RoR: Forum

Great article. There is nothing wrong in Arabic or Islamic cultures that cannot be fixed by the application of Capitalism. When people live lives appropriate to men qua men, their culture and religion will change accordingly.

Post 1

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:29am

You can't buy a house or land in Dubai yet, whatever yet means, something about unspecified "adjustments" that have to be made. You can rent.

Post 2

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 12:42pm

Braver than me, I would need about 100 years of stability before buying anything in that half of the globe.

Post 3

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:16am

I hope the planned skyscraper will be somewhat "airliner proof". -Steve

Post 4

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 1:56pm

This essay perpetuates the lie that Islam is partially responsible for progress when it happens.

Progress in Islamic regions happens in spite of Islam, and not in any part because of it. You are spreading slick publicity.

Max and Adam, both of you are delusional, because you fail to understand the existence of "dirty money".

While money is a measure of value, that means it is a measure of positive or negative value.

Just because something makes money or is backed by money, does not legitimize it. It only formalizes the notion that it is of value to somebody.

I this, I think Rand's ideas were incomplete... she did not take into account the idea of dirty money.

(Edited by Celeste Norcross on 8/15, 10:10pm)

Post 5

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:03pm

"One might say that, as with any monarchy, the next ruler might be a wacko who destroys everything."

That's about the size of it. What's up with the princes/princesses of Dubai? Are they religious zealots?

Post 6

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 4:35pm

Max,

Thank you for providing a lot of information about something many of us did not know.

When you have Islam + wealth that you don't have to work for [namely, oil], countries in the Middle East avoid allowing or encouraging dynamism, innovation, freedom. The dictators and theocrats can hang on without allowing creativity and growth.

But in the case of the city states you mention, they *have* to change since they have no oil or will run out. If all the oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. suddenly became radioactive, you would begin to see some changes, despite Islam. [Fareed Zakaria has written on some of this].

This is of course not a complete explanation -- nothing in history (or very little)has only one causal factor: Pakistan and Egypt are highly religious, not moving toward social and economic freedom - countries "frozen in place" - which have no major exportable wealth or resources.

[Am I right about Pakistan, Egypt? Anyone here know more about those countries? ]

Phil

Aside: A note about LAPS (Lazy Armchair Post Syndrome) This is an infectious bacterial disease I've seen a lot of lately on SOLO and other lists, as some of the better writers have left.

If people want SOLO to thrive and writers to feel their work is appreciated, wet blanket posters should do more work than to simply come out of the woodwork long enough to post a skeptical one-liner which only engages one aspect or a peripheral one of a thought-provoking and intelligent essay which deserves more.

I personally don't want to put forth the high degree of time and effort to write articles for that kind of audience. I'd rather work with a non-Objectivist, less "cranky" and arrogant one.

BLPDOG

Bad or Lazy Posts Drive Out Good
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 8/15, 4:43pm)

Post 7

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:08pm

If people want SOLO to thrive and writers to feel their work is appreciated, wet blanket posters should do more work than to simply come out of the woodwork long enough to post a skeptical one-liner which only engages one aspect or a peripheral one of a thought-provoking and intelligent essay which deserves more.

I'd like to loudly echo what Phil just wrote here. Since I have started as SOLO's editor this phenomenon has really started to grate on my nerves. Even worse are the people who come on to say, "Oh, I didn't read the article, but here's a little aside about your point of view anyway." And even worse than that are the people who do this when they don't even have a single SOLO article to their credit!

Max, thank you for a thought-provoking piece that called my attention to an interesting part of the world. And written in a second language, no less!

Post 8

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:43pm

Max,

What a terrific essay! Arabic culture is indeed compatible with capitalism when people are left free to pursue their own values. When I visited Taipei, Taiwan a couple of years ago, I experienced the same gasp of recognition of a society that had achieved something special. Taipei is a burgeoning metropolis where entrepreneurship is worn as a badge of honor. Let's hope more of the Arabian world achieves the dream of Dubai.

Jim

Post 9

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:05pm

The Emirs worked out some years ago that oil wealth was finite, and they recognised too that the culture of trading on the Arabian Peninsula that goes back thousands of years was something that should be tapped into, enhanced and further encouraged. The trader culture won over the warrior culture.

As you say, Max, they have been enormously successful in their aim of liberating themselves from the feudalism that oil wealth has delivered in other parts of the Middle East, and they've managed to ensure relative freedom and widespread prosperity.

There is a problem which might begin to bite soon that property rights are not completely secure (but where around the world ~are~ they?), and the problem of Islam has not gone away: three of the 9/11 terrorists were from the UAE, as apparently was some of the money...
(Edited by Peter Cresswell
on 8/15, 6:15pm)

Post 10

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:13pm

I enjoyed reading your article but think you glossed over the Islamic problem, among others (lack of property rights, corporatist quasi monarchy, lack of guarantees that things will remain the same when the oil runs out, prohibition, etc.).

I am inclined to agree with Celeste - whatever success they've had it's been in spite of Islam. What's more, isn't Turkey more liberal than Dubai?

I don't think you're an intentional apologist for Islam (as Celeste's post could be interpreted), I just think you're not giving enough due to the Islamic problems.

Oh, and by the way, Welcome to Solo. :-) :-)

Post 11

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:47pm

Celeste,

I don't believe Max is claiming that Islam is the reason for Dubai's successes, but instead that a more moderate strain of Islam can lead to progress in the Middle East.

Do you really expect Islamic society to instantly scrap their religion and culture in an instant and embrace an explicitly Western philosophy of reason? Of course not! There has to be an understanding that the transformation will be a gradual one, if at all. And if you don't believe that Muslims are at all capable of cultural change, then the logic of your reasoning will soon lead you to "solutions" which border on genocide - not for me.

Don't forget that the West has achieved what it has in spite of Christianity, and this is due largely in part to the fact that the majority of Western Christians mostly lead secular lives and focus on this world. And this process didn't happen overnight - the West was a rather dispicable culture during the aptly named "Dark Ages".

(Edited by Pete on 8/15, 10:08pm)

Post 12

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:53pm

Pete you have a great point. Mysticism is mysticism, the only thing making Christianity less dangerous than Islam now is its secularization and divorce from the government. As valid as the crusades may or may not have been there is nothing that excuses the inquisition or witch trials.

And secularization will be what leads the world towards progress and away from violence.

---Landon

Post 13

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:44pm

I enjoyed the article, and can vouch for the general gist of it - having been to Dubai a couple of years ago. It's an architect's dream come true - virtually open slather on design, and no planning laws to speak of - at least none that we are familiar with in the west. And certainly none that NZ architects are familiar with!!

It seems to be attracting architects from all over Europe - even China - as it offers unlimited opportunity to build as you see fit.

Dubai is indeed a monarchy - and one which trumps democracy in many ways. I really think that on balance, we would be better off with capitalist monarchies than democracies.

The Sheiks in charge of Dubai are no fools. They are smart, forward looking, and understand the power of markets. They have a long-range view and have a grasp on the essentials of creating a prosperous society.

Dubai's free trade zone is buzzing with all sorts of corporations - including Microsoft and other big players.

And it has its sights on being a number one tourist resort.

I can never forget the sight from my 48th floor hotel room - to view the vibrant city just literally come to an end, and the desert begin. Man vs the desert.

I think there is a great future for city-states. They can be nimble, like Singapore and Hong Kong, and can more aggressive in their drive for economic prosperity - usually unhampered by bloated welfare states or taxation systems.

When I was there, I heard the comment that being in Dubai is a very safe place to be - not at all likely to suffer from any form of terrorist attack.

Then there's their airline - Emirates - which is consistently rated top airline by many research organisations. Unlike other airlines, which have a "nationalist" flavour and usually only employ their own people. Emirates hires people from all over the world, to form a truly international, cosmopolitan air service.

I would be keen to visit again and spend more time there.

Post 14

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:40am

Ok, I have seen some criticism here and some points I want to address:

Did western civilisatioin scrap religion and become all the reason loving people, we wish they were? No, of course not, even today exists a moderate streaked Christianity. The important fact is that it got non-violent and has almost no powers in that realm any more. The time were millions of people would sacrifice their lives for the Church in any religious war is over, so say we all. But still, the belief in god and such spiritual things are very common among people and they practice them in privacy (or at least in non-violent ways).

When it comes to property rights, it is, of course, very difficult to say, because a consitution as such is not in action. However, if we look what states with a consitution that secures property rights are able to do (USA: Kelo-case, Germany: Grundgesetz mistake), then it doesn't make me nervous.

The big difference between old monarchies and this new form of monarchy is that the first was ruled like a state, while the second is ruled like a good company. What exactly is the difference between a monarchy and a non-wall-street-business?Only a few, but there are many equallities, like they are all hierachical and have a leading family or even just one person. However, they are more self-interested in making profit and long-time security of their market position. This is exactly what the Sheiks do. They lead a former oil-company to new ventures.
As one has seen in US or UK policy, one president might do it right, another might undo everything again. What is the difference with a wacko-king? He would lose everything he had, when he would offend the international businesses by nationalizing companies or destroying this oasis of freedom. It would be counterproductive. Also, his father wouldn't let him go into important positions without being aware of the future of this company.

@Celeste:

You might think so, but on the other side, I have written that it is capitalism and freedom that accelerated this development. I only wanted to show that the Islam is able to adopt to new societies in a way that makes it any more dangerous as the moderate Christians.
On the other side, I have heard nothing about "bad money" from Dubai, but a lot from Swiss, US, Saudi Arabia and others. So, you want to say that those are terrible Muslim countries (except Saudi Arabia)? No, you can't make the Dubayan Sheiks responsible for what people do with their money.

Post 15

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:27am

Celeste:

But Ayn Rand did take into account the idea of dirty money! Please read D'Anconia's speech (starting on page 387 of the pocket book edition) which is part of the chapter very properly called "The Aristocracy of Pull", Part Two of "Atlas Shrugged".

Best regards, Manfred

Post 16

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:28am

Saying Islam has become moderate in the U.A.E is like saying Communism has become moderate in China. There�s a difference between hypocrisy and adherence to a moderate variant. I argue that Muslims have shown their ability to marginalize their religion many times in the last century (here or in French.)

Let�s remember the difference and the challenge. Christianity started as a personal religion; we cheer when it reverts to such a compartmentalized mode. Islam, like Communism, started as controlling political ideology and we cheer when its nominal adherents ignore core elements. These religions are different and face different challenges when coming to grips with modernity. Hypocrisy is a good start.

Although singularities like Dubai, Monaco, Singapore, and Hong Kong are interesting, are they scalable? They can�t defend themselves and are thus parasitic on protecting states. Like Switzerland, they often play a peripheral role in the region's politics while major players fight it out.

Is Dubai proof of concept or exception to the rule? After all, Lebanon was called the Switzerland of the Middle East. Much depends on what happens elsewhere. In any case, let's hope they like the taste of freedom. Does anyone know how Dubai is regarded in other Middle East countries?

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 8/16, 5:12am)

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 8/16, 5:16am)

Post 17

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 7:28am

Islam also started as a personal religion and I'd say that during the course of the Roman Empire, Christianity became similiar to the Islam religion.

If we then go to your little analogy, we could say that Christianity is "mmoderate" for the time-being and then we will face again the disasterous results of fanatic religions. In this case, Italy and the USA are on the frontier.
Also, despite the fact that Islamist deny it, Islamism is an offspring of Christianity, not only that it shares several common treats, it also takes up the root denial of matriachaic societies (like Christianity). There are many other similarities between the Christian order and the Islam, which are rather obvious or subtle. In the end, I don't think they are that much different (especially when you take the wording, phrasing and politics the Church used during the early medieval ages and the Dark Ages into account).

Whether this is portable to a bigger states is something that has to be proven, of course.

Post 18

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 8:13am

Islam also started as a personal religion ...

Islam was founded by a man who plundered, slaughtered, terrorized, conquered, and oppressed. Islam started as an imperialist warrior religion and supremacist ideology that conquered most of the known world in its first 100 years. Muhammad was a political and military leader who left a very different example than Jesus. Islam is very different than original Christianity in crucial ways.

Of course, qua religions, the both embrace faith, dogma, and authority � which are antithetical to a liberal order. However, the differences between these two religions � mostly in content - are profound.

Post 19

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:12am