Marsupial law. With deep pouches to put the bribes in. It’s already in place by the way.

The checks they cashed in and now giddily look at their account balances.

Who profits from whom is non-sequitur in determining which culture is built on better principles. The argument that “better quality of life will make the world a better place and allow cultures to work together in harmony” (that is, globalization) was proven wrong by the rise of China. They are the strongest economy, yet still have a terrible human rights problem, which they export everywhere they go. The “arabs” are rich nations too, look at the Gulf states and Saudis. They still did 9/11. Somehow it wasn’t a white thrash trailer park boy who flew a plane into the Kaaba stone.

Some societies are not built on individual rights at which point they are inferior. The individual is the only real thing that exists. Nations, clans, religions, even families are just abstractions in our heads. If those are presented as more important than the individuals rights and responsibilities then it’s in the interest of the presenter to deceive their audience. Somehow the “interest of the clan” always aligns with the interest of the clan leader. You can see that transformation in real time in the US with Trump.

You are arguing with yourself not with me. I never said liberal democracies don’t place property before humans. All I originally said was that other societies placed property before humans, not just liberal democracies. To which you said my example of ancient Greece was wrong, because the state owned some silver mines. To which I said that’s not a good argument, because they still used slaves. Like some lib democracies used to too, I am aware. As a clue, they abolished slavery, which very few other societies did, but it’s kind of beside my main point, see above. If you want to argue, argue with that, not with stuff I never said.

EDIT: I am not even saying that liberal democracy is good. I think it is better than a lot of other systems. It’s still very flawed, and partly because it cannot synthetize property rights with human rights. At least it keeps trying .

We are not arguing about who owns property in various societies, or what societies had more private property vs state owned property. We talk about which societies placed human rights above property rights. You can be sure the ancient Athenians sent slaves to work those silver mines. Not very humane if you ask me.

You may be surprised but I agree with you. The millenia old social contract to have to “earn” your livelihood is a bad one. We should not need to have jobs. With more automation this could be possible. However, it won’t work if oligarchs own all of it. Also won’t work with 8 billion+ people on Earth. The idea of UBI would in practice mean living in barracks and eating slop, if it’s up to the oligarchs to dole out. So, yes, down with jobs. But I also understand why people don’t want to starve waiting for the automation utopia to come.

It is wrong to discriminate by birth. It is also wrong to not discriminate by behavior. Cultures are collections of encouraged behaviors. Fascists discriminate by birth. I discriminate by behavior. I am also not saying that Western culture is the only OK one. I also don’t have to explain myself to you, but I am doing it because it is important that people can tell fascism from non-fascism.

“protecting private property is their guiding light” – that was true in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, the mediaeval feudal societies, in Nazi Germany, etc etc. Beyond small tribal societies you are hard pressed to find an example where property wasn’t more important than people. That’s true for the so called communist states too, just the property technically wasn’t private (in practice it was, no wonder oligarchs emerged from its collapse). And yes, it is true in lib democracies too, but with the added counter-idea of humab rights which most other societies lack(ed).

That’s not specific to liberal democracies. Liberal democracies tend to be more respectful of human rights than other types of societies. As such they are constantly under attack by internal and external forces that place property before life. It seems they always succeed in bringing democracies down. But that’s not per se the fault of liberal democracies.

Those inventions directly and immediately created new kinds of jobs and that was clear to everyone. Plumbing made plumbers, electricity made electricians, computers made programmers. Robots take jobs and add very few new jobs. Which people dislike, because for millenia the social contract has been that everybody has to “earn” their survival. That contract, while always disingenuous due to existence of various kinds of aristocracies and elites, has been more or less in balance due to the need for labor. This is what’s breaking now. And the two possible outcomes are either only the elites survive, or none of the elites survive.

“The West” is a cultural entity not an ethnic one. Thinking that some cultures are better than others is not fascistic. For example to think that slavery is worse than social democracy is quite not the fascistic thought. “The West” has meant a lot of things across the ages, but the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the limited power of authority has been an ever present principle. Whenever some powers tried to suppress that, it always resurfaced, sometimes violently when that was the only way. For all its flaws, Western culture is among the best, and has been since about the fall of Rome.

Conservatism is a brain defect. It is the lack of internal moral compass. Therefore the appeal of external power structures that supposedly uphold the morals. They understand that morals are important for societal cohesion but cannot comprehend how morals are possible without external powers enforcing it. And then of course just fingers crossed that that external power – dear Leader, the church, God – is benevolent. Moreover, playing this system is seen as cleverness, as “it’s part of the rules”, therefore morally okay. Moreover, they think that anyone opposing external power structures as a surrogate for moral compass actually is trying to abolish any morals. Playing the structure is fine, removing it is immoral, according to them. It is a brain defect, amd people suffering from it should be put under guardianship. About half the population.