There’s no false democracy. I’m simply pointing out what you clarified: there is no perfect. Speech will be restricted everywhere and claiming that democracy cannot exist without fully unfettered speech contradicts a fundamental tenet of liberalism—tolerance, and with it the dilemma of speech that harms and so interfere’s with others’ freedom not to be harmed. See Bentham, Mill, or Isaiah Berlin for more on this topic.

I suppose you mean first-generation rights (in the language of international human rights law) as these are the ones that flow from the enlightenment and cover the freedom of expression, for instance. While I agree that China should grant its citizens as many rights as possible, the level of our agreement depends on what we each mean by individual freedoms.

I agree with first-generation rights in principle but they are fundamentally contradictory and their experimental application around the world suggests they cannot be realised because the law cannot resolve those contradictions. There are political economic contradictions, too. Realising first, second-, and third-generation rights is incompatible with capitalism. It is simply not possible to uphold the right of private property and allow workers, for instance, a full right of free expression in the workplace, nor to allow moneyed lobbying in the legislature while granting the same voice to individuals. You can find a good explanation of the law underpinning this argument in International Human Rights by Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman (perhaps in Parts B and C).

China seems to be rather good at providing what are known as second- and third-generation rights, which are usually given less than lip-service in the west. If we are making a comparison, then China appears to accept a duty to implement these rights, while liberal democracies only accept that legislating for said rights is enough (including for first-generation rights). If we’re talking about the US, it doesn’t even acknowledge many such rights. The argument goes that the constituent states cannot legislate for the federal state and the federal state cannot legislate for the constituent states. There is a similarity with China but there the question is, how should these rights be implemented locally, not should they be implemented?

The west appears to have to go a lot further to go than China with regard to second- and third-generation rights but China appears to have a lot further to go than the west with regard to first-generation rights. I say ‘appears’ in both cases because neither party can go much further in the suggested directions under existing conditions. There are two insurmountable problems, one for each. The one for the west is explained above: capitalism and the guaranteed realisation of rights are incompatible.

For China, realising first-generation rights in the way that they are implemented in the west is incompatible with socialism. The text in emphasis is important because at a theoretical level, first-generation rights are needed to secure political participation. Socialists in China (not all – it is not a homogenous state) would argue that the way that first-generation rights are implemented in China is the only way to secure socialist political participation. Just as westerners often argue that the western model of human rights is the only way to secure bourgeois political participation.

At this point, the problem with relying on legal concepts to define ‘free society’ has been revealed. Law, which provides the language and the mechanism for securing ‘individual freedoms’, does not provide the full answer. A political view is needed instead. Pro-capitalists will argue that the mere act of legislating for individual freedoms is sufficient for a ‘free society’. Socialists will argue that a society can only be free if those rights are realised.

Which side do you fall on? Is legislating for individual freedoms enough? Or should a state try to ensure that those freedoms are realised?

Imagine thinking oligarchs control China 😂

oh hey, why don’t you quote the rest of it? 😂

Ah yes, resorting to name calling when you don’t have any actual point to make.