for lifting the travel ban [and the trade embargo which is clearly the real target of many in Congress] blame the U.S. for the pesky persistence of communism in Cuba. They assume that 1) since restrictions have failed to change Cuba in 50 years, being nice will; 2) lifting prohibitions will deprive the Castro regime of its justification for repression, 3] waves of free spending U.S. visitors will open doors for real democratic change, 4] abundant commercial opportunities will emerge, and 5] all of Latin America will like us more once we quit hectoring Cuba for its totalitarian practices...

One needs to recall a few points as the debate warms up. 1] the absence of change in Cuba is the result of the Castro dictatorship, not the fault of the U.S.; 2] the axis of Castro’s dictatorship has and remains virulent anti-Americanism; 3] free-spending Europeans and Canadians have failed to change Cuba’s repressive policies; 4] the communist economic model is broken and violently fears a free market; 5] by embracing Cuba as they do, without democratic change or greater freedoms, regional leaders have tarnished their commitments to democracy as signatories to the Inter-American Democratic Charter.