Replies

...Interesting premise, but it is wrong... It is only when the infrastructure required for the creation of wealth is put in place that the surplus of wealth known as the "first world" can become a reality. Without that infrastructure people are doomed to expending their efforts re-distributing wealth that already exists, with little hope of being able to create any new wealth whatsoever.

I don't think Mr. McLittle is wrong at all. And I don't think you're wrong, as well, that a social and legal infrastructure is needed for the creation and protection of wealth. But at its very core, I strongly believe that the needed social and legal infrastructure is firmly rooted in "Spirit," as Mr. McLittle propounds. It is "Spirit" that has led civilization to understand the need for social and legal order; "Spirit" has led the way to where the "first world" is today.

The friction is eternal. The stakes are higher than ever. No more wooden clubs. Now comes the threat of atomic weapons. Prophets predicted their use. This is the time to know for sure, what side you are on.

And it is "Spirit" [by faith in the Holy Spirit] that assures me of which side I'm on.

Interesting premise, but wrong. The only difference between the first world and the third world is that the first world has the social and legal infrastructure required for the creation and protection of wealth.

YOu speak of this infrastructure as if it fell from the sky. Where has it come from? It comes from the choice and values of the people. Where people have strong preference for complacency and lack of personal initiative, you see tyrant come to power time and time again. In England, because of the deeply rooted respect to the individual freedoms, even the Inquisition failed to be established for almost two centuries (the total number of victims in the two centuries of existence is by a factor of 1000 smaller than those burned at the stake in Spain in a year).

People choose their institutions. And, even if the same institution is imposed on different peoples, it ends up functioning differently because of the divergence of persistent social values.

It is seldom asked: why is it that our constitution is known to the world for two centuries, and yet not a single country adopted anything similar? The French are on their Fifth Republic; in the last century, Germany and Italy were formed; there was an explosion in the number of new countries in 1940s-1960s on the African continent; just recently, the Russian Empire disintegrated into independent states. Not a single one has adopted our consitution. Has it not proved by now its value? Those to whom the value has been proven are flocking to our shores. And the rest? The rest prefer something else.