Here's my "secret" I believe to be true.<p>Rule of law makes countries rich. Rule of law foster cooperation and trust in societies. People can trust authorities and each other.<p>Democracies don't foster trust. Instead, they ferment disrespect and corruption. Politicians make law to gain vote. They don't care about long term consequences. They want pork for their district, not efficient funding. That lead to distrust, fear, and non-cooperation. People wouldn't help each other if they think they're going to get screwed or the courts can't help make it right.<p>Judges are the one who are immune to democratic pressure, yet they make ruling that even politicians will follow. If they don't, they destroy the consent of the people. They destroy trust in the law.<p>Therefore, western nations are powerful and rich in spite of democracy and elected officials. They are held together by independent judges and jurors.<p>Signapore and South Korea like to believe that their interventions help. Maybe that's not true at all. Perhaps, they achieve their wealth through not being so corrupted.<p>This leads to a prediction:<p>China and India will never be as prosperous as Japan, South Korea, the United States, or Western Europe if their bureaucracies are inefficient and corrupt.<p>How will this manifest? Their purchasing power will always be lower. Their military will be defeated in wars. They will never be as innovative. Maybe, they will never win any football championship. Maybe their GDP will never quite dwarf the US.<p>Or maybe they will surpass ours, in spite of the corruption and evilness of their officials. If they didn't in the next 20 years, I will consider myself right.
If you haven't actually read Kaczynski you should. His ideas about goals are interesting, but probably more important are his ideas about how technology inevitably leads to the loss of freedom.
Secret I believe to be true:<p>A good deal of experimental research is a cartel on resources and data. The "open access" movement in biology is not what programmers would think of as open; you can get access to many "open" data sets only by application, and you pretty much need to be an academic biologist to be granted an application. Science would be <i>much stronger</i> if there was a norm of truly sharing data. But restricting access is in the interest of each individual researcher who wants to maintain his/her relative prestige advantage.
@kiba, pjscott is correct. But what makes countries rich is not laws. It's natural resources. Either having them, or having control over them, even if they are in another country. Give it some thought. Apply the idea to some sample countries. You might revise your thesis.<p>Form of government might be a red herring. Corruption and injustice might be tied to people and culture, not simply to form of government. Think about it.