In a large enough population, there is going to be a percentage of people who are different from the norm in that they are not interested in working, or they say they want to work but always have an excuse not to get a job or be able to keep it.
So before any serious talk of solving the unemployment problem I think we need to agree that solving the problem means that any person who WANTS a job can have one.
But we don't know everyone, we only really know numbers - how do we identify the people who don't want a job and exclude them from the unemployment measure? And how do we identify the people who claim to want a job but find every excuse not to actually work?
I think the key to identifying such people is to do this:
1. replace the unemployment check with an unemployment program that offers jobs to the unemployed. These jobs would be cleaning streets, picking up trash, and other such jobs that don't require any qualifications besides normal physical ability. For physically disabled people, the key physical ability might be answering phones, or something else that they can still do. For really disabled people who cannot do any such job, if they really have no skill or ability that can be used like reading and speaking, they will not be qualified for the program and we will simply have to count them in the unemployment measure, maybe in a special category of people who actually cannot work so that we know there's nothing that can be done to help them get a job.
2. the unemployment program must issue certificates of performance to all people who are in this program so that it can be determined whether they are meeting the job requirements. This program would be no free lunch - if they don't do the work they will get fired from the job and the unemployment program will record a certificate that they failed to perform - and the circumstances involved. Such people who get fired from the job program would be eligible to re-apply and try again with the same job a limited number of times, and to re-apply and try again with a different job a limited number of times. Essentially, we would be giving people opportunities for employment and letting them build a record for themselves of not actually being able to keep a job for whatever reason or of maintaining a job.
3. People who get repeatedly fired or who quit from their freebie jobs and build a record for themselves of unemployability would not be counted in the unemployment measure. If they cannot keep a job that was offered to them with barely any questions asked and with multiple opportunities for re-hire if they mess up or quit, then it's very unlikely that they could obtain and keep a job in the market and no other job creation initiative would be able to solve their problem. They might be candidates or psychological or emotional help of some sort, though, and this should be offered to them (by a charity).
So then we can talk about an unemployment measure that we are really confident speaks of people who want to work and are able to work but cannot find a job. And incidentally, that number will be very low because they will be employed in the unemployment job program until they do find a job.
The jobs offered under the unemployment program must not be full time jobs - I think no more than 6 hours a day - because anyone who is in that program must have enough time during regular business hours to search for and go to interview with a regular job, yet they do need to work enough hours to be able to sustain themselves with the money earned.
And by the way, this program does not have to be run by the government. It can be run by a non-profit charity that is interested in helping people find work! Such a charity could then obtain a contract with the government to provide certain services at a low cost - such as cleaning, picking up trash, answering phones, etc. The government would get a good price since the charity is not out to make a profit. And this would provide the charity income to pay the people's hourly wages for the work done. Of course the charity could contract employment with any for-profit business too that finds their services valuable.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Less Government. More Religion.
Religion is actually a form of government, something that we've obviously collectively forgotten since we treat it as an accessory someone can choose.
Muslims know this - many Muslims demand that their religion be incorporated into their state governments. The problem with the Muslim religion is, in my opinion, that it's very poor in terms of government, and makes no allowances for things that we have learned since it was invented. So I wouldn't want to live in a Muslim state, but that's just me.
But I'm not advocating for people to convert to Islam. I'm advocating for people to actually follow the important rules and principles of their religion more closely (um, the good parts, not really the parts about honor killings and stoning and easy divorces and such).
Let's call it the Ten Commandments. If you're not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it's ok to consider this as an outsider:
1. there is a God
2. worship only one God (makes it easy to agree with other people)
3. don't worship idols (God does not have a specific form so don't pray to or worship people, paintings, or sculptures because they can't help you). By the way this doesn't mean you can't HAVE a painting or sculpture. Just don't worship them.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God - and many people take this to mean don't curse other people, for example telling someone you hope "God damn you" for what they have done. I don't see it that way. I think that expressing your anger at another person in those terms is perfectly fine - if what they've done would warrant such a thing. I think what's more important is to not use God's name in a wrongful way like, "I saw God and he told me that you should all give up your urban lives and come live here with me and be my wives and my servants and let me have crazy monkey sex with your children while pretending it's some sort of purification ritual"
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh - including your animals and slaves. It makes sense.
6. honor your father and mother. They are looking out for your best interest so try to do good by them. If you're one of the unlucky people who have abusive parents or they try to steal your stuff or otherwise exploit you, then hopefully abandoning them is as close to honoring them as you can get. If you make a better life you might still want to consider that you wouldn't exist without them, and that would be a way of honoring them, even if you never see or speak to them again.
7. don't murder. Very good commandment. A classic.
8. don't commit adultery. I think of adultery not so much as having sex with other people while you're married, but breaking a vow that you made to the one most important person in your life. And in the times of the Old Testament adultery had real economic implications which made it actually hurt the other person more than just emotionally. So it really means, don't hurt someone who you made a commitment to protect. But if someone disagrees with me and says it just means don't cheat on your spouse, well I won't argue with that, because it still does mean don't cheat on your spouse. I'm just saying it's not as much about the cheating as about the effects of the cheating. You shouldn't cause harm to your spouse whether it's from cheating or something else.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. I read neighbor as fellow human, not strictly the person who lives adjacent to you... although in the times of the Old Testament I think your neighbor would be the person most likely to witness you actually doing something wrong or right. So don't lie about people, whether it's to hurt them or help yourself or for amusement or whatever. If you don't know, say you don't know. If you aren't sure, say you aren't sure.
10. don't covet your neighbor's things. It's not healthy. Don't worry about them, worry about yourself. You want what they have? Do what they do and get your own. Don't try to take theirs from them, and don't be a creepy neighbor.
1-4 are important to me personally but here's my objective perspective on them: religion is a form of government, and government needs authority to function. Commandments 1-4 assert the authority of God. How so?
1. there is a God. God cannot have authority unless He exists, so this is a very important assertion.
2. there is only one God. There is just one authority, not many. Humans need this.
3. don't worship idols. Many times there is value in separating things. We give awards to outstanding achievers in order to separate them from the rest of us. Why? To make them special - so that people will want to be like them and in that way we inspire more achievements. That's creating value. So with this commandment God creates value by separating Himself from common people and paintings and sculptures and rocks and rivers. Not allowing just anything to be a god makes God special.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God. God has values. God takes sides. God has intent. God has a plan. And if you don't know what it is, don't pretend that you do. This means God retains full authority for the use of His name. Which is, of course, something that we copy when we set up our own authorities for things, such as who gets to print dollar bills.
So basically God spent 40% of his commandments making sure you that follow the other 60%. And that makes the other 60% very important! Let's look at them again:
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh. Helps people retain perspective. When people are overworked they may go crazy.
6. honor your father and mother. Family is important, social structure is important, and there are numerous ways to honor your parents that are common to many cultures and also numerous ways that are unique to a culture and to the set of parents because it may depend on their hopes and aspirations for you, or on what they believe will make you a success, or what will make them proud. And when they get too old to care for themselves, you can honor them by helping out.
7. don't murder. Anyone disagree?
8. don't commit adultery. This rule was not meant to be broken.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. Breaking this rule is basically evil, don't do it.
10. don't cover your neighbor's things. A cornerstone of social order. Also means don't steal.
Governments tend to have these laws and many many more. More laws is fine; things come up and people disagree and rules need to be made to regulate behavior in a way that is most beneficial to society. But maybe if we agree that the basic rules laid out for us regulate first our work ethic, then our values, then how we shouldn't hurt each other - maybe we might realize that a lot of the rules we've created aren't really necessary. And if you follow the prison population counts and the facts about how many people should be in prison but aren't because there's not enough room... maybe if just a few important rules were more respected by everyone we wouldn't have prison overpopulation problems. What I'm saying is, the person who robs the bank with a friend ... has a friend who also thinks it's ok to rob a bank, and probably a few others who may not do it themselves but won't turn him in either. Whereas I hope that one day a friend with more religion in him will say, "no that's wrong don't do it" and maybe prevent a crime, or report the crime because it's the right thing to do.
I'm saying religion can be an effective form of government if we let it be instead of marginalizing it.
Muslims know this - many Muslims demand that their religion be incorporated into their state governments. The problem with the Muslim religion is, in my opinion, that it's very poor in terms of government, and makes no allowances for things that we have learned since it was invented. So I wouldn't want to live in a Muslim state, but that's just me.
But I'm not advocating for people to convert to Islam. I'm advocating for people to actually follow the important rules and principles of their religion more closely (um, the good parts, not really the parts about honor killings and stoning and easy divorces and such).
Let's call it the Ten Commandments. If you're not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, it's ok to consider this as an outsider:
1. there is a God
2. worship only one God (makes it easy to agree with other people)
3. don't worship idols (God does not have a specific form so don't pray to or worship people, paintings, or sculptures because they can't help you). By the way this doesn't mean you can't HAVE a painting or sculpture. Just don't worship them.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God - and many people take this to mean don't curse other people, for example telling someone you hope "God damn you" for what they have done. I don't see it that way. I think that expressing your anger at another person in those terms is perfectly fine - if what they've done would warrant such a thing. I think what's more important is to not use God's name in a wrongful way like, "I saw God and he told me that you should all give up your urban lives and come live here with me and be my wives and my servants and let me have crazy monkey sex with your children while pretending it's some sort of purification ritual"
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh - including your animals and slaves. It makes sense.
6. honor your father and mother. They are looking out for your best interest so try to do good by them. If you're one of the unlucky people who have abusive parents or they try to steal your stuff or otherwise exploit you, then hopefully abandoning them is as close to honoring them as you can get. If you make a better life you might still want to consider that you wouldn't exist without them, and that would be a way of honoring them, even if you never see or speak to them again.
7. don't murder. Very good commandment. A classic.
8. don't commit adultery. I think of adultery not so much as having sex with other people while you're married, but breaking a vow that you made to the one most important person in your life. And in the times of the Old Testament adultery had real economic implications which made it actually hurt the other person more than just emotionally. So it really means, don't hurt someone who you made a commitment to protect. But if someone disagrees with me and says it just means don't cheat on your spouse, well I won't argue with that, because it still does mean don't cheat on your spouse. I'm just saying it's not as much about the cheating as about the effects of the cheating. You shouldn't cause harm to your spouse whether it's from cheating or something else.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. I read neighbor as fellow human, not strictly the person who lives adjacent to you... although in the times of the Old Testament I think your neighbor would be the person most likely to witness you actually doing something wrong or right. So don't lie about people, whether it's to hurt them or help yourself or for amusement or whatever. If you don't know, say you don't know. If you aren't sure, say you aren't sure.
10. don't covet your neighbor's things. It's not healthy. Don't worry about them, worry about yourself. You want what they have? Do what they do and get your own. Don't try to take theirs from them, and don't be a creepy neighbor.
1-4 are important to me personally but here's my objective perspective on them: religion is a form of government, and government needs authority to function. Commandments 1-4 assert the authority of God. How so?
1. there is a God. God cannot have authority unless He exists, so this is a very important assertion.
2. there is only one God. There is just one authority, not many. Humans need this.
3. don't worship idols. Many times there is value in separating things. We give awards to outstanding achievers in order to separate them from the rest of us. Why? To make them special - so that people will want to be like them and in that way we inspire more achievements. That's creating value. So with this commandment God creates value by separating Himself from common people and paintings and sculptures and rocks and rivers. Not allowing just anything to be a god makes God special.
4. don't make a wrongful use of the name of God. God has values. God takes sides. God has intent. God has a plan. And if you don't know what it is, don't pretend that you do. This means God retains full authority for the use of His name. Which is, of course, something that we copy when we set up our own authorities for things, such as who gets to print dollar bills.
So basically God spent 40% of his commandments making sure you that follow the other 60%. And that makes the other 60% very important! Let's look at them again:
5. work for six days and rest on the seventh. Helps people retain perspective. When people are overworked they may go crazy.
6. honor your father and mother. Family is important, social structure is important, and there are numerous ways to honor your parents that are common to many cultures and also numerous ways that are unique to a culture and to the set of parents because it may depend on their hopes and aspirations for you, or on what they believe will make you a success, or what will make them proud. And when they get too old to care for themselves, you can honor them by helping out.
7. don't murder. Anyone disagree?
8. don't commit adultery. This rule was not meant to be broken.
9. don't falsely testify against your neighbor. Breaking this rule is basically evil, don't do it.
10. don't cover your neighbor's things. A cornerstone of social order. Also means don't steal.
Governments tend to have these laws and many many more. More laws is fine; things come up and people disagree and rules need to be made to regulate behavior in a way that is most beneficial to society. But maybe if we agree that the basic rules laid out for us regulate first our work ethic, then our values, then how we shouldn't hurt each other - maybe we might realize that a lot of the rules we've created aren't really necessary. And if you follow the prison population counts and the facts about how many people should be in prison but aren't because there's not enough room... maybe if just a few important rules were more respected by everyone we wouldn't have prison overpopulation problems. What I'm saying is, the person who robs the bank with a friend ... has a friend who also thinks it's ok to rob a bank, and probably a few others who may not do it themselves but won't turn him in either. Whereas I hope that one day a friend with more religion in him will say, "no that's wrong don't do it" and maybe prevent a crime, or report the crime because it's the right thing to do.
I'm saying religion can be an effective form of government if we let it be instead of marginalizing it.
Don't Release the Hounds
I'm with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on this one - overcrowding in a prison is not cruel and unusual punishment, and we shouldn't release more than 40,000 prisoners just because they have long lines at the gym.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1360186
In my opinion, overcrowding is not cruel and unusual punishment mainly because it's not prescribed as part of the punishment - it's a result of a great many number of people committing crimes and the state not having enough money to keep them all around in first-class quarters. I've never been to prison so I only know what I read and what I see in movies - and specifically movies that just happen to have a scene or two in a prison and aren't specifically about prisons - and what I think I know is that most prison cells house 4 inmates or less. Is that true? Let's double it. 8 inmates or less.
I've lived in Army barracks where rooms house 12 soldiers in a space just barely large enough to hold 6 bunk beds, one locker per soldier, and standing room between them. And I've lived in Army barracks that are open bays, housing 40 or more soldiers in a room similarly arranged. Sometimes that bay was actually a large tent. Where 80 soldiers share one bathroom with 4 stalls and 4 sinks.
So I don't feel particularly bad for prisoners who live in similar conditions. I work for a living, they hurt someone else AND are getting a free ride from the state.
Speaking of Antonin Scalia - I read his background on wikipedia and I agree with most of his opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1360186
In my opinion, overcrowding is not cruel and unusual punishment mainly because it's not prescribed as part of the punishment - it's a result of a great many number of people committing crimes and the state not having enough money to keep them all around in first-class quarters. I've never been to prison so I only know what I read and what I see in movies - and specifically movies that just happen to have a scene or two in a prison and aren't specifically about prisons - and what I think I know is that most prison cells house 4 inmates or less. Is that true? Let's double it. 8 inmates or less.
I've lived in Army barracks where rooms house 12 soldiers in a space just barely large enough to hold 6 bunk beds, one locker per soldier, and standing room between them. And I've lived in Army barracks that are open bays, housing 40 or more soldiers in a room similarly arranged. Sometimes that bay was actually a large tent. Where 80 soldiers share one bathroom with 4 stalls and 4 sinks.
So I don't feel particularly bad for prisoners who live in similar conditions. I work for a living, they hurt someone else AND are getting a free ride from the state.
Speaking of Antonin Scalia - I read his background on wikipedia and I agree with most of his opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Evolution of Government
I believe that any rule can be abused. For example, one of the rules that is frequently applied here is "first come first serve." It can be fair if everyone has an equal opportunity to arrive first; it can be abused by setting bylaws for when service opens to suit a specific group of people or by informing a selected group of people before anyone else of when and where to be in order to give them an advantage in being first.
I believe that have abused our separation of church and state, which is a rule, by passing laws that enforce specific values from one religion and pretending they are for a secular purpose.
Our government has rules about passing laws, and these have also been abused. We need, loosely speaking, a majority vote to approve laws. Yet sometimes we approve laws we do not want because some legislator abuses the system by adding self-serving portions to a law that he or she knows the majority of other legislators want to pass in a hurry. They will approve the law after verifying that their own concerns are addressed, and they are under pressure not to delay the passing of the law in order to question someone else's self-serving portions of it. Is this a flaw? Surely, in a national legislature, only laws that serve the best interests of the entire nation should be approved. Any law that serves only a small part of the nation, or worse yet, the individual political interests of the legislator, should be discussed openly and approved or disapproved directly by the majority. Is it possible to fix this flaw in our system?
Should we require our legislature to vote not just on an entire bill, but on each provision? Voting on each paragraph would probably just result in self-serving legislation added as unrelated sentences to a key paragraph. Voting on each sentence would be cumbersome. Often times an idea or a system needs many sentences and paragraphs to be fully described, and allowing legislature to approve just parts of an idea or proposed system may result in utter ineffectiveness. On the other hand, we have passed laws that are amendments to existing laws. Can we demand a review of all passed legislation with a purpose to strip out self-serving portions? Or would that undermine legitimate compromises that may have been made in order to approve the law originally?
Clearly every law should have a preamble stating its intent, and the context in which it is being passed. This will help the public evaluate the contents of the law to identify parts that are unrelated to the approved intent (porkbarrel), and it will help future generations understand when they need to modify the law or cancel it.
I believe that have abused our separation of church and state, which is a rule, by passing laws that enforce specific values from one religion and pretending they are for a secular purpose.
Our government has rules about passing laws, and these have also been abused. We need, loosely speaking, a majority vote to approve laws. Yet sometimes we approve laws we do not want because some legislator abuses the system by adding self-serving portions to a law that he or she knows the majority of other legislators want to pass in a hurry. They will approve the law after verifying that their own concerns are addressed, and they are under pressure not to delay the passing of the law in order to question someone else's self-serving portions of it. Is this a flaw? Surely, in a national legislature, only laws that serve the best interests of the entire nation should be approved. Any law that serves only a small part of the nation, or worse yet, the individual political interests of the legislator, should be discussed openly and approved or disapproved directly by the majority. Is it possible to fix this flaw in our system?
Should we require our legislature to vote not just on an entire bill, but on each provision? Voting on each paragraph would probably just result in self-serving legislation added as unrelated sentences to a key paragraph. Voting on each sentence would be cumbersome. Often times an idea or a system needs many sentences and paragraphs to be fully described, and allowing legislature to approve just parts of an idea or proposed system may result in utter ineffectiveness. On the other hand, we have passed laws that are amendments to existing laws. Can we demand a review of all passed legislation with a purpose to strip out self-serving portions? Or would that undermine legitimate compromises that may have been made in order to approve the law originally?
Clearly every law should have a preamble stating its intent, and the context in which it is being passed. This will help the public evaluate the contents of the law to identify parts that are unrelated to the approved intent (porkbarrel), and it will help future generations understand when they need to modify the law or cancel it.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Outsourcing Public Services
Most public services can be sourced.
I think even police can be outsourced because it basically boils down to enforcing a policy that was approved by the government.
What public functions cannot be outsourced? Definitely officers such as governor, mayor, etc. and elected representatives must remain directly accountable to the constituents. I think judges should also remain directly employed by the government.
Companies that are hired by governments to run certain service can remain accountable through their actual performance (measured directly and also by number of citizen complaints) and through reports provided to the government.
I think governments that outsource public services should pass a law that allows them to audit the records of the company in order to detect fraud, waste, abuse, and non-conformance to laws and regulations.
Sandy Springs, GA outsourced some services and it has worked out well:
http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/blog/FEN-Blog/April-2011/Sandy-Springs,-GA--The-city-of-the-future.aspx
I think even police can be outsourced because it basically boils down to enforcing a policy that was approved by the government.
What public functions cannot be outsourced? Definitely officers such as governor, mayor, etc. and elected representatives must remain directly accountable to the constituents. I think judges should also remain directly employed by the government.
Companies that are hired by governments to run certain service can remain accountable through their actual performance (measured directly and also by number of citizen complaints) and through reports provided to the government.
I think governments that outsource public services should pass a law that allows them to audit the records of the company in order to detect fraud, waste, abuse, and non-conformance to laws and regulations.
Sandy Springs, GA outsourced some services and it has worked out well:
http://www.thefreeenterprisenation.org/blog/FEN-Blog/April-2011/Sandy-Springs,-GA--The-city-of-the-future.aspx
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Employee Unions
People should be able to organize themselves and collectively bargain with their employer. That shouldn't even require any sort of government registration - it should only require one person or a committee of people able to prove to the employer that whatever is negotiated will be respected by the represented employees.
One way to show that the negotiator is representing the employees is to provide a stack of signature cards referring to a bargaining agreement that states the negotiator's name and that the employees agree to abide by the results of the negotiation.
Another way to show that employees have agreed to be represented by the negotiator is that the negotiator can cause them all to show up to work wearing a blue band around their arm or a blue lapel pin for example.
Not allowing people to organize in this way is violating their constitutional right to liberty.
The employer should not be required by law to negotiate with them. Requiring the employer to bargain is violating the employer's constitutional right to liberty.
Employees should be free to strike in protest of unsatisfactory working conditions, pay, or benefits.
Employers should be free to fire employees who violate company policies - not showing up to work for a certain number of days, for example.
The government already sets a minimum wage, safety standards, maximum work hours, etc. These laws were passed to prevent abuses of employees.
So what is left to bargain for? Higher than minimum wages? More benefits? Let the market reign there.
Some employers may find that they like and appreciate unions, because it allows them to negotiate just one time instead of with every employee. Those employers should be free to negotiate with unions.
Government employees should be free to form unions as well - and the government should also be free to choose to not negotiate with them or to fire them if they refuse to work.
The government should require all unions to be organized as non-profit corporations, both for the protection of the employees so nobody profits from their union but them, and for the protection of employers, to prevent their employees being forcefully outsourced to a for-profit corporation through the creation of a union.
One way to show that the negotiator is representing the employees is to provide a stack of signature cards referring to a bargaining agreement that states the negotiator's name and that the employees agree to abide by the results of the negotiation.
Another way to show that employees have agreed to be represented by the negotiator is that the negotiator can cause them all to show up to work wearing a blue band around their arm or a blue lapel pin for example.
Not allowing people to organize in this way is violating their constitutional right to liberty.
The employer should not be required by law to negotiate with them. Requiring the employer to bargain is violating the employer's constitutional right to liberty.
Employees should be free to strike in protest of unsatisfactory working conditions, pay, or benefits.
Employers should be free to fire employees who violate company policies - not showing up to work for a certain number of days, for example.
The government already sets a minimum wage, safety standards, maximum work hours, etc. These laws were passed to prevent abuses of employees.
So what is left to bargain for? Higher than minimum wages? More benefits? Let the market reign there.
Some employers may find that they like and appreciate unions, because it allows them to negotiate just one time instead of with every employee. Those employers should be free to negotiate with unions.
Government employees should be free to form unions as well - and the government should also be free to choose to not negotiate with them or to fire them if they refuse to work.
The government should require all unions to be organized as non-profit corporations, both for the protection of the employees so nobody profits from their union but them, and for the protection of employers, to prevent their employees being forcefully outsourced to a for-profit corporation through the creation of a union.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Libya
So the United Nations agreed to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in order to prevent Ghadafi from using air strikes against the rebels.
Now everyone is talking about whether the United Nations should arm the rebels. The rebels will need a full spectrum of ground combat weapons and training. It will take time to arm them, train them, and wait for their victory. And while we wait, we have to pay for their expenses and for what it costs us to maintain the no-fly zone.
Why not just send in a professional military to defeat Ghadafi and hand the country over to the rebels? We can achieve victory faster and spare the lives of many Libyan citizens in the process.
There's also no need to maintain a United Nations "peace keeping" force there later - just issue a warning to all countries that if they attack Libya during its reconstruction phase the United Nations will defend Libya and counter-attack the attacker's country - not just to get them out of Libya but to disable the attacker's own military for a significant enough amount of time that the attacker would be vulnerable to attack by their own neighbors. Such a warning is a good deterrent - and if it's tested a decisive follow-through will ensure that the next such warning will be an even better deterrent.
Now everyone is talking about whether the United Nations should arm the rebels. The rebels will need a full spectrum of ground combat weapons and training. It will take time to arm them, train them, and wait for their victory. And while we wait, we have to pay for their expenses and for what it costs us to maintain the no-fly zone.
Why not just send in a professional military to defeat Ghadafi and hand the country over to the rebels? We can achieve victory faster and spare the lives of many Libyan citizens in the process.
There's also no need to maintain a United Nations "peace keeping" force there later - just issue a warning to all countries that if they attack Libya during its reconstruction phase the United Nations will defend Libya and counter-attack the attacker's country - not just to get them out of Libya but to disable the attacker's own military for a significant enough amount of time that the attacker would be vulnerable to attack by their own neighbors. Such a warning is a good deterrent - and if it's tested a decisive follow-through will ensure that the next such warning will be an even better deterrent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
