The author acknowledges this in the third paragraph from the bottom:

"Perhaps Dubai disturbed me so much, I am thinking, because here, the entire global supply chain is condensed. Many of my goods are made by semi-enslaved populations desperate for a chance 2,000 miles away; is the only difference that here, they are merely two miles away, and you sometimes get to glimpse their faces? Dubai is Market Fundamentalist Globalisation in One City."

But Libertarians and even Anarcho-Capitalists don't differentiate between a market for labour and a market for good and services.

You see, people at the political extremes, both right and left, desire control in a deep and profound way.

They hate anything which wrestles control away from their philosophy.

And so they use any crazy/authoritarian/doomed/etc scheme as a straw man to attack liberalism/libertarianism.

Because in their minds, only their control of society will lead to peace and prosperity. Any loosening of their control must lead to doom.

Therefore if it's a disaster it MUST be because it veered off from their philosophy.

But the irony is that both far and left and far right are untied by their desire to control society.

And that's why they can never attack the control elements. They can never blame the disaster on them, they WANT something like that.

They use the failure to attack everything else and just call it an obscure word for too much freedom!

All forms of Government = Control

Modern Liberalism is based in large part on the idea that being rich does not make the air cleaner. There are limits on the value of personal wealth and there is little difference once you cross the threshold into extreme levels of personal comfort.

The Right holds dear the idea that rich people can take care of them selves and the goal should be to maximize personal wealth.

Taken to an extreme each of these ideas break down, but IMO the left wing is closer to reality. Granted in the real world we need huge helpings of corruption, stupidity, and hypocrisy, but that's going to infect any form of government over time.

Then there are all the lies such as the republican leadership hating the idea of ever banning abortion etc. And all the liberal "think of the children" reteric that sounds great but is a pointless power grab.

I agree with you that in general the Right and the Left are philosophic ideals. Philosophic ideals which taken to their ultimate end in practice could be disastrous.

But I've always looked at liberalism as more of a practical economic not philosophical approach to problems.

And yes economics always ends up deep inside both politics and philosophy but deep underneath all of that ideological baggage there's still a kernel of practicality.

This kernel of practicality aims for the most efficient use of resources.

To achieve that goal, there are many real world practical strategies:

1. Rule of law - free of both government and private coercion. (No cartels like the RIAA, OPEC, DeBeers, but also no labor unions or government cartels like what used to ma bell AT&T)

2. Free competition.

3. Free information. (Not to be confused with perfect information in perfect markets).

The above imply that active fraud and monopolistic practices are against the law.

But I, like many other libertarians would take it even further.

By that I mean that in practice there are many things for which the free market does nothing. Health is one example.

The demand for insulin is the econ 101 example of things for which normal supply and demand doesn't work.

So for me liberalism is not a fanatical extreme of no government ever, but a practical optimization. Seeking the most effective market and government which implies a very small government but acknowledges that things like market failures exist and some government is essential.

That government is preferably small, local and a direct democracy like Switzerland.

> Also, having read the article, I'm missing the "neo-liberal" part. "Medieval dictatorship" (as he himself put it)? Check. No rule of law? Check. No concern for individual rights? Check. No constitution to hinder government expansion of powers? Check.

That tends to be the dominating antagonistic definition of "neoliberalism". It may not be that far off.

Sort of like jumbo can be used to describe shrimp.

Just to clarify on my comment (and the journalist's writing): "neo-liberal" is here meant (clearly by both of us) in the European sense. I.e., as in Classical Liberalism. Pro-free markets and individual liberty and individual rights. Rather different (in many cases, not always) from Modern Liberalism.

No, "neo-liberal" has a very specific meaning and is used almost exclusively when speaking of markets. Just by reading the article, you can see that there is nothing socially liberal about Dubai--I mean, come on, you can inherit debt. That doesn't sound like anything approaching a social democracy.

Ah, I didn't realize "neo-liberal" was an economic term. Thanks for the correction.

To clarify what I said though, relative to any western society, Dubia's laws are obviously more strict. However, when compared to other Islamic nations, Dubia is more liberal. As the article discussed, the fact that gays in the region migrate to Dubia is an indication of this.

No problem. I could see the confusion that could arise if you were unfamiliar with the term.

Yes, by Islamic standards, Dubai and the UAE in general are more "tolerant", depending on how you define tolerance. I suspect--and especially after reading the article--that it's a veneer to lure westerners under the guise that Dubai is a modern, center-left, run-by-a-benevolent-dictator-type of society that wants it's citizens to flourish. Underneath the polished marble and 10-lane highways though, it's a repressive, feudal regime. Of course, when money is involved though, the arms and wallets open, and suddenly what was impermissible before is fine, or at least tacitly accepted.

I totally agree.