I’m neither making comparison between these two systems, nor insinuating something-since there is no country in the world that achieves communism in absolute term, and every nation who has gave the four freedom to her citizens basically has already provided more indemnification than what I have referred above. Rather than a issue about the quality of certain system, it is a issue about humankind himself: that is to say, as a human, either he prefers well-being, or pursue freedom?
Considering a absurd analogy. Let a ancient king, whatever eastern or western, make a choice: a. going on living in his time, having the rights, positions and treasures which can insure him to do whatever he want to with 不会翻了; b. leaping to recent age in the 21st century, enjoying the living standard as a average citizen in any developed country, while all of his privileges being deprived. Admittedly, this comparison is not strict, because one should experience both of the two live at the beginning and then select the third life. So, what will he select? I do not which one would I prefer, because I had not experienced them. However, regarding it as a simply assumption, I prefer the former life, due to the unlimited freedom I wished. Additionally, after my selection, let me forget what world in the 21st century is.
So called “well-being” is a relative concept, while “right” and “freedom” are absolute ones. In other words, the values of technology, science and what they created in the beginning of the 21st century, are destined to die away in fifty years-just as radio is a luxury thing in both west and east, and Pentium had not been born. On the contrary, the opinion of freedom, the Four Freedom proposed by Roosevelt and the “liberty” proclaimed in French Revolution included, may conserved the same meanings in fifty years or even in two hundred years. It is undoubted that despite the inflation of human’s civilization, even if a common citizen’s life in developed country is better that of a king five hundreds years ago, but well-being is relative: worse standard of life is not equal to not well-being. King had no computer, Benz or BMW, or even air-conditioner placed in his bedroom, while he still lives a happy life.
I am not able to predict that, to what extend the requisition of basic well-being would be in fifty year later, for the generation of our grandsons. Maybe in that age, the popular transport would be flight, the clone beauties would take the place of pop women idols, and genetic projection would possibly provide everything delicious to content everybody’s appetite. I cannot image what our future beautiful life would be, as it is hard for one to predicted that magic digital products has been so faddish and common today alike. However, I may prefigure the freedom fifty years later: The constitutions of western nations have changed little during hundreds of years, and that in China is approximate once per ten year, with just partly adaptation but not entire reformation. At that moment, some new conception such as “freedom of aviation”, “freedom of clone” would be proposed, while the most crucial one, which is most emphasized in any constitution, might be still constant. Whereas human-being is able to change his life as he changes the nature, he is by no means to change himself. What we eat and dress has no vital relation to us in some terms, while the right of human in nature is the most precious treasure for us from the womb to the tomb. Which one should we prefer, in this comparison, is very apparent.