|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.
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.