我并非是在此比较两种制度的优劣，或者含沙射影——因为地球上还没有哪个国家实现了真正意义上的共产主义，而一切基本实现了“四大自由”的国家都同时实现了超出“温饱”以外的社会保障。与其这是一个关于制度优劣的问题，毋宁说这是一个关于“人”本身的问题：即，作为一个人，他是要享受，还是要自由？
打一个荒谬的比方。让一个古代的皇帝，无论是东方的皇帝还是西方的，作如下选择：一，继续生活在他的时代，享受可以让他为所欲为的权利、地位和财富，同时享受三千后宫、酒池肉林的休闲；二，生活在21世纪的今天，以一个发达国家公民的平均生活水平过活，剥夺一切特权而只享有宪法及其它法律赋予的权力。其实这个比方并不严格，应该让一个人将以上两种人生都体验一遍，然后选择第三次生命——他会作何选择？我不知道自己会作何选择，因为两种生命我都没有经历过。不过单纯地假设一下，我选前者，选前者因为我希望无限的自由。我还有一个附加条件：选择了过皇帝的生活以后，让我忘记21世纪的世界是怎样的。
所谓的“幸福生活”其实是相对的，而“权利”或者“自由”则是绝对的概念。换言之，21世纪初叶的科技、文明及其所创造的“幸福”，他们的价值在五十年后必然丧失殆尽，就好像五十年前半导体收音机在资本主义国家和社会主义国家都奢侈品，而奔腾机还根本没有出现；然而自由的概念，无论是罗斯福提出的四大自由，还是大革命提出的“liberty”那样的自由，在五十年后和两百年后的今天依然保存有相同的意义。毫无疑问，抛开人类认知的“通货膨胀”，即使当今一个发达国家普通市民的生活质量也绝对比五百年前的皇帝高很多——可是幸福是相对的，生活质量高不代表幸福。皇帝没有笔记本电脑，没有宝马奔驰，连冬暖夏凉的空调房也没有，他们过得依然幸福。
（插一句与本文完全无关的话，全当发泄。现在就把我寝室的某人扔到一百年前，无论让他做什么他都会死，没有电脑他就会死）
我不能判断，在五十年后的世界，对于自己孙子辈的那一代人而言，怎样才算幸福。也许最流行的代步工具已经变成飞机，也许克隆美女已经抢走了所有银幕偶像的饭碗，也许生物工程的进步已经让一切山珍海味唾手可得——我无法想象未来的幸福生活是怎样的模样，就像五十年前几乎没有人能预料到当今数字技术的风靡和普及——但是，我可以想象五十年后的“自由”：西方国家的宪法几百年都不会修改几次，中国的宪法几乎十年一变，可是无论怎样变也只是修正既有的纲领而并非创造崭新的理念。到那个时候，世界上也许会出现“飞行自由”、“克隆自由”这样的新词条，可是最根本的，在宪法中被放在首位强调的自由，依然是从前的概念。人可以像改变大自然一样改变自己的生活，但是无论如何都难以改变自己。衣食住行都是所谓的身外之物，天赋人权才是与生俱来、至死方休的财产，孰轻孰重，相比之下，一目了然。
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.