I found the arguments interesting, but difficult to evaluate. I simply don't know enough history to engage with many of the author's points. The same is probabl

I found the arguments interesting, but difficult to evaluate. I simply don't know enough history to engage with many of the author's points. The same is probably true for most readers. If I had any criticism, it would be this: It praises western government too much. While I'm certainly glad I live in the US, it seems clear to me that better forms of government exist. The problem is that nobody has invented them, or no country has tried them. This is understandable. Switching systems is not only incredibly hard, it's stupendously risky. Things have to get really bad before people are willing to switch. Also, anything better would probably sound ridiculous to us today. To quote Vernor Vinge: If you go back to the year 1200 and you tried to explain to some noble lord why a democracy and intellectual freedom works better, he might be the rare sort of person who would listen to you. That's possible, that he would listen to you. But he would be quite right to laugh in your face and say, "You know what would happen? If I tried to open myself up to that? Tomorrow, I would be dead. There would be another clown up here on the hill, and he would be doing the same thing that I'm doing. What you're talking about is anarchy and it is impossible." (from around http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRuPGnJxCs#t=52m25s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRuPGnJxCs#t=52m25s) Finally, even if I believe the author, he offers no solutions. If the anglosphere's special sauce is being diluted, what can we do about it? I've sat around for five minutes thinking, but nothing particularly good comes to mind. Overall though, I enjoyed reading this article. Then again, I'm from the anglosphere.