Yes, and for all measures of success, both are right at the top, when it comes to ranking high on those parameters. Do you honestly believe that a slave-free US is going to die out faster than a slavery-based US (one that was particularly so, in more religious times)?
There are slave societies in history that lasted a great deal longer.
Merely existing in geographical niches and isolated havens, slowly decaying into obsolescence, is no sign of success. Sustenance of success is key. To that end, all slavery-based states have failed.
So were the slave states in their time.
You can't assume facts not in evidence.
Do you honestly believe that a slave-free US is going to die out faster than a slavery-based US (one that was particularly so, in more religious times)?
Doesn't matter what I "believe". Slave societies have lasted longer than the U.S. so far.
To that end, all slavery-based states have failed.
And you know 1) the US won't fail and 2) It will last longer than slave societies in history? You're assuming.
Merely existing in geographical niches and isolated havens, slowly decaying into obsolescence, is no sign of success.
Egypt, Rome, Greece, the Assyrians, Hittites? Isolated? No sign of success?
And the US is not "slowly decaying"?
Is the Golden Rule the independent value or is survival?
If a society violating the Golden Rule survives longer than one which follows it, it is therefore "better" in terms of values?
If the Golden Rule's value is independent of survival then it doesn't matter, in terms of value, how long a society practicing the rule survives.
You seem here to be introducing a new value:
Sustenance of success is key.
How is this defined?