Individuals or the State? For this question, last but not least, one sentence may be more than
sufficient: A State is free because its citizens are free. But facing the competing claims for
priority of citizens rights we may have to go a little bit further: We may have to choose from
one of the two following alternatives:
1.
To revise and reshape the existing order (the State first) and to regard the old (the
individual first) as out of date and out of place in the process of modernization as a sign of
reform; or
2. To hold that the criteria to judge the individual and the State should not be
transcendent moralities, but behavioral consequences which can be observed and tested. No
matter who it is-be it the individual, the collective, or the State--if the behaviour of these
entities is injurious to the public, or iş harmful to society, it should be restricted or
prohibited. And what is beneficial to, or to the advantage of society should be encouraged
and protected.
The latter is ambiguous and uncertain, the former seems clear and direct. I shall prefer the
uncertain and the ambiguous, for what is uncertain can be proved by practice, and what is
unclear can be made clear. So said by Deng Xiaoping, "who cares whether a cat is black or
white? So long as it catches mice, it is a good cat." Who cares today whether China goes
to the market or remains old and red? So long as it gets better off, it is good for the people.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
15