At the 2003 National Summit on Cuba, William Ratliff said: "Some embargo supporters say lifting the embargo now would reward Castro for his stubbornness, even for his recent repression. No. A bad policy is a bad policy and should be changed." The fact that the embargo is near the half-century mark is a good indicator of its failure, even so at fifteen years since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Also in 2003, a senior fellow from the Hoover Institution, Larry Diamond, commented on the US embargo towards Cuba and said that "[w]e have tried this strategy for 40 years in Cuba, and all it has done is impoverish the people and entrench their repressive rulers. Precisely in order to generate the social and economic changes that will finally undermine communist rule in Cuba, we should lift the embargo and promote as much exchange and interaction with that country as possible."
This is the basic position of the MAJORITY of libertarians.
So, why does Montaner differ with them, and Milton Friedman (the "true revolutionary"), when it comes to US policy towards Cuba when, according to the most basic principles of free markets, the government should not force itself upon free trade. Even in Montaner's own words, "the freest way to vote may be precisely with money." Then why doesn't he let American's vote with their wallets when it comes to Cuba?
Is Carlos Alberto Montaner really a friend of freedom?