>>That is an interesting article. But my question is why? Why are property rights so respected in some countries, but not in others?
>
>Good question..
>
>Socialism and Communism and Facism (the three faces of existentialism) all have as an underlying ideological foundation the notion that man is evolving and that he (man) is somehow able to 'better' himself.
>
>Those countries that have in the past or who now honor the notion of private property like the United States (though we've gotten away from that too much in recent years IMO) have as underlying notion their dependence on God.

Then why have muslim countries not prospered as we have?

>While you may not see or acknowledge this fundamental difference it has had HUGE impacts on the notion of private property.
>
>Those who believe in man's ability to better himself always seem to end up at the notion that those men who are governing know best for the governed. They tend to arrive at the conclusion that they have risen to the top of their respective political 'heaps' and that is an indication of their superiority - even over their countrymen. They see themselves as the embodiment of moral certitude and eventually arrogance overcomes good judgement and they begin to step into their society (or others in the case of the Facists in WWII) and appropriate that which is not rightfully theirs.
>
>If you have listened carefully to Mr. Clinton's remarks and the remarks of many Democrats in Congress, when the issue of a tax refund/rebate/giveback has come up they will more often than not couch their words in terms that indicate that they see all the earned monies in the US as theirs and they are giving us back some. Not that we earn and own the money and they are taking less.

OK, here we go again. I could not help but notice you jumped right from facists to Clinton. If you are going to make broad statements like that, I am going to ask for specifics. Who, what, where, and when.

>Those in the camp that reverence God (even in some small distant aspect) understand the notion that they are stewards of the material 'goods' and that they are therefore responsible to someone outside of themselves for responsibly taking care of these 'goods'. Now, that can be God or the electorate but the sense of responsibility is still there.

This is a Republican camp?

>This is also why Democrats/Liberals are usually much better at politics. For them it's their religion - for the typical Conservative (some Republicans but certainly not all) governance is a duty or tak not a faith. They have a life beyond govenment.

Like Newt?

>So, while some will decry my reference to faith here it strikes me as being very important when one examines the various reasons for human behavior. I will hasten to say that too many churches have bought into the 'touchy feely' 'seeker friendly' modern day psycho-babble that is masquerading for Christianity - and they are experiencing great diminishment as a result as well.
>
>Far too many have allowed feelings to trump facts.

That is all too apparent from your post.