I find the following interesting, and perhaps misunderstood aspects of Mill's On Liberty....

http://gutenberg.org/files/34901/34901-h/34901-h.htm

Last Page of On Liberty-

The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.

http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Mill.html

How (it may be asked) can any part of
the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is
an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently
hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond
them.

If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from
it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If
he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him
for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to
his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if
such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the
general sum of good. Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is
nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control
himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead.

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/onliberty/section5/
On Liberty Chapter 4, Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual

__________

China and the CCP think of themselves as "the middle kingdom" but they cannot be central to anything when they don't rule themselves. Might is not right.

" At all times, vigilance is the price of liberty.
We must remain vigilant because while it might be us
today, it will be some other group down the road
20 years from now. The measure of our society over
history is our fidelity to our principles. We must
remind our government and our people to remain faithful
to those principles or otherwise our society, like so
many in the past, will be swept on the ash heap of history".
( David E. Springer).

Might is indeed not always right.

Ayn Rand said:

"Might is not always right, but what is right is always
right".

Sagacious spirits doubt all and hold fact only to that
which is demonstrably true. Human rights and wrongs are not
determined by justice but by might.

Might is still king maker and king breaker as of yore,
and as so many regimes and leaders around the world demonstrate.
Autocrats still manage to rule. People will always continue to resist.