They cannot take their factories, mines, shops, etc with them. They may take their money, but their money is usually tied to their business. If their business is nationalized, because they left it behind, their wealth suddenly is backed by nothing.

I can relate to this. A movie asks for suspension of disbelief, and I am happy to grant that. But then it has to present a coherent world for which I suspended my disbelief. If it doesn't then I wasted my suspended disbelief and that's annoying.

The year is 2032. The crowd is gathering for God Emperor Trump's birthday parede. Not voluntarily, but at least they get beer and a desiccated burger. The organizers are doing their best again to make the Emperor presentable. The orange makeup covers a lot, and the smell has been gone for a couple of years now. Still, their hearts tremble when the handwaving mechanism kicks in. People need to see Dear Leader strong, to forget the war that has been ravaging the Mid-Western states. The parede ends well, no body parts have been flung this year. People shuffle back to their buses, savoring the rare taste of beer in their mouth. Many of them take the burger in their pockets back to their kids in the barrack. It will be a good day for them too! Long live the Emperor!

Marsupial law. With deep pouches to put the bribes in. It's already in place by the way.

The checks they cashed in and now giddily look at their account balances.

Billionaires aren't compatible with life. They are economic black holes who increase scarcity, uncertainty, entropy, and isolation. In a different verbiage, they are demons.

Who profits from whom is non-sequitur in determining which culture is built on better principles. The argument that "better quality of life will make the world a better place and allow cultures to work together in harmony" (that is, globalization) was proven wrong by the rise of China. They are the strongest economy, yet still have a terrible human rights problem, which they export everywhere they go. The "arabs" are rich nations too, look at the Gulf states and Saudis. They still did 9/11. Somehow it wasn't a white thrash trailer park boy who flew a plane into the Kaaba stone.

Some societies are not built on individual rights at which point they are inferior. The individual is the only real thing that exists. Nations, clans, religions, even families are just abstractions in our heads. If those are presented as more important than the individuals rights and responsibilities then it's in the interest of the presenter to deceive their audience. Somehow the "interest of the clan" always aligns with the interest of the clan leader. You can see that transformation in real time in the US with Trump.

You are arguing with yourself not with me. I never said liberal democracies don't place property before humans. All I originally said was that other societies placed property before humans, not just liberal democracies. To which you said my example of ancient Greece was wrong, because the state owned some silver mines. To which I said that's not a good argument, because they still used slaves. Like some lib democracies used to too, I am aware. As a clue, they abolished slavery, which very few other societies did, but it's kind of beside my main point, see above. If you want to argue, argue with that, not with stuff I never said.

EDIT: I am not even saying that liberal democracy is good. I think it is better than a lot of other systems. It's still very flawed, and partly because it cannot synthetize property rights with human rights. At least it keeps trying .

We are not arguing about who owns property in various societies, or what societies had more private property vs state owned property. We talk about which societies placed human rights above property rights. You can be sure the ancient Athenians sent slaves to work those silver mines. Not very humane if you ask me.

You may be surprised but I agree with you. The millenia old social contract to have to "earn" your livelihood is a bad one. We should not need to have jobs. With more automation this could be possible. However, it won't work if oligarchs own all of it. Also won't work with 8 billion+ people on Earth. The idea of UBI would in practice mean living in barracks and eating slop, if it's up to the oligarchs to dole out. So, yes, down with jobs. But I also understand why people don't want to starve waiting for the automation utopia to come.

It is wrong to discriminate by birth. It is also wrong to not discriminate by behavior. Cultures are collections of encouraged behaviors. Fascists discriminate by birth. I discriminate by behavior. I am also not saying that Western culture is the only OK one. I also don't have to explain myself to you, but I am doing it because it is important that people can tell fascism from non-fascism.

"protecting private property is their guiding light" -- that was true in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, the mediaeval feudal societies, in Nazi Germany, etc etc. Beyond small tribal societies you are hard pressed to find an example where property wasn't more important than people. That's true for the so called communist states too, just the property technically wasn't private (in practice it was, no wonder oligarchs emerged from its collapse). And yes, it is true in lib democracies too, but with the added counter-idea of humab rights which most other societies lack(ed).