Getting honest about the stakes
At least Jackie Chan is getting honest about the stakes involved in this debate.
Jackie Chan's China comments prompt backlash
"Chan told a business forum in the southern Chinese province of Hainan that a free society may not be beneficial for China's authoritarian mainland.
'I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not,' Chan said Saturday. 'I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want.'
He went on to say that freedoms in Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies 'chaotic.'"
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Jackie is speaking squarely about the dilemma in Western societies, today, when we are not bullshitting ourselves.
Does progress in liberal societies mean more control or more freedom?
Liberal would imply freedom. And all of our history would point in exactly this direction.
And, as Jackie's comments highlight, if not, what will this mean for less free parts of the world?
It's a question that free societies need to take a long hard look at.
Do we value our freedom? Or take it for granted.
Something tells me Jackie's comments, here, do not reflect the best answer we have to offer.
2 comments:
Chan has stumbled into something: Liberty is messy.
This is what is behind all the "control the world" conspiracy theories. The George Soros's and Montgomery Burns's survey the world and see inefficient chaos. They want to organize it all so they can make more money.
Money's good, but it's not everything. How do you put a price tag on a walk in the woods or an evening of singing, passing a bottle and a guitar among friends?
I can understand some soulless bureaucrat or plutocrat not getting that, but it amazes me that Jackie doesn't get it.
Ever read Player Piano, by Kurt Vonnegut?
I haven't, Foutsc. It's on my radar now. I love Vonnegut.
I'm totally coming to that same conclusion, lately, Foutsc. I'm dating, again, and spending time with a girl does something to remind you of the finer things in life. And money is a smaller point on that canvas.
I'm down with messy, too, Foutsc. I'll take messy liberty over government-run order any day of the week. It all depends on where you see liberal democracy and the values that animate it originate. And I'm pretty clear, at least, that government is but a bit player on a much larger stage.
Post a Comment