Kyle Scott

Libyan rebels should focus on establishing their own government in the east instead of focusing exclusively on the overthrow of the existing regime.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...

During the revolution in Egypt, the sentiment among most of America’s political and intellectual cadre seemed to be one of a hands-off approach, saying in effect, this is the time for the Egyptian people to be heard and take charge of their country.

This sentiment is waning when it comes to Libya. Calls for U.S. involvement are on the rise as the death toll rises and Col Moammar Gadhafi’s grip on the country seems to be strengthening. What the United States needs is a heaping dose of humility. We cannot solve every country’s problems, for as history has shown, our involvement usually makes the problem more complicated. The proposed actions - or the ones we have used in similar situations in the past - will fail. These include:

c Sanctions: With money still flowing in from its top trade partner, Italy, U.S. sanctions - even if backed by NATO or the United Nations - will unlikely have a large effect on the bottom line. Also, with Col. Gadhafi sitting on billions of dollars in reserve, even if sanctions do have substantial economic consequences for the country, he will still be able to pay his military and mercenaries long enough to put down the resistance. Plus, sanctions usually miss the mark. The political ruing class in Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea are living lavish lives while the people suffer. Their suffering can be turned into anti-American sentiment through the effective propaganda measures that link the populace’s misfortune to U.S. sanctions. If Col. Gadhafi falls and the United States goes in as a stabilizing force, we will need the good will of the people on our side.

c No-fly zone: To enforce a no-fly zone that would limit Col. Gadhafi’s ability to send air strikes against the rebels would require U.S.forces to shoot down Libyan aircraft. If we do that, we better be ready for war. With forces still in Iraq and Afghan- istan, the U.S. is spread thin militarily already, not to mention the financial strain another war would bring to a country struggling to find its way through trying economic times.

c Aid to rebel forces: Whether it was the U.S. support of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, Pinochet in Chile, Afghanistan a- gainst the USSR, or Hosni Mu- barak in Egypt, the resources and weapons shipped in by the United States are commonly used in ways that we never intended. If we are to give military or financial aid to the rebel forces, we must first accomplish the near-impossible task of guaranteeing that those forces will promote democratic values if they are victorious. If we are to give the rebels anything, it should be lessons on self-government. A people who have never governed themselves in a country with no infrastructure for democratic government will be in utter chaos, should Col. Gadhafi fall.

It pains any decent person to watch what is happening in Libya, but that doesn’t mean an outside force working towards the overthrow of the regime is the right thing to do. We must remain humble in our ability to produce positive change but remain ready to help people put the pieces back together if they win and want our help. The West should not install a leader - even an interim one - but it should be a facilitator in the process, helping the tribes deliberate and choose for themselves the proper course of action. As facilitators, we should make recommendations about what the new government should look like - perhaps one that incorporates features of federalism to help eliminate tension among competing tribes - but most importantly, one that is “by the people” of Libya.

As with anything of value, self-government cannot be given or imposed - it must be earned. It is a hard, ugly truth we must deal with when we see suffering and especially when you are the one suffering. It was after years of denial and suffering that Fyodor Dostoevsky came to his faith. Without that process, he would not have had his faith and we would not have had his stories. “Thus it is not like a child that I believe in Christ and confess Him. My Hosanna has burst forth from a huge furnace of doubt.” Libyans, like all people, must come to self-government on their own. Others can be there to assist but no one can do it for them.

Here is how we should address the budget crisis.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20...

Since the threat of a government shut down doesn't seem to motivate Congress to create a sensible budget proposal that can be agreed to by both sides, Congress should return the money to all the taxpayers. I bet each of us could figure out how to spend our tax dollars.

That won't happen; and it probably shouldn't.

But, in a federal system, returning the money to the states in proportion to what their citizens paid in should be an option. If the national government can't work out a budget, give the states a shot. After all, states like Ohio are running a deficit and would welcome the relief. Gov. John Kasich, who released his budget last month, would most certainly enjoy the ability to utilize taxpayer money collected by the national government.

The national government has become bloated, sluggish, and inefficient; which is what happens when there is a monopoly. Just as the governor stated he was going to do with state government, the national government needs to become innovative, efficient, and resourceful. This can only be done when there is competition for resources.

Like the national government, most Americans are living beyond their means. So either Americans are taking a cue from the national government on how to manage our finances, or the national government is reflective of the way we live our lives. In other words, the government is a product of our values-for better or for worse.

If we are to believe those officials who say the way to solve our financial and energy problems is through innovation, then they should show us how it's done by demonstrating a spirit of experimentation when it comes to policy making and budgeting-and we should demand that they do so.

Here is an article on business ethics that can be used in the real world.

http://www.techjournalsouth.com/2011/...


Business ethics is a tricky area because the point of business, to produce a profit, often conflicts with what might be termed ethical. Ethicists rarely have a strong grasp of business or life outside of idealized environments. Managers and executives rarely have enough spare time to sit down and read Aristotle, Nietzsche or Thomas Aquinas. Provided below are three easy questions that you can ask yourself when deciding if a decision is ethical.

Everyone makes decisions; sometimes an unethical decision must be made. It’s a fact of life and no one can go around living like Socrates doing only what is ethical, moral, and just. What’s provided is not a set of standards to be achie ved, but rather a method to weigh your decision to find out if it is worth it to you.

Would you accept the explanation from your kids?

It’s been said, “That’s the way the world works, if you want to compete this is what you have to do,” when trying to justify a decision that is unethical but increases competitive advantage. In reality, this is the adult equivalent of saying, “But all my friends are doing it.” So, is the decision you are about to make one in which you would want your child to make, or is the justification for your decision one that you would accept from your child when he or she has done something that goes against your instruction?

Also, remember, as managers and executives you have a hand in making the world what it is. By working hard and progressing in your profession you have earned the ability to make choices for yourself and for others. No one can change the world, and you owe it to your shareholders and employees to earn a profit. But, you owe it to those people, yourself, and your family to act ethically. So as a decision maker, you have to decide, and have the ability to decide, which is more important at any one time.

Will it make you happier?

Happiness is a tricky thing in that you don’t often know what makes you happy, except from experience. Some think money will make them happy only to find out that once they get it they’re not that much happier, if at all, than when first starting out. To make an ethical decision you must decide what will make you happy.

In following in the footsteps of Socrates; what makes us happy is what makes us better people. You become better, and thus happier, when your higher desires – such as the desire for justice, moderation and courage – guide base desires – such as hunger or sexual attraction. If your higher desires do not guide your base desires you will be led to gluttony and debauchery.

Everyone gets hungry, but you don’t need to eat yourself into a coma as though everyday is Thanksgiving. Moderation is a higher desire, which guides the base desire of hunger. No one can tell you what will make you happy, or when you are following your base desires instead of your higher desire, you must know thyself.

Do you exert power?

If you have to manipulate or coerce someone into going along with your plan, or to achieve your goal, you should rethink your plan. If you can present your argument in a persuasive manner without robbing others of their ability to decide for themselves then you have acted ethically. The workplace is not a democracy most of the time, and subordinates must take directives from above. But, this is not coercion, or at least the type of coercion, from which you should refrain. Telling your head accountant to fudge the numbers or she’ll be fired is different from telling the accountant to finish a project before he goes home or there will be consequences because he has already fallen behind.

One of the things that separate humans from other animals is the ability to reason. When you strip someone of their capacity to reason, or act upon what they have reasoned to be the best choice, you have denied them their dignity and therefore acted unethically. Whether it is withholding information from stockholders or threatening punishment if your will is not followed, it’s denying someone or some group the capacity to reason for themselves.

It would be naïve to think that you can, or should, always act as ethicists would have you act. It would be unethical to let your business fail because you don’t want to do what is necessary to keep a business going. But, you should not act badly because it is easier than being good or because you are too motivated or self-interested to say no. What’s provided above is a set of questions that you can ask yourself when making decisions in order to help you decide which path to follow. The intention is not to pass judgment or tell you how to act, but give you a set of guidelines so that you can make decisions fully aware of their implications, ethically and otherwise.

Dr. Kyle Scott is a lecturer at the University of Houston, with a Ph.D. in Political Science: American Political Theory and Public Law. He has authored two books and a forthcoming third, “Federalism: Theory and Practice,” will be available Spring 2011. Kyle has taught American Politics, Political Theory, and Public Law at Miami University and University of North Florida. For more information, contact him at: kascott@uh.edu

Find me on . . .

Twitter - http://twitter.com/ScottKyleA

Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?i...

Federalism Book on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Federal...

LinkedIn - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kyle-scot...

LibraryThing - http://www.librarything.com/author/sc...

RedRoom - http://www.redroom.com/member-detail/...

Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Kyle-Scott/e/B0...

Continuum Publishing - http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/d...

Google - http://www.google.com/profiles/KyleASc