Indeed. The next 10 to 15 years in China will either further set an example that you don't need American/European democratic ideals in order for economic prosperity and a good life for your citizens, or it will go a long way to disproving the idea that those can be separated.

With several eastern European countries trending in an authoritarian direction (and Turkey pretty far along that path already) I am worried about the effect that Chinese prosperity without democratic ideals will have.

Legatum rates China's prosperity at 90th in the world, alongside El Salvador and Nepal, precisely because the lack of personal freedom and environmental degradation act as a counterbalance against China's robust economy.

You can question the methodology, but then you have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the US and other mature social democracies which routinely top these rankings are not good places to live. Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead.

I don't have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the US are not good places to live. They are good places to live. That has nothing to do with whether or not China is a good place to live.

I only have to make the argument that personal freedom is not as important as economic prosperity. Since the end of the Cold War the general thinking was "democratic ideals -> economic prosperity -> good life". China's economic success without embracing democratic ideals to the extent that successful Western countries is making people and governments once again question whether or not the democratic ideals are actually needed.

I would rather live in the US or Europe than China at the moment, but how long will that remain true for most people if China surpasses the US as the world's reigning superpower?

> Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead.

But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the businesses of those countries would choose to do business from within Xi's China.

The Enlightenment was about more than business.

Oh, I'm with you there, but I'm skeptical that the lessons of the Enlightenment mean very much in a context where powerful business interests have actual control of public psychology to such an extent that they can convince people that they came to those conclusions of their own free will.

China is not a good counter example.

China has massively westernized and expanded its freedoms.

Sure, it still had a long way to go, but at least these days the Chinese government isn't arresting professors en mass and forcing them to work on farms.

Yes, this literally happened. It was called the cultural revolution.

As bad as humans rights and freedoms are in China, I think people really underestimate just how much worse they used to be.

China has massively westernized but as you say, the only reason it took massive westernization to get to where they are is because they were so far in the other direction.

There is a still a gulf between China's view of personal freedom and the West's view. It's also reasonable to be concerned that they will be moving away from the West's democratic ideals in the near future, seeing as their President just claimed the power to govern for life.

It's not the same kind of progress; they're mostly playing catch up.

it's precisely the same kind of progress ... in the early 1900s, we were the poor country with plucky workers willing to do the hard manufacturing work. Then our middle class grew, and we no longer wanted to do that work, so we offloaded it to other countries. China is now going through that same growth. Eventually, their people will not want to do that work, and they will shunt it off to some other country (maybe using their massive investments in africa)

Well, yes, they have to play catch up now because we were/are ahead of them.

The question is whether or not they will always be playing catch up, and whether or not that's directly related to the personal freedom of their citizens.

Yes, my point is that we still don't know, so it's early to use them as evidence one way or the other. And with a lack of evidence, Chesterton's Fence implies we shouldn't touch it.