> At the end of the day, every society limits free speech in some way. The US sets that limit at threatening physical harm on specific individuals. China sets t

> At the end of the day, every society limits free speech in some way. The US sets that limit at threatening physical harm on specific individuals. China sets that limit at upsetting the status quo without going through the proper channels. I think you're drawing a long bow on this one - if thoughts aren't allowed to be discussed, then they effectively don't or can't exist. If a society is healthy then it can't be afraid of its constituents having a conversation, the rational limit is to prevent someone from coercing someone else with their conversation - through threats of violence. If these conversations aren't allowed, then how can the governing elite take public opinion into account? If public opinion is just the allowed conversation, you can see how easily the allowed conversation could become twisted and exclude more and more people. For instance if you asked the Uyghur people how things were going you'd probably get a different conversation, these people are Chinese citizens as well aren't they? > But when the current philosopher kings are doing so well, only a minority of people on the margins of society really want to rock the boat. Is this true? How do you know they're doing well if no one is allowed to criticise them, in democracy it was learnt many years ago that when things go wrong its best to chuck out the one managing the place and get someone new. Again, if things were going so well and everyone was so happy, then the rulers shouldn't be afraid to ask the people who are governed if they agree. If the rulers point to one metric - the ability to buy and produce widgets, then you can quickly imagine a situation where the opinion of those producing the widgets is irrelevant, they will just have to work all day every day to produce widgets because widget production is up, the widget producers are just expendable commodities.