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.