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.